Tag Archives: Tax

Rental Real Estate Losses

Rental real estate has significant tax advantages. One of them is the ability to claim losses against other income in limited circumstances.

As a default, many taxpayers cannot claim tax losses generated by rental real estate because of the passive activity loss rules. This post describes the situations where the owner of rental real estate are able to claim real estate tax losses against other income.

The Passive Activity Loss Rules

The passive activity loss rules can be greatly oversimplified by saying “you can only deduct passive losses against passive income.” So what do we mean by “passive income”?

For this purpose, “passive income” is not necessarily what you may colloquially refer to as passive income. Portfolio income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains does not count as passive income. Wage income is also not passive income. Income from trade or business activities that the taxpayer does not materially participate in is generally passive income.

What is “material participation”? That could be its own blog post, but for our purposes, it is sufficient to know that, by itself, the activity of renting real estate is not “material participation” in a trade or business. Thus, in most instances, renting real estate will be considered a passive activity that generates passive income and passive losses.

Situations Where Real Estate Losses Can Offset Other Income

Other Rental Income

Passive income, including rental real estate income, can be offset by passive losses. Thus, if a taxpayer rents Condo A and Condo B, and Condo A has $5,000 of net taxable income during the year and Condo B has $4,000 of a net taxable loss during the year, the taxpayer will be able to offset $4,000 of Condo A’s income with Condo B’s loss on his tax return.

Real Estate Professionals

First, the wet blanket. Most taxpayers will not qualify as real estate professionals. If you have a full time job outside of real estate, you can forget about qualifying as a real estate professional.

Why would one want to be a so-called “real estate professional”? Real estate professionals are allowed to deduct losses generated by rental real estate unencumbered by the passive activity loss rules.

How does one qualify as a real estate professional? To qualify, generally one must work primarily in real estate trades or businesses they materially participate in (i.e., you must work more in real estate than in any other jobs or business activities) and must work at least 750 hours during the year in real estate activities.

Qualification could be its own blog post, but for purposes of this particular post it suffices to say that (a) “real estate professional” is a high threshold, and (b) it is great to qualify, because you are able to deduct rental real estate losses against other income unencumbered by the passive activity loss rules.

Active Participation

Taxpayers who are not real estate professionals, but actively participate in their rental real estate can deduct up to $25,000 in rental real estate losses if their modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) is below certain limits. The threshold for “active participation” is much lower than that for “material participation.” Generally speaking, the two main requirements are that the taxpayer makes decisions with respect to the activity (or hires someone to do so) and owns at least ten percent of the activity.

Thus, you can actively participate in renting out a house you own in your own name. You cannot actively participate in the renting of real estate by a partnership if you own less than 10 percent of that partnership.

If your MAGI is $100,000 or less, you can deduct up to $25,000 of active participation rental real estate losses. If your MAGI Is $150,000 or more, you cannot deduct any active participation rental real estate losses. In between those two amounts, the $25,000 potential maximum loss is reduced by fifty cents for every dollar above $100,000.

Here’s an example:

Shirley owns House A which she rents out. After taking into account depreciation and other tax deductions, in 2019 House A generates a $15,000 taxable loss reported on Schedule E of Shirley’s tax return. Shirley reports a MAGI of $125,000 on her 2019 tax return. Thus, she is able to claim $12,500 of the House A loss against her other income on her 2019 tax return. The remaining $2,500 of the House A loss will be a suspended passive loss that will carry forward to her 2020 tax return.

Future Passive Income

Previously suspended passive losses can offset future passive income.

Continuing with Shirley from above, in 2020 Shirley has a MAGI of $200,000 and House A reports a rental profit of $1,000 on Shirley’s Schedule E. Shirley can use $1,000 of her previously suspended $2,500 passive loss to offset the $1,000 in income generated by House A on her 2020 tax return. The remaining $1,500 of the House A loss will be a suspended passive loss that will carry forward to her 2021 tax return.

Dispositions

Dispositions of property used in a passive activity creates passive income or passive loss. A disposition of substantially all of a passive activity can trigger the use of all of that activity’s previously suspended passive losses.

One important point here: to trigger the use of all the previously suspended passive loss upon a disposition, the disposition must be of substantially all of the activity. Disposing of only part of the activity, even a significant part, is not enough to trigger the use of all of the previously suspended passive loss.

For example, imagine you and a partner are 50/50 partners in a partnership that invests in four rental properties. Unless you are trying to qualify as a real estate professional, it is usually advantageous to list each of the four rental properties from that partnership as its own separate activity on Schedule E, Part 2. That way, the future sale of one of the four properties will be sufficient to be the disposition of “substantially all” of that property and trigger any previously suspended passive losses related to that particular property.

If the partnership is instead listed as a single activity, the future disposition of any one (or two or three) property owned by the partnership will not be enough to constitute “substantially all” of the activity. While any gain from the disposition creates passive income which can be offset with previously suspended and/or current passive losses, the entire previously suspended loss with respect to that particular property is not necessarily usable because the one property is only a component part of a single activity.

Conclusion

The ability to use rental real estate losses against other income, in the limited circumstances described above, is a significant tax advantage of rental real estate. While tax losses should never be the driving factor in the decision to invest in rental real estate, potential real estate investors should go into the investment understanding the impact it will have on their taxes. Investors in rental real estate often benefit from consultations with tax professionals in order to maximize the potential tax benefits of the investment.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, investment, financial, legal, and tax matters.

Real Estate in Retirement Accounts

Should you hold rental real estate in a self-directed retirement account? Is real estate a great asset to own in a Roth IRA? Is holding real estate in a self-directed retirement account a hack that can help supercharge your path to financial independence? Below I discuss what it looks like to hold real estate in a self-directed IRA or 401(k), with a particular focus on those looking to achieve FI.

A Necessary Predicate

Before I proceed, I need to lay a necessary predicate. Those actively pursuing financial independence will fall into one of the two following groups:

Group 1: Invest in a diversified portfolio of equities and bonds.

Group 2: Invest in real estate and a diversified portfolio of equities and bonds.

Why is there no third group, real estate investors only? For two main reasons. First, many pursuing FI have no interest in owning rental real estate and/or desire to only own a small number of properties. Second, as a general rule, investing in only one sector of the economy (technology, financials, pharmaceuticals, utilities, real estate, etc.) leaves an investor dangerously undiversified and vulnerable to very particular risks to a degree diversified investors are not.

The rest of this post focuses on tax basketing for individuals in Group 2: those pursuing FI and investing in rental real estate and a diversified portfolio of equities and bonds.

Stock Basis vs. Real Estate Basis

Recall that the basis of stock, bonds, mutual funds, and ETFs (what I will colloquially refer to as “stock basis”) is the amount you paid for the asset plus any distributions reinvested in the asset less any nondividend distributions (returns of capital). Stock basis is great, but for many in the FI community, its benefits are distant and significantly eroded by inflation.

Picture Jack and Jill, a married couple, each 25 years old and actively pursuing financial independence. They max out their IRAs and workplace retirement plans. They have a savings rate in excess of 50 percent, so they must invest in taxable accounts, and choose to invest in low-cost, well diversified index mutual funds. They target early retirement at age 40.

Other than very occasional tax loss harvesting, the basis Jack & Jill obtain in their taxable mutual fund accounts at age 25 will be meaningless to them until they are at least 40 years old. Even then, using something like the 4 percent withdrawal rule, they will touch only a small fraction of their basis every year. By then, the value of the basis they put in the mutual funds will have been significantly eroded by inflation.

But what if Jack and Jill instead decide that they will max out their IRAs and workplace retirement accounts (using stock and bond index funds), and then everything else will go into taxable rental real estate investments. What value does their basis have then? Much greater value, it turns out. Jack and Jill can immediately depreciate their rental real estate and start using their basis to reduce their taxable rental income from that property and other rental properties. Depending on their circumstances, they may be able to deduct some or all of any rental real estate loss against other taxable income.

When you invest in rental real estate in taxable accounts, your tax basis goes to work for you right away. When you invest in financial assets, your tax basis sits dormant, possibly for many years or the rest of your life. By the time you use your stock basis to obtain a tax benefit, the value of your stock basis (and thus the resulting tax benefit) may be severely diminished by inflation.

This strongly indicates you should house financial assets in retirement accounts and rental real estate in taxable accounts. House the rental real estate (pun intended) in taxable accounts where you can milk its basis for all it’s worth while housing the financial assets in retirement accounts.

Leverage and Tax Basis

You can use leverage to increase the tax value of rental real estate. A young couple will have to likely borrow some or all of the purchase price of their initial rental real estate investments. This can be advantageous from a tax perspective. Here’s an illustrative example:

Jack and Jill have $50,000 of cash to invest in a taxable account. They have decided to invest in a $250,000 fifth floor condominium to rent out. They borrow $200,000, purchase the property, and rent out the condo. In the first year they rent out the condo for a full year, they can get $9,091 ($250,000 divided by 27.5) in depreciation deductions and, assuming a 5% loan, almost $10,000 in interest deductions. Note this and all examples ignore any potential price allocation to land for simplicity.

Jack and Jill leveraged $50,000 into almost $19,000 in tax deductions in one year alone. Had they purchased $50,000 worth of financial assets, they would have received exactly nothing in tax deductions in the first full year, and the value of the $50,000 of basis would be eroding away to inflation. Even if they were able to tax loss harvest, at most the benefit would be a $3,000 deduction against their ordinary income.

In some cases, depreciation combined with other deductions causes rental real estate to produce a loss for tax purposes. Why put an asset that generates a tax loss in a retirement account?

If stock basis has such limited value, and rental real estate basis has such impactful, immediate value, why “exploit” stock basis in a taxable account while you neuter rental real estate basis in an IRA? It makes much more sense to utilize that rental real estate tax basis in a taxable account and put limited value stock basis in a retirement account.

Step-Up at Death

When you leave your heirs rental real estate in taxable accounts, the government gives your heirs hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free tax deductions!

There’s no lack of content discussing the many tax benefits of real estate. Some of it discusses the step-up in basis at death and the ability to hold real estate in a self-directed retirement account. What little of this content acknowledges is that if you hold real estate in a self-directed retirement account, you lose the step-up in basis at death!

If you are at all concerned about Second Generation FI for your children, you need to consider this issue. The step-up in tax basis at death is an incredible opportunity for your heirs. Upon your death, your heirs get to re-depreciate your rental real estate based on the fair market value of the property at your death.

Here’s a comprehensive example.

Jake buys a small rental condo for $100,000 in 2019. He fully depreciates it over 27.5 years, saving significantly on his taxes. He dies in 2049 when the condo is worth $400,000. He leaves the condo to his adult son Jake Jr. He also leaves a Roth IRA with financial assets to Jake Jr. worth $400,000.

What result? Jake Jr. inherits the condo with a $400,000 tax basis and gets to depreciate that new $400,000 basis for 27.5 more years! This drastically reduces his taxable income from the property and may create a currently useable taxable loss. While Jake Jr. must withdraw the inherited Roth IRA within 10 years, the money from the Roth IRA is tax free to Jake Jr. And because Jake Jr houses the inherited Roth IRA at a discount brokerage (such as Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab), the Roth IRA pays minimal fees.

What if instead Jake had housed the financial assets in his taxable accounts and the rental property in his Roth IRA. First, the financial assets will produce interest, dividends, and capital gain distributions that will be taxable to Jake Jr. every year. Second, Jake Jr. will pay more in annual fees to a self-directed Roth IRA custodian. Further, Jake Jr. will lose the ability to claim any tax loss generated by the condo against his other income.

The effect is magnified if Jake Jr. leaves the rental property to his son, Jake III. Jake III will again get to step-up the basis in the condo to its fair market value when Jake Jr. dies and re-depreciate it! Over several generations the step-up in basis cycle can create potentially millions of dollars of tax depreciation deductions!

Rental Real Estate: Taxable Accounts and Retirement Accounts

If you are going to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars (possibly millions) of tax deductions for your heirs, you ought to have a compelling reason to do so. I do not believe there’s a compelling reason to house real estate in a retirement account and forego these free future tax deductions.

Roth IRAs are great for protecting the income generated by financial assets from taxation. The step-up in basis is great for protecting the income from rental real estate from taxation. Why waste a Roth IRA on real estate when your heirs will get a fantastic step-up in basis in your real estate to shield a significant portion of the income from taxation (and may possibly generate useable current real estate losses)?

All of this is magnified if the rental real estate is in a traditional IRA instead of a Roth IRA. Instead of depreciation and other deductions to shield rental income from taxation, every dollar you ever take from a traditional IRA will be subject to ordinary taxation (even if the underlying rental property is unprofitable). Combining this with self-directed retirement account custodian fees makes a traditional retirement account a terrible place to house rental real estate.

Stepped-Up Stock Basis

As discussed, the step-up in real estate basis is effective in reducing or eliminating taxable income rental real estate. But the step up in basis does nothing to reduce income from interest, dividends, and capital gain distributions generated by inherited financial assets. This further indicates that the step-up in basis is better used on real estate than on financial assets.

Other Considerations

Tax basis is not the only consideration in determining where to tax basket assets. Below is a run through of several other important considerations.

Costs

As of 2023, costs for investing in well diversified index funds in retirement accounts at discount brokerages are approaching zero. Costs for self-directed IRAs and 401(k)s are more substantial. Costs can include a set-up fee, annual account fees, one-off service fees, and fees for valuations.

Valuations

Starting at age 73, you must take RMDs from your traditional retirement accounts and employer Roth accounts. In the year after your death, certain heirs must take RMDs from your retirement accounts (including Roth IRAs). To do this, the recipient must know the value of each retirement account on December 31st of the prior year. For publicly-traded stock and bond based mutual funds and ETFs, the financial institution will simply report this information to you. For real estate, it is a very different ballgame. You will need to obtain a third party valuation, as the December 31st value of any particular piece of real estate is not readily apparent or known. This is an additional annual cost of owning real estate inside a retirement account.

Capital Gains

If you sell financial assets in a taxable account, you’re stuck with the capital gain, which will increase your federal (and possibly state) income tax bill. There are narrow and/or costly exceptions, including, the qualified opportunity zone program, which requires you to invest in a very specific type of investment that you may have absolutely no interest in investing in, for a minimum period of time. The qualified opportunity zone program can also apply to real estate capital gains.

The other exceptions to stock capital gain, including donations to charities, donor advised funds, and/or charitable trusts, are expensive, in that they require you to relinquish some or all of your economic ownership in order to avoid a taxable capital gain.

If you want to sell your rental real estate, you can use a Section 1031 “like-kind exchange” and simply exchange the rental property for another piece (or pieces) of rental real estate. This defers the capital gain on the sold property for as long as you hold onto the substitute property. Section 1031 exchange treatment is not available for financial assets.

While Section 1031 exchanges may not satisfy investors in every instance, the availability of Section 1031 exchanges is a reason to keep real estate in taxable accounts.

Rules, Rules, Rules

If you put your real estate in a retirement account, you voluntarily subject yourself to a whole host of rules. One is that you are not allowed to use the rental real estate for personal use. Another is that not allowed to personally manage or repair the property. Any violation of these rules can disqualify the retirement plan, resulting in a distribution of the property to the plan owner. This can result in a large taxable income hit and/or early distribution penalties if the owner is under age 59 ½.

Unrelated Debt Financed Income (“UDFI”) Tax

Is your rental property at all debt financed? If it is, and it is in an IRA, your IRA (including a Roth IRA) will be subject to income tax (the “unrelated business income tax”) on the portion of the taxable income that is attributable to the debt (the “unrelated debt financed income”). For example, if you have a condo that was purchased half with debt, half the income will be subject to tax (at the IRA level) as UDFI.

Further, as an entity your IRA is subject to taxation at very steep tax brackets. While the first $1,000 of UDFI is exempt from taxation, by the time the taxable UDFI exceeds $12,500, the IRA pays the highest individual marginal ordinary income tax rate (currently 37 percent) on the income.

There are UDFI workarounds. One is to roll a self directed IRA/Roth IRA to a self directed 401(k)/Roth 401(k). 401(k) plans are not subject to tax on UDFI generated by rental real estate. In order to move to a self directed 401(k)/Roth 401(k) plan, you must have a trade or business that can sustain the self directed 401(k) or self directed Roth 401(k).

If you roll from a Roth IRA to a self directed Roth 401(k), you solve your UDFI problem but you subject yourself to RMDs (and valuation issues) starting at age 73, reducing future tax free growth. You also added a requirement to file an annual Form 5500 tax return with the IRS if the self directed Roth 401(k) has $250,000 or more of assets. Another workaround is placing the real estate in the IRA/Roth IRA in a C corporation. This will lower the tax rate the UDFI is subject to down to 21 percent, but will also subject the non-UDFI income to that 21 percent tax rate.

Real Estate Losses

In some cases, depreciation combined with other deductions causes rental real estate to produce a loss for tax purposes. This can occur even if the property is “cash-flow positive” i.e., it produces cash income in excess of its cash expenses.

Why put an asset that generates a loss in a retirement account? Often times losses are suspended, meaning the rental property nets to zero on the tax return for that particular year. But the suspended loss is tracked and can be used in the future. Read this post for more information on deducting real estate losses.

Is the ability to use real estate losses from real estate held in taxable accounts limited? Absolutely. But it is fully eliminated if the real estate is in a retirement plan. Such losses can never be used on an individual’s tax returns.

Gilding the Lily

Discount brokerages have made this the best era to be a well diversified investor in equities and bonds. Costs associated with investing in index funds in retirement accounts are approaching zero.

This means equities and bonds reside in retirement accounts very well. Why do you need to gild the lily at that point? You have great investment options at a low cost.

To my mind, there is no compelling reason to reject this approach, particularly considering (1) depreciation and other tax advantages that help make rental real estate efficient in taxable accounts and (2) the burdens associated with housing real estate in retirement accounts.

Conclusion

In the vast majority of cases, if you want to own both financial assets (stocks/bonds/mutual funds/ETFs) and rental real estate as part of your portfolio, you are well advised to house your rental real estate in taxable accounts and save your retirement accounts for the financial assets.

It comes back to the tyranny of tactics. Real estate in an IRA sounds great, but when you peel back the onion, simplicity usually wins. Does this mean some with real estate in a retirement account will not achieve financial independence? Absolutely not. But the simpler path will keep your costs low and will likely be tax efficient.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

Tax Basis for Beginners

What is Tax Basis?

To answer that question, let me posit two hypotheticals:

Hypothetical 1: Mark buys one share of Acme Industries stock for $100 on Monday. The following Monday he sells that share for $100.

Hypothetical 2: Judy buys one share of Kramerica Industries for $20 on Monday. On Thursday, Kramerica Industries announces the release of a new bottle that dispenses both ketchup and mustard, and the stock soars. On the following Monday, Judy sells her share of Kramerica Industries for $100.

What tax result? Do both Mark and Judy have $100 of taxable income? Of course not. We know that Mark has no taxable income and Judy has $80 of taxable income? But how do we know that? The answer: Basis!

Basis is the tax concept that ensures amounts are not taxed twice when they should not be. In Mark’s case, he has no real income when he sells the stock. Judy however, does have income. When she sells the Kramerica stock, she realizes the $80 gain.

Basis is what allows us to measure the appropriate gain or income to the seller of property. While we have a sense that Mark should not have had taxable income and Judy should have, without basis we have no way of measuring whether a disposition of property should trigger a taxable gain, loss, or nothing.

Generally, the basis of an asset is its historic cost, plus any capital improvements or additions made to the asset. In the case of a financial asset in a taxable account, basis is simply the purchase price plus reinvested distributions less any nondividend distributions (returns of capital).

Depreciation

Basis serves another function. Business assets are usually subject to a depreciation allowance on the theory that assets waste away from wear and tear over a useful life. The method and time period for depreciating an asset varies based on the asset. Residential real estate is depreciated in a straight line over 27.5 years. Most non-real estate property is depreciated using an accelerated method and over a shorter period. One business asset that never depreciated is land, on the theory that land has an indefinite useful life.

Each asset is depreciated based on its depreciable basis, which is generally historic cost plus capital improvements. For example, if you purchase a fourth floor residential condominium for $1,000,000 and rent it out, each full year it is used in the rental business you divide the $1,000,000 depreciable basis over 27.5 to come up with a depreciation deduction of $36,364, which lowers the taxable income from the rental activity, and may even be currently deductible against other income if the rental property produces a loss. Note that some of the basis may be attributable to land, which is good basis that can be recovered upon a sale, but it cannot be depreciated.

Step-up at Death

The tax code offers a tremendous benefit for those looking to facilitate Second Generation FI. The tax basis of inherited assets is “stepped-up” to the fair market value of the asset on the original owner’s date of death. This means, among other things, it is usually much better to leave an asset to an heir at death rather than to gift that asset to an heir during life. The asset left upon death has a stepped-up asset basis, while the gifted asset only has the original owner’s basis in the hands of the recipient.

I previously wrote an example of how this works:

William lives in a house he purchased in 1970 for $50,000. In 2019 the house is worth $950,000. If William gifts the house to his son Alan in 2019, Alan’s basis in the house is $50,000. However, if William leaves the house to Alan at William’s death, Alan’s basis in the house will be the fair market value of the house at William’s death.

Lastly, in order to qualify for the step-up at death, an asset must be held in a taxable account. Assets held in retirement accounts do not receive a step-up at death.

Tax Loss Harvesting

Basis is what makes tax loss harvesting possible. Picture Joey, who owns Blue Company stock worth $10,000. He purchased the stock a year ago for $13,000. He can sell his Blue Company stock and deduct the $3,000 loss on his tax return, realizing a nice benefit.

Tax loss harvesting is a neat tool in the tax planning tool box. But it’s a fools errand to succumb to the “tyranny of tactics” and arrange one’s portfolio around tax loss harvesting. At most, tax loss harvesting reduces your taxable income in any particular year by $3,000. Over the long run, that is not the way to build wealth and achieve financial freedom.

Sure, play the tax loss harvesting card when the right opportunity arises, but don’t structure your portfolio with dozens of holdings in the hopes you can get a $3,000 loss every year. Rather, structure your portfolio with your ultimate goal in mind, and if toward year-end an opportunity to do some tax loss harvesting arises, pounce on it.

Retirement Accounts

The term “basis” means something a bit different in the context of retirement accounts. Two points: First, it is possible to have basis in a traditional account. Generally this means that nondeductible, or “after-tax” contributions have been made to the account, and thus, in the future when there are taxable distributions a portion of the distribution will be offset by that basis.

Second, the assets inside of a retirement account (including a Roth account) do not have basis to the owner of the account. These assets do have basis, but that basis is never directly accessible to the owner of the account (in the way that depreciable basis or stock basis is accessible to the owner). Importantly, assets inside of a retirement account do not enjoy the step-up in basis at the owner’s death that assets in taxable accounts enjoy.

Conclusion

Tax basis is an important attribute to understand as you do tax planning. In two weeks I will build on this post to discuss in detail important implications of tax basis for those pursuing financial independence.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

What to Do if You Don’t Qualify for a Backdoor Roth IRA

In my last post, I discussed the basics of the Backdoor Roth IRA, which can be a great planning tool for some higher income Americans. But not everyone qualifies for a tax-efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. Recall Jennifer’s case:

Jennifer makes too much to qualify to make a Roth IRA contribution in 2022. She contributed $6,000 to a nondeductible traditional IRA on April 19, 2022. She also had a separate traditional IRA with no basis. As of December 31, 2022, that separate traditional IRA was worth $93,998.53.

If, in 2022, Jennifer were to convert the $6,000 that she put into the nondeductible traditional IRA to a Roth IRA she would increase her taxable income by over $5,600. Ouch!

Options

Jennifer has two possible options to qualify for a much more tax efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. The first option is to use her workplace 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan. Some 401(k) plans and other workplace plans allow participants to “roll in” amounts in traditional IRAs. Workplace plans are not required to offer participants this option. If a workplace plan does, it can be worthwhile to consider this option in order to facilitate Backdoor Roth IRA planning.

Of course, there are considerations that go beyond income tax planning, including the quality of the investment choices available in a traditional IRA versus a workplace 401(k) or other retirement plan, and the expenses associated with each option.

A second option is rolling the traditional IRA into a Solo 401(k) plan. Jennifer must have a Solo 401(k) plan from self-employment and the plan must accept IRA roll ins in order for her to do this. As with workplace retirement plans, Solo 401(k) plans are not required to accept traditional IRA roll ins, and any decision must appropriately consider the relevant non-tax issues (as discussed above). Further, a Solo 401(k) plan has several requirements (including the conduct of a trade or business) that should be carefully considered before opening a Solo 401(k).

Considerations

Trustee-to-Trustee Rollover

If Jennifer wants to roll her traditional IRA into a workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k), she should structure the transfer as a “trustee-to-trustee” direct rollover of the money between the financial institution holding the traditional IRA and the workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k). If instead of a trustee-to-trustee direct rollover, Jennifer receives a check from her IRA financial institution payable to her, she has 60 days to roll over that check (i.e., to get it to her workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k)). If she does not move the money within the 60 days, the distribution from the IRA is taxable, subject to early withdrawal penalties if Jennifer is under age 59 ½, and cannot be transferred into a retirement plan.

Timing

Roll ins should be completed by December 31st of the year of the Roth IRA conversion. Otherwise the pro-rata rule will bite, because there will be a balance in the taxpayer’s traditional IRAs at year-end. That balance will attract a sizable portion of the $6,000 of IRA basis established by the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution. This causes the Roth IRA conversion to grab little basis and thus be tax inefficient.

For simplicity’s sake, it is usually best to clean out traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs and then make the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution.

Basis

Prior to implementing a traditional IRA to 401(k) “roll-in” strategy, Jennifer should review all of her traditional IRAs to ensure that she has no basis in any existing traditional IRA. IRA basis amounts cannot be rolled into the 401(k) and must be left behind under the rule of Section 408(d)(3)(A)(ii) and this technical write up.

SIMPLE IRAs and SEP IRAs

Those with amounts in SIMPLE IRAs, need to be careful. During the first two years of the SIMPLE IRA account, it cannot be rolled into a plan other than another SIMPLE IRA plan. Doing so would create a taxable event, subject to both early withdrawal and excess contribution penalties (on the transfer to the non-SIMPLE IRA).

Thus, if Jennifer’s traditional IRA balance is in a SIMPLE IRA and she first deposited into the SIMPLE IRA less than two years ago, she must wait until the two year window has expired to roll her SIMPLE IRA into a workplace retirement plan or a Solo 401(k).

In addition, those with a SIMPLE IRA (beyond the two year window) or a SEP IRA from their current employer may not be allowed in-service distributions. Thus, they would not be able to roll over those accounts into a 401(k)/Solo 401(k)/403(b)/457. Additionally, amounts may be added to these accounts prior to December 31st. These considerations make it difficult to successfully execute Backdoor Roth IRA planning for those currently covered by an employer’s SIMPLE IRA or SEP IRA.

December 31st

Any Backdoor Roth IRA planning should involve an additional diligence step: ensuring that as of December 31st of the year of the Roth conversion step, the taxpayer has a zero balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs. This helps ensure the Backdoor Roth IRA is a tax-efficient tactic.

Illustrative Example

Jennifer expects to earn $300,000 from her W-2 job in 2022, is covered by a workplace 401(k) plan, and expects to have some investment income. On March 1, 2022, Jennifer has a $90,000 balance in a traditional IRA but otherwise has no balance in a traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA.

On March 2, 2022, Jennifer directs her workplace 401(k) plan and her IRA custodian to roll her traditional IRA to her workplace 401(k) plan. Her traditional IRA is rolled into her workplace 401(k) through a trustee-to-trustee direct rollover.

Jennifer contributes $6,000 to a traditional IRA on April 20, 2022. The contribution is nondeductible. Because the contribution is nondeductible, Jennifer gets a $6,000 basis in her traditional IRA. Jennifer must file a Form 8606 with her 2022 tax return to report the nondeductible contribution.

On May 2, 2022, Jennifer converts all the money in her traditional IRA to a Roth IRA (a Roth IRA conversion). At that time, Jennifer’s traditional IRA had a value of $6,001.47. Jennifer also ensures that as of December 31, 2022, she has a $0 balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs.

If Jennifer executes the above steps as described above, she will get the desired result. Done in this manner, the Roth IRA conversion step results in an increase in Jennifer’s taxable income of just $1.47 ($6,001.47 fair market value less $6,000 of traditional IRA basis).

Tactics vs. Goals

What if Jennifer’s workplace retirement plan does not accept roll ins? What if Jennifer doesn’t have access to a Solo 401(k)? What if Jennifer’s workplace retirement plan accepts roll ins but does not have quality investment options and/or charges high fees?

Remember, Jennifer’s ultimate goal is not to do a Backdoor Roth IRA. Her goal is financial independence! She should not let what I call the “tyranny of tactics” distract her from her ultimate goal.

The Backdoor Roth IRA is a great tactic to employ toward achieving that goal. But it’s okay if you can’t use this particular tactic. Plenty of people have and will achieve financial independence without executing a Backdoor Roth IRA.

If you can’t use the Backdoor Roth IRA for whatever reason, simply use other appropriate tactics, including but not limited to a high savings rate, to achieve your financial goals.

Backdoor Roth IRAs for Beginners

If you read enough FI blogs, you will eventually come across the term “Backdoor Roth IRA.” This post answers the question “What’s the deal with Backdoor Roth IRAs?”

Why Do a Backdoor Roth IRA?

Why would someone do a Backdoor Roth IRA? The Backdoor Roth IRA gets money into a Roth IRA in cases where the taxpayer earns too much to make a direct annual contribution to a Roth IRA. Doing the Backdoor Roth IRA gets money that would have been invested in a taxable account into a tax-free Roth account. Further, the money in the Roth account gets better creditor protection than money in a taxable account.

History of the Backdoor Roth IRA

Before 2010, what is now referred to as a Backdoor Roth IRA would have been permissible and/or necessary in only relatively limited circumstances, and then only in years prior to 2008. But a 2006 change in the law opened up the Backdoor Roth IRA in the form we know now (starting in 2010).

Two fundamental concepts must now be addressed. The first is a Roth IRA contribution.

Roth IRA Contributions

This post discusses Roth IRA contributions in detail. Simplified, U.S. citizens and residents with earned income can make an annual Roth IRA contribution of up to $7,000 in 2024 ($8,000 if 50 or older). Done for many years, it can be a tremendous wealth building tool, since it moves wealth into an account that is tax-free (if properly executed).

The one catch is that your “modified adjusted gross income” (or “MAGI”) must be below a certain threshold in order to make a Roth IRA contribution. To make a full contribution in 2024, your MAGI must be less than $146,000 (if single) or $230,000 (if married filing joint).

Because of these limits, many taxpayers are unable to make a Roth IRA contribution. Further, based on the qualification rules for traditional deductible IRA contributions, most taxpayers unable to make a Roth IRA contribution are also unable to make a deductible traditional IRA contribution.

Roth IRA Conversions

The second fundamental concept is a Roth IRA conversion. A Roth IRA conversion is a movement of amounts in traditional accounts to a Roth IRA. This creates a taxable event. The amount of the Roth IRA conversion, less any “basis” in the traditional account (more on that later), is taxable as ordinary income on the taxpayer’s tax return.

Prior to 2010, only taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less were allowed to do a Roth IRA conversion. This amount was not indexed for inflation and applied per tax return, making it particularly difficult for many married couples to qualify.

In 2006, Congress changed the law, effective beginning in 2010. As of January 1, 2010, there is no modified adjusted gross income limitation on the ability to do a Roth IRA conversion. The richest, highest earning Americans now qualify to do a Roth IRA conversion just as easily as anyone else.

The Backdoor

Okay, so there’s no MAGI limitation on the ability to execute a Roth IRA conversion. So what? Aren’t they taxable? What’s the advantage of doing one?

Recall I mentioned a taxpayer’s basis in a traditional account. Basis in an IRA occurs when a taxpayer makes a nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA. Here is an example.

Mike expects to earn $300,000 from his W-2 job in 2024, is covered by a workplace 401(k) plan, and expects to have some investment income. Mike has no balance in a traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA.

Mike contributes $7,000 to a traditional IRA on April 20, 2024. The contribution is nondeductible. Because the contribution is nondeductible, Mike gets a $7,000 basis in his traditional IRA. Mike must file a Form 8606 with his 2024 tax return to report the nondeductible contribution.

The “backdoor” opens because of the confluence of two rules: the ability to make a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution and the ability to do a Roth IRA conversion regardless of your income level. Let’s extend Mike’s example a bit.

On May 2, 2024, Mike converts all the money in his traditional IRA to a Roth IRA (a Roth IRA conversion). At that time, Mike’s traditional IRA had a value of $7,011.47.

What result? To start, all $7,011.47 is taxable. All money converted in a Roth IRA conversion is taxable. Uh oh! But there’s good news for Mike. Mike gets to offset the $7,011.47 that is taxable by the $7,000 of basis in his traditional IRA. Thus, this Roth IRA conversion will only increase Mike’s taxable income by $11.47 ($7,011.47 minus $7,000).

The combination of these two separate, independent steps (a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution and a later Roth IRA conversion) is what many now refer to as the Backdoor Roth IRA. Notice this is only possible because of the repeal of the MAGI limitation on Roth IRA conversions. Under the rules effective prior to 2010, Mike would have been allowed to make the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution, but his income (north of $300,000) would have prohibited him from a Roth IRA conversion.

The Backdoor Roth IRA allows Mike to obtain the benefits of an annual Roth IRA contribution without qualifying to make a regular annual Roth IRA contribution.

December 31st

The Pro-Rata Rule

The Backdoor Roth IRA works well for someone with Mike’s profile. But it does not work well for everyone. Let’s change up the example a bit.

Jennifer’s story is the same as Mike’s story above, except that she had a separate traditional IRA before she did her 2024 nondeductible IRA contribution. That separate IRA had no basis. As of December 31, 2024, that separate traditional IRA was worth $92,988.53.

This one change in facts dramatically increases Jennifer’s taxable income from the Roth IRA conversion. Jennifer must apply the so-called Pro-Rata Rule to the Roth IRA conversion. Even though her two IRAs are in separate accounts, they are treated as one IRA for purposes of determining how much of Jennifer’s $7,000 of basis she recovers upon her Roth IRA conversion.

Jennifer starts with $7,011.47 of income (the amount she converts). To determine the amount of her $7,000 of basis she gets to recover against the proceeds of the Roth IRA conversion, we must multiply that $7,000 times the amount converted ($7,011.47) divided by the sum of the amount converted and her traditional IRA balance at the end of the year ($7,011.47 plus $92,988.53). Thus, Jennifer gets to recover 7.00147 percent of the $7,000 of basis, which is only $490.80. This results in Jennifer’s Roth IRA conversion increasing her taxable income by $6,520.67 ($7,011.47 minus $490.80).

What was a great idea for Mike becomes a horrible idea for Jennifer when she has a significant balance in another traditional IRA.

Note further that Jennifer would have the same bad outcome if that $92,988.53 traditional IRA was instead in a traditional SEP IRA or in a traditional SIMPLE IRA.

Tax Reporting

Assume Mike did his Roth IRA conversion and did not have any other money in traditional IRAs in 2024. He will get a Form 1099-R from his financial institution. In box 1 it will report a gross distribution of $7,011.47 (the amount of the Roth IRA conversion).

In box 2a the Form 1099-R will say that the “taxable amount” is $7,011.47 and box 2b will be checked to indicate that the “taxable amount not determined.” Wait, what? How can $7,011.47 be the taxable amount while the next box claims the taxable amount is not determined? The answer is the basis concept discussed above.

Mike’s financial institution does not know the rest of Mike’s story (his income, retirement plan coverage at work, IRAs at other institutions, etc.), so it has no way of determining how much basis, if any, Mike recovers when he did the Roth IRA conversion. Box 2b simply means that Mike might have recovered some basis, but the institution is not in a position to determine if he did.

Form 8606 helps complete the tax reporting picture. By filing that form, Mike establishes that he was entitled to $6,000 of traditional IRA basis and how the pro-rata rule applies (if at all) to his Roth IRA conversion. It is important that Mike file a properly completed Form 8606 with his timely-filed 2024 federal income tax return.

When Mike files his 2024 Form 1040, he puts $7,011.47 on line 4a (“IRA distributions”) and $11.47 on line 4b (“Taxable amount”). Most tax return preparation software will round cents to the nearest whole dollar.

Note that failing to report the transactions on the Forms 8606 and 1040 in this way can result in Mike paying an incorrect amount of tax.

The Basics

Section 199A, enacted in December 2017 as part of tax reform, gives owners of businesses (including partners, owners of S corporations, and sole proprietors) that generate QBI a deduction in the amount of 20 percent of the QBI.

In January 2019, the IRS and Treasury issued regulations providing detailed rules under Section 199A. Those rules define QBI. As part of the definition of QBI, taxpayers must subtract contributions to self-employment retirement plans from QBI.

80% Deductions

When a self-employed individual contributes to a traditional retirement plan, they generally reduce the amount of their QBI deduction (because the retirement plan contribution lowers QBI).

Here’s a quick example (using 2018 tax numbers) of how that works.

Example: Mike makes $50,000 from his sole proprietorship (as reported on Schedule C). He pays $7,065 in self-employment tax (Social Security and Medicare). He deducts half of his self-employment tax ($3,533) from his taxable income and his QBI. Mike is married to Jane. Jane has $34,000 of W-2 wages. Mike and Jane file jointly and take the $24,000 standard deduction.

Mike thus receives a QBI deduction of $9,293 (20% of $46,467). This makes Mike and Jane’s taxable income $47,174 ($50,000 less $3,533 plus $34,000 less $24,000 less $9,293).

Let’s assume that Mike wants to make a $10,000 employee contribution to his Solo 401(k) to lower his taxable income by $10,000. Sure enough, the math does not work that way due to the QBI deduction. Mike’s QBI is now $36,467 (the original QBI of $46,467 less the $10,000 traditional Solo 401(k) contribution). Thus, his QBI deduction is now reduced to $7,293 (20% of $36,467). This makes Mike and Jane’s taxable income $39,174 ($50,000 less $3,533 plus $34,000 less $24,000 less $10,000 less $7,293).

Notice that $39,174 is $8,000 less than $47,174, not $10,000 less than $47,174. The interaction of Section 199A and the small business retirement plan creates the oddity that a $10,000 deduction (the traditional Solo 401(k) contribution) reduces taxable income by only $8,000.

QBI has thus created a new class of deductions – what I call “80% deductions.” These deductions reduce QBI and thus (in total effect) are deductible at only 80 percent of their gross amount.

As applied to small business retirement plans, 80% deductions are particularly troublesome. Recall Mike put $10,000 into his Solo 401(k), netting him an $8,000 federal tax deduction. When Mike goes to take the $10,000 (and its growth) out of the Solo 401(k), all of it will be taxable.

Matching 80% deductions with 100% inclusions is usually not smart tax planning.

I’ve written more about this phenomenon (what I call the Solo 401(k) Trap) here.

Planning Options

In cases where taxpayers are below the taxable income limitations of Section 199A ($163,300 and $326,600 (MFJ) for 2020), taxpayers will have to weigh the benefit of the 80 percent deduction for a traditional contribution to a small business retirement plan versus other options. Some of those other options include (if eligible):

Make employee contributions to a Roth IRA, Roth Solo 401(k), and/or after-tax contributions to a Solo 401(k)
Make contributions to a health savings account (a “HSA”)
Make contributions to a traditional IRA
Invest the earnings in taxable accounts and/or pay off existing debt.

Roth Contributions

Roth versus traditional receives much Internet discussion, particularly in the FI community. All agree that a taxpayer’s current marginal tax rate is vitally important. 80% deductions lower marginal tax rates. Take Mike, who with his retirement plan contributions lowered his 2018 taxable income to $39,174. As a married filing joint taxpayer, his marginal federal income tax rate is 12 percent. However, the marginal rate on the $10,000 retirement plan traditional contribution is only 9.6 percent (80 percent of 12 percent). In order for the traditional contribution to be advisable, Mike better be pretty sure he can pull the money out of the Solo 401(k) at a marginal federal tax rate below 9.6 percent. Being that the lowest marginal tax rate is 10 percent today, that does not seem very likely.

In Mike’s case, he would have been much better advised to leave his taxable income at $47,174 and made the Solo 401(k) contribution a Roth Solo 401(k) contribution.

HSAs/IRAs/Small Business Retirement Plans

Many small business owners are looking for current tax deductions, and many are in marginal tax brackets much above the 12 percent bracket. The interaction between Section 199A and small business retirement plans creates a new pecking order for self-employed individuals looking to reduce taxable income through plan contributions. That order is as follows:

HSA Contributions (if eligible)
Deductible Traditional IRA Contributions (if eligible)
Traditional Small Business Retirement Plan Contributions

HSA Contributions

I’ve written about my fondness for HSAs here. What’s important for this purpose is that contributions to HSAs do not reduce QBI. Thus, contributions to HSAs are “100 percent deductions” and not 80% deductions. In addition to all their other advantageous tax attributes, HSA contributions should be prioritized over small business retirement plan traditional contributions from a Section 199A perspective.

Deductible Traditional IRA Contributions

Deductible contributions to traditional IRAs (for those who qualify) also should be prioritized over traditional contributions to small business plans from a Section 199A perspective.

In the previous version of this post, I expressed the concern that deductible traditional IRA contributions might reduce QBI. Fortunately, there is nothing the IRS and Treasury has provided (including the instructions to the new Form 8995) indicating that the government believes deductible traditional IRA contributions reduce QBI. Based on my understanding of the tax law, which has been reinforced by IRS and Treasury silence on the matter, I am comfortable that deductible traditional IRA contributions should not reduce QBI.

Taxable Accounts

There is no requirement to contribute to small business retirement plans. You can simply take profits and invest them in taxable accounts. Considering that traditional small business retirement plans contributions are now 80% deductions that must later create 100% income, you may opt to simply not make plan contributions and keep profits in taxable accounts. That may be very sensible if either or both the following are true: 1) you are currently in a very low marginal federal tax bracket and 2) you anticipate being in a much higher marginal federal tax bracket in the future.

S Corporation Owners

For S corporation owners, only the operating income after the owner’s W-2 salary is eligible for the Section 199A deduction. Small business retirement plan contributions are 80% deductions for the S corporation owner just as they are for the sole proprietor and for partners of partnerships with flow-through QBI.

Consideration should be given to employee versus employer contributions. To my mind, the new Section 199A deduction does not necessarily impact whether to make an employee contribution to a Solo 401(k) as a W-2 employee of your business. Yes, your salary is an 80% deduction. But what you from there with your salary (take it home, put it into a traditional Solo 401(k), or put it into a Roth Solo 401(k)) does not increase or decrease your qualified business income (though it could impact the taxable income limitations).

But an employer contribution to a Solo 401(k) (which must be a traditional contribution) does reduce your QBI. Employer contributions to Solo 401(k) plans often fall into the Solo 401(k) Trap.

In many cases, if you qualify for the QBI deduction you should give strong consideration to foregoing the employer contribution. Planning in this regard can benefit from professional consultations.

Your Employees

If you have employees, offering a SIMPLE IRA plan does not change the Section 199A result with respect to their salary. Normal operating expenses (including salaries) of QBI-generating businesses do create 80% deductions, but there is only so much that can be done about that. Unlike your own retirement plan contributions, which are (almost) entirely discretionary, operating expenses are necessary for the conduct of the business. Giving your employees the option of deferring some of their salaries through a SIMPLE IRA does not change the math on the Section 199A deduction, since employees’ salaries reduce QBI regardless of whether the employees contribute some of their salary to a SIMPLE IRA.

The relatively small mandatory employer contribution to employees’ SIMPLE IRAs are 80% deductions, making them a bit more expensive for the business owner (assuming the owner qualifies to claim the QBI deduction).

The Section 199A QBI deduction makes SEP IRA contributions more expensive for most self-employed business owners. In order to make contributions to his/her own SEP IRA, the owner must also make contributions (in an equal percentage of compensation) to the employees, and now those deductions are only 80% deductions (assuming the owner qualifies to claim the QBI deduction).

Upper Income Taxpayers

For some taxpayers, Section 199A will make their small business retirement plan contributions more, not less, valuable. In a previous post, I gave the example of Jackie, a sole proprietor lawyer whose 2020 taxable income (pre-retirement plan contributions) of $215,848 left him unable to claim any Section 199A QBI deduction. Maximum employer and employee traditional contributions of $57,000 to a Solo 401(k) lowered his taxable income such that he was able to qualify for a $31,770 QBI deduction (a 100% deduction) in addition to the $57,000 traditional retirement plan contribution deduction (an 80% deduction).

This interaction turned the $57,000 deduction into an effective $77,370 deduction (80 percent of $57,000 plus $31,770). In this case, Jackie’s retirement plan contributions are 136% deductions!

For upper income taxpayers near the QBI taxable income limitations, small business retirement plans may be a very powerful tool, and unlike those with more modest incomes, these upper income business owners may have an opportunity to maximize their Section 199A deduction by contributing to retirement plans.

Conclusion

The combination of Section 199A and small business retirement plans creates tax planning opportunities and challenges. Many small business owners will benefit from professional advice to determine the best path forward considering the new law, opportunities, and challenges.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! FI Tax Guy can prepare your tax return! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters.

Small Business Retirement Plans

If you are self-employed or have a side hustle, you have great opportunities for tax-advantaged savings. Small business retirement planning has been an area of significant confusion due to the multitude of plans available and the different qualification rules for each.

Below I describe the three most important plans for most small businesses to consider, provide the qualification requirements, and discuss when each plan is the best option.

Fortunately, for roughly 90 percent of small businesses, there are only three options worth considering: the Solo 401(k), the SIMPLE IRA, and the SEP IRA. In many cases, one of the three options quickly becomes the advantageous option.

After I discuss the three main small business retirement plans, I will provide some commentary on other available plans, but for most small businesses, the playbook consists of these three plans.

The administrative burdens (forms, paperwork, fees to financial institutions) of all three of these programs are relatively light these days, though all three plans do have some forms that must be properly completed, signed, and filed.

Before we begin, three quick notes. First, on limitations. Below I provide (in a general sense) the upper annual limits on contributions to the plans. It is important to note that contributions can be made in a manner below the limits – the plans are flexible in this regard. Second, generally you can contribute to a small business retirement plan and to a Roth and/or traditional IRA. Having access to a small business retirement plan does not prohibit a contribution to a Roth IRA or a traditional IRA. Third, before implementing a plan it is best to discuss your business and needs with the plan provider. Providers can have rules that are different from (and/or in addition to) the applicable tax rules.

Solo 401(k)

The Basics: A Solo 401(k) (sometimes referred to as an “Individual 401(k)”) is a 401(k) plan established by a self-employed individual for only their own benefit. Solo 401(k)s can be established by self-employed individuals in their own name and by corporations (usually S corporations in this context). Self-employment for this purpose includes a sole proprietorship, limited liability company (“LLC”), or other entity treated as disregarded from their single owner and reported on a Schedule C on their tax return.

The main advantage of the Solo 401(k) is that it allows annual contributions by the self-employed individual in his/her role as the “employee” and annual contributions by the self-employed individual (or S corporation) in his/her role as “employer.”

Employee contributions are limited to the lesser of earned income or $19,500 ($26,000 if 50 or older) in 2020. Employer contributions are limited to either 20 percent of self-employment income or 25 percent of W-2 wages (if the self-employed individual is paid through a corporation, including S corporations). Total employee and employer contributions are limited to $57,000 ($63,500 if age 50 or above) in 2020.

Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost Solo 401(k) options.

If eligible, the Solo 401(k) is almost always the best option for the self-employed individual. It offers the greatest potential for tax savings of the self-employed plans and it is relatively easy to administer.

An important note on the Solo 401(k) vis-a-vis the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP IRA: the Solo 401(k) is the only small business plan that allows Roth “employee” contributions. This allows self-employed individuals the ability to put away up to $19,500 ($26,000 if 50 or older) annually that will grow tax free. For all three plans, the “employer” contribution is always a traditional contribution (i.e., tax deductible today, taxable upon withdrawal). Note, however, that not all financial institutions offer the Roth employee contribution option in their Solo 401(k) plan, so it is important to check with the provider before signing up if the ability to make a Roth contribution is important to you.

Spouses employed by the self-employed individual (or their corporation) can also participate in the Solo 401(k) (only to the extent of their earnings from the business and subject to the above stated limitations), increasing the tax benefits of the plan.

Eligibility: In order to establish a Solo 401(k) plan, a person must have self-employment income, and must not have employees other than their spouse. For this purpose, an employee is anyone who works 1,000 hours during the year for the business. Starting in 2024, an employee also includes anyone who has worked 500 hours in each of 3 consecutive years.

Different plans have different rules on other employees. Some Solo 401(k) plans do not allow you to have any non-owner/non-spousal employees (regardless of the numbers of hours worked).

To have a Solo 401(k) in any tax year, the plan must be established by the deadline for the tax return, including extensions. That deadline also applies to employer contributions.

Generally, employee deferrals to a Solo 401(k) must be made by the end of the calendar year. There is an exception: if the Solo 401(k) is for a self-employed person (reporting self-employment income on Schedule C), the employee deferral must be formally designated by year-end, but then can be paid into the Solo 401(k) before the tax filing deadline (including extensions if the taxpayer extends his/her Form 1040).

Ideal for: Solo 401(k)s are ideal for anyone who is self-employed and does not have employees (other than a spouse).

SIMPLE IRA

The Basics: The SIMPLE IRA works in a manner somewhat similar to a 401(k) plan. It allows employees (including self-employed owners of the business) to defer up to $13,500 ($16,500 if 50 or older) of earnings in 2020 through traditional employee contributions. The SIMPLE IRA also has relatively modest required employer contributions to each eligible employee’s account (described below).

Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost SIMPLE IRA options.

In order to have a SIMPLE IRA for the year, the employer must establish the SIMPLE IRA by October 1st of the year. One narrow exception is when the business is established after October 1st, in which case the plan must be established when administratively feasible.

The SIMPLE IRA has two main advantages over the SEP IRA. First, it gives the self-employed owner and any employees a valuable option – the option to make traditional contributions to the SIMPLE IRA account. By contrast, the SEP IRA (discussed below) does not allow for employee contributions. Second, the required employer contribution is relatively low. Employers must make either matching contributions of 3 percent of salary (in 2 out of every 5 years that percentage can be reduced to 1 percent) or automatic annual contributions of 2 percent of salary to each employee’s SIMPLE IRA. Thus, the SIMPLE IRA can give the self-employed owner(s) the option to defer up to $13,500 ($16,500 if 50 or over) of earnings in a relatively affordable manner.

Eligibility: In order to be eligible for a SIMPLE IRA, the employer must have no other retirement plan and must have 100 or fewer employers during the year.

Ideal for: Self-employed individuals that are not eligible for a Solo 401(k) and are looking to provide themselves and their employees the option to defer some taxable income at a relatively low cost to the employer. Partnerships where two or more owners (non-spouses) work in the business and/or small businesses with employees are good candidates for a SIMPLE IRA.

SEP IRA

The Basics: A SEP IRA is allows only employer contributions. Generally, the employer can make annual contributions of up to 25 percent of eligible compensation (20 percent of a sole proprietor’s self-employment income), limited to $57,000 of contributions (in 2020).

Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost SEP IRA options.

The SEP IRA has two important advantages. First, it allows the employer to elect each year whether to make contributions. The employer can elect to forego contributions or reduce the contribution each year. Second, the SEP IRA has the latest deadlines of all the plans. A SEP IRA can be established for a tax year by the deadline for filing that tax year’s tax return, including extensions.

The main disadvantage of a SEP IRA is that it generally requires equal percentage contributions to all eligible employees. Said differently, in order for the self-employed owner of the business to make an employer contribution to his/her own account, the business must make the same percentage contribution to all eligible employees. This makes the SEP IRA an expensive way to save for your own retirement if you are self-employed and have employees. SEP IRAs are also subject to “top heavy” rules whereby the employer may be required to put in additional contributions to the rank-and-file employees’ SEP IRAs if the owners’ and executives’ SEP IRA balances are too high vis-a-vis the rest of the employees’ SEP IRA balances.

Eligibility: An employer (a sole proprietor, partnership, or corporation, including S corporations) can establish a SEP IRA program. Employees that are 21 years old, earn $600, and have worked for three of the previous five years for the employer must be allowed to participate.

Ideal for: There are three situations in which a SEP IRA can be highly advantageous. The first is for a side hustlers that maximize their 401(k)/403(b)/TSP contributions to their W-2 employer’s plan. The SEP IRA provides a mechanism for these side hustlers to defer more income. Note, however, that this can also be accomplished through a Solo 401(k), and in most cases the Solo 401(k) is preferable to the SEP IRA (if a taxpayer is eligible for both).

The second situation is when a self-employed person has not established a self-employed retirement plan by year-end. In such cases, the taxpayer can establish and fund a SEP IRA for the prior year before their tax return deadline (including extensions).

Third, a SEP IRA can be helpful in situations where a small business has a small number of employees, all or most of which are very important to the business. The SEP IRA provides a way to give highly valued employees a significant benefit.

Side Hustlers

For most side hustlers, the question becomes: are you covered by a retirement plan (such as a 401(k)) at your W-2 job? If you are not, the Solo 401(k) in most instances is likely your best option.

If you are covered by a workplace retirement plan, such as a 401(k), then the SEP IRA may be your best option, since you can defer up to the lesser of 20 percent of your side-hustle income or $57,000 (in 2020) while you can take advantage of your $19,500 ($26,000 if 50 or older) employee contributions through your workplace plan. While the “employer” contribution calculation is the same for a SEP IRA and a Solo 401(k), the administrative cost of the SEP IRA (including IRS filings) tends to be lighter than that of the Solo 401(k).

In some situations, side hustlers might want to forego a SEP IRA and use a Solo 401(k) (instead of a workplace 401(k)) for some or all of their annual employee contributions. That would be true if you want to make Roth employee contributions and your workplace plan does not allow them and/or you believe the investment options in your Solo 401(k) plan are better than the options in your employer’s plan. However, in all cases consideration should also be given to ensuring you at least get the full match in your employer’s 401(k) plan.

One important consideration for side hustlers and all self-employed individuals is what I call the Solo 401(k) Trap. Because of the new Section 199A deduction, many will want to forego deducting retirement plan contributions to self-employment retirement accounts (i.e., traditional employee contributions to Solo 401(k)s and employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s and SEP IRAs) and instead make Roth employee contributions to Solo 401(k)s.

Note that there is no benefit to having both a Solo 401(k) and a SEP IRA for your side hustle, because contributions to both plans count against the relevant limitations (i.e., having two separate plans does not increase a taxpayer’s contribution limitations).

Other Plans

There are other options available to small businesses. All (with the exception of the SIMPLE 401(k)) of them involve significantly more administrative burden and costs than the Solo 401(k), the SIMPLE IRA, and the SEP IRA. Often these plans are not feasible for small businesses and these plans are rarely feasible for side hustlers.

SIMPLE 401(k)s

SIMPLE 401(k)s are very similar to SIMPLE IRAs, with some differences on the margins not worth mentioning here. Most financial institutions offer SIMPLE IRAs instead of SIMPLE 401(k)s.

Keoghs

Keoghs come in both defined contribution and defined benefit (i.e., pension) models. Keoghs involve significant additional administrative burdens when compared to Solo 401(k)s, SIMPLE IRAs, and SEP IRAs.

401(k)s

There is nothing stopping a small business from establishing a 401(k) plan just like the largest employers. However, as a practical matter, it is difficult for most small businesses to do so. First, they involve significant set-up and maintenance costs. Second, 401(k)s are subject to discrimination testing to prevent business owners and high compensated employees from enjoying the benefits of the plan to a much greater degree than rank-and-file employees. This testing can lead to either reversals of previous contributions to the plan or additional employer contributions to rank-and-file employees.

Defined Benefit Pension Plans

A defined benefit plan (where the employee receives a stated benefit during retirement years and the employer funds the plan during the employee’s working years) is another option. These plans require significant compliance costs, including actuarial calculations. Further, if you have employees, these plans can be quite expensive for the self-employed business owner. In addition, these plans often work against the financial independence model in that they tie up assets until the account owner reaches a certain retirement age. However, given the right set of circumstances (usually older, highly compensated earners), these plans can be advantageous and create large current tax deductions.

Conclusion

Small businesses have a great opportunity to create tax advantaged retirement savings. For those eligible for a Solo 401(k), in most cases significant consideration should be given to establishing one. Depending on your circumstances, the SIMPLE IRA or the SEP IRA might be a great solution.

My hope is that this post has given you some working knowledge of the three main options for small businesses. Small business owners will often benefit from obtaining professional advice regarding their retirement planning and the programs they ought to establish.

Next Week

Next week’s post (click here) explores small business retirement plans in light of the new Section 199A qualified business income deduction and how the two concepts interact.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

Tax Efficient Estate Planning

THIS POST HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR THE SECURE ACT, WHICH WAS ENACTED IN LATE 2019.

If you have significant assets, you need an estate plan. A good estate plan makes handling the financial aspects of your death much easier for your loved ones and creates the opportunity for multiple generation wealth creation.

For most, the need for good estate plan is not about the estate tax. Very few Americans, particularly very few actively seeking financial independence, will be subject to the federal estate tax, as there is now (as of 2019) a $11.4 million estate tax exemption. Thus, only the very largest of estates will pay the federal estate tax. For purposes of this post, assume that all estates are below this threshold.

If you are aren’t subject to the estate tax, why do you need to make a tax efficient estate plan? The answer is the income tax considerations of your heirs and beneficiaries. Some assets cause your heirs and beneficiaries to have very little or no additional income tax. Other assets can cause a significant increase in the income tax burdens of your heirs and beneficiaries. Below I analyze each of the tax baskets and discuss the estate planning considerations for each one.

Being that the FI community generally aims to build up significant assets to achieve financial independence, good estate planning is particularly important if you are on the road to (or have achieved) financial independence.

A quick caveat at the beginning – tax is only one consideration in estate planning. There are many others, including the needs of spouses, children, and other potential heirs, and the desires of the donor. Below I offer thoughts on tax optimal estate planning — of course the tax considerations need to be balanced with other estate planning objectives.

Spouses

A quick note on leaving assets to spouses. Generally speaking, the tax laws favor leaving assets to spouses. A spouse is a tax-preferred heir in most situations (the main exception being leaving retirement accounts to younger beneficiaries with low RMDs). As the focus of this post is passing wealth to the second generation efficiently, most of the discussion, other than a few asides, will not address the tax consequences when leaving an asset to a spouse.

Tax Baskets

Below are the four main tax baskets (tax categories in which individuals can hold assets):

Traditional (a/k/a Deductible) Retirement Accounts: These include workplace plans such as the 401(k), the 403(b), the 457, and the TSP, and IRAs. Under ideal conditions, the contributions, when earned, are not taxed but the contributions and earnings are taxed when later withdrawn.
Roth Retirement Accounts: These include workplace plans such as the Roth 401(k), the Roth 403(b), and the Roth TSP, and Roth IRAs. Under ideal conditions, the contributions, when earned, are taxed but the contributions and earnings are tax-free when later withdrawn.
Health Savings Accounts: HSAs are tax-advantaged accounts only available to you if you have a high deductible health plan (a “HDHP”) as your health insurance. Under ideal conditions, the contributions, when earned, are not taxed and the contributions and earnings are tax-free when later withdrawn.
Taxable Accounts: Holding financial assets in your own name or otherwise not in a tax-advantaged account (tax baskets 1 through 3). The basic concept is taxable in, taxable on “realized” earnings (rental income, business income, dividends, interest, etc.) while in the account, and partially taxable (value less “tax basis”) on the way out.

Baskets 1 through 3 require “ideal conditions” (i.e., compliance with the related tax rules) to operate as outlined above. Let’s assume for purposes of this post that no errors are made with respect to the account in question.

Traditional Accounts

Of the four tax baskets, traditional accounts are often (from a tax perspective) the worst kind to leave to a spouse and the third worst to leave to non-spouse heirs. Why? Because traditional accounts, through required minimum distributions (“RMDs”), are eventually going to be entirely taxable to your beneficiaries and/or their beneficiaries. Non-spouse beneficiaries generally must take RMDs in the year following the donor’s death.

When passing traditional accounts to the next generation(s), a general rule of thumb is younger beneficiaries are better for such accounts, because the younger the beneficiary, the smaller their earlier RMDs, and thus the lower the tax hit of the RMD and the longer the tax-deferred growth.

Spousal beneficiaries, unlike non-spouse beneficiaries, have the option to delay RMDs until the year they turn 70 ½. However, once they turn 70 ½ they will be required to take taxable RMDs, increasing their taxable income.

For charitably inclined, traditional accounts (or portions thereof) are a great asset to leave to charity. As you will see, your individual beneficiaries would prefer to inherit Roth accounts (and in most cases will prefer to inherit taxable accounts), but the charity is generally indifferent to the tax basket of an asset, because charities pay no income tax. So all other things being equal, if you have money in traditional accounts, Roth accounts, and taxable accounts, the first money you should leave to a charity should be from your traditional accounts.

Lastly, whatever your plans, you are well advised to ensure that all your traditional, Roth, and HSA accounts have valid beneficiary designation forms on file with the employer plan or financial institution.

Roth Accounts

Roth accounts are fantastic accounts to inherit for both spouses and non-spouses. While non-spouses must take RMDs from the inherited Roth account in the year following death, the RMD is non-taxable to them. All beneficiaries benefit from tax-free growth of assets while they are in an inherited Roth account. This makes spouses (able to defer RMDs until age 70 ½) and younger beneficiaries ideal (from a tax perspective) to inherit Roth accounts.

Roth conversions are a potential strategy to save your heirs income tax. If you believe your heirs will have a higher marginal income tax rate than you do, and you do not need the tax on the Roth conversion, you can convert amounts in traditional accounts to Roth accounts, pay the tax, and lower the overall tax burden incurred by you and your family.

Health Savings Accounts

There are two, and only two, ideal people to leave an HSA to – your spouse or a charity. Spouses and charities are the only ones who do not pay tax immediately on an HSA in the year of death.

Unfortunately for non-spouse, non-charity beneficiaries, the entire account becomes taxable income to the beneficiary in the year of death and loses its status as an HSA. This can cause a significant one-time spike in marginal tax rates and cause the beneficiary to lose (to federal and state income taxes) a significant amount of the HSA. This makes the HSA the worst tax basket to leave to non-spouse, non-charitable beneficiaries.

Spouses are allowed to continue the HSA as their own HSA, and thus can use it to grow tax-free wealth that can cover (or reimburse) qualified medical expenses.

If you are charitably inclined and unmarried, the HSA should be the first account you consider leaving some or all of to charity.

Taxable Accounts

Taxable accounts, including real estate and securities, are generally good assets to leave to beneficiaries because of the so-called “step-up” in basis. As a general matter, when a person dies, their heirs inherit assets in taxable accounts with a “stepped-up” basis. This gives the heirs a basis of the fair market value of the property on the date of death.

As a result, a beneficiary can generally sell inherited assets shortly after receiving them and incur relatively little, if any, capital gains tax.

A couple of additional notes. First, leaving appreciated taxable assets at death to heirs is much better than gifting such assets to heirs during your life. A quick example: William lives in a house he purchased in 1970 for $50,000. In 2019 the house is worth $950,000. If William gifts the house to his son Alan in 2019, Alan’s basis in the house is $50,000. However, if William leaves the house to Alan at William’s death, Alan’s basis in the house will be the fair market value of the house at William’s death.

Second, the step-up in basis at death benefits spouses in both “common law” states and community property states. In all states, separately held property receives a full step up in basis when inherited by a spouse. For residents of common law states, jointly held property receives a half step-up – the deceased spouse’s portion is receives a step-up in basis while the surviving spouse’s half does not. For residents in community property states, the entirety of community property receives a full basis step-up at the death of one spouse.

Conclusion

Generally speaking, in most cases spouses will prefer to inherit assets in the following order:

Roth
HSA
Taxable
Traditional

In most cases, non-spouses will prefer to inherit assets in the following order:

Roth
Taxable
Traditional
HSA

The best two tax baskets to leave to charities are HSAs and traditional accounts.

You can obtain significant tax benefits for your heirs by being intentional regarding which tax baskets you leave to which beneficiaries. Some relatively simple estate planning can save your heirs a significant amount of federal and state income tax.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! FI Tax Guy can prepare your tax return! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

Section 199A Examples and Lessons

Introduction

As this is being re-published (January 2021), we are in the third filing season of the new Section 199A qualified business income deduction. It is an area of the tax law that practitioners are still digesting.

I have previously written on the basics of the Section 199A deduction. This post builds on that introductory post. It provides analysis on rules from the IRS and Treasury and gives examples of how the deduction works in specific situations.

Takeaways

Deductions such as the deduction for one-half of self-employment taxes paid and the deduction for self-employed retirement plan contributions reduce the qualified business income (“QBI”) qualifying for the Section 199A deduction.

In many cases, Section 199A reduces the tax savings on traditional retirement plan contributions. Taxpayers may want to consider Roth employee contributions instead of traditional employee contributions to retirement plans because of this change.

Some taxpayers may want to prioritize contributions to traditional IRAs and HSAs instead of contributions to self-employed and small business retirement plans to maximize their Section 199A deduction.

Potentially powerful tax planning opportunities exist whereby taxpayers can reduce their taxable incomes such that they can go from no Section 199A deduction to a significant deduction. See Managing Taxable Income below for one example.

Many small businesses (including many sole proprietorships and S corporations) should not make charitable contributions, since these reduce qualified business income deduction. Rather, the owners of these small businesses should make charitable contributions in their own names.

The IRS and Treasury have provided a safe harbor under which rental real estate activities can qualify for the Section 199A deduction.

Dividends received from mutual funds and ETFs investing in domestic REITs can qualify for the Section 199A deduction.

Below are examples and commentary addressing Section 199A.

Side Hustler

Mike works a full-time job. His W-2 for 2018 reports $90,000 of wages. Mike also receives $1,000 of qualified dividend income (“QDI”) in his taxable account. Mike has a side hustle where he nets $10,000 in Schedule C profit. Mike pays $1,413 in self-employment tax on that profit. Mike claims the standard deduction.

Recall that the Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

20 percent of your taxable income less your “net capital gain” which is generally your capital gains plus your QDI; or,
20 percent of your qualified business income (“QBI”).

The deduction for one-half of self-employment taxes is factored into the determination of QBI. Thus, in Mike’s case, his Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($90,000 plus $10,000 plus $1,000 less $707 less $1,000 less $12,000 = $87,293) = $17,459; or,

20% of QBI: 20% times ($10,000 less $707 = $9,293) = $1,859

In this case, Mike’s Section 199A deduction is $1,859.

Mike’s taxable income is determined by deducting, for adjusted gross income, one-half of the self-employment taxes ($707) he pays with respect to his side hustle income. However, that deduction for half of his self-employment tax must also be subtracted in determining his QBI.

Note further that the Section 199A deduction does not reduce self-employment taxes. The Section 199A deduction is only an income tax deduction. It does not reduce the amount subject to self-employment taxes (in Mike’s case, $10,000).

Sole Proprietor with a Solo 401(k)

Lisa owns a sole-proprietorship that generates $100,000 of business income in 2020 as reported on Schedule C. Lisa pays $14,130 in self-employment taxes. Lisa contributed $19,500 to her traditional Solo 401(k), and makes an employer contribution to her traditional Solo 401(k) of $18,587. Lisa is married to Joe who makes $75,000 in W-2 wages. Lisa and Joe claim the standard deduction.

The deduction for retirement plan contributions is factored into the determination of QBI. Thus, in Lisa’s case, her Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($100,000 plus $75,000 less $7,065 less $19,500 less $18,587 less $24,800 = $105,048) = $21,010; or,

20% of QBI: 20% times ($100,000 less $7,065 less $19,500 less $18,587 = $54,848) = $10,970

In this case, Lisa’s Section 199A deduction is $10,970.

QBI has the effect of making certain income “80% income.” What I mean by that term is that only 80% of the income is subject to income tax. This has a flip side – some deductions become only “80% deductions,” meaning that only 80% of the deduction generates a tax break.

Notice that the Solo 401(k) contributions reduce the QBI deduction. Thus, Solo 401(k) contributions are now “80% deductions” due to the QBI regime. For example, if your marginal tax rate is 22 percent, the marginal tax rate savings on your traditional 401(k) employee contribution is only 17.6 percent. But years later, when you withdraw the money from the Solo 401(k) the money will be “100% income.” You will not get a QBI deduction for those withdrawals.

I blogged more about the 80% deduction phenomenon here.

This will cause many sole proprietors to consider Roth Solo 401(k) employee contributions instead of traditional Solo 401(k) employee contributions, since the the tax savings on traditional self-employed employee contributions is reduced as a result of the QBI deduction.

Note further that for the Solo 401(k) employer contribution there is no choice to be made because there is no option to make a Roth employer contribution. All employer contributions must be traditional contributions.

Another observation: If Lisa and Joe had a low enough adjusted gross income (under $105,000) and Lisa made a deductible $6,000 contribution to a traditional IRA, that contribution would not have counted against her QBI. A contribution to a health savings account would also not have lowered her QBI.

For taxpayers whose Section 199A deduction is limited by 20% of QBI, contributions to traditional IRAs and HSAs should be favored over self-employment retirement plan contributions, since the IRA and HSA deductions are 100% deductions while the self-employment retirement plan contributions are 80% deductions. Hat tip to Jeff Levine who made the retirement plan contribution prioritization point on Twitter.

For taxpayers whose Section 199A deduction is limited by 20% of taxable income, contributions to traditional IRAs, HSAs, and self-employment retirement plans are all 80% deductions, and thus Section 199A normally does not factor into determining how to prioritize these contributions. However, all of these are tools taxpayers may be able to use to lower taxable income to qualify for a Section 199A deduction, as discussed in the Managing Taxable Income section below.

S Corporation

Assume the facts are the same as the previous example, except for the following differences. Lisa operates her business as a wholly-owned S corporation instead of as sole proprietorship. Before any sort of compensation, the S corporation makes $100,000. Assume that in this case, the S corporation pays Lisa $50,000 of W-2 wages, which is further assumed to be reasonable. Lisa makes employee contributions of $19,500 to her traditional Solo 401(k) from those wages. The S corporation makes the maximum employer contribution of $12,500 (computed as $30,500 of Box 1 W-2 wages plus $19,500 of elective deferrals times 25 percent). Thus, Lisa will have flow-through income from the S corporation (reported to her on a Schedule K-1) of $33,675 ($50,000 less $12,500 less $3,825 — the employer portion of the payroll tax).

Thus, in Lisa’s case, her Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($50,000 plus $33,675 plus $75,000 less $19,500 less $24,800 = $114,375) = $22,875; or,

20% of QBI: 20% times ($33,675 — the QBI) = $6,735

In this case, Lisa’s Section 199A deduction is $6,735 because in the S corporation structure, the business income is split between a salary the S corporation pays her (which is not QBI) and the flow through profit of the S corporation, which is QBI (assuming it is domestic trade or business income).

The S corporation has various pros and cons from a tax perspective. Lower employment (payroll) taxes are a significant benefit, while lower maximum employer retirement plan contributions and lower Section 199A deductions are drawbacks.

Managing Taxable Income

Jackie is a lawyer operating as a sole proprietor. Law is one of several specified service trade or businesses (“SSTBs”) where the benefits of Section 199A are completely phased out if your taxable income exceeds $213,300 ($426,600 for married filing joint taxpayers using 2020 numbers). In 2020 Jackie has $240,000 of Schedule C income from the business. His self-employment taxes are $17,075 in Social Security taxes and $6,428 in Medicare taxes, for a total of $23,503 reported on Schedule SE. Jackie takes the standard deduction.

Jackie’s taxable income is thus $215,848 ($240,000 less $11,752 less $12,400). Because Jackie’s QBI is from an SSTB and his taxable income is above $213,300, he cannot claim any Section 199A deduction.

Now let’s add some tax planning to the scenario. Imagine that early in 2020 Jackie realizes he won’t qualify for the Section 199A deduction based on his numbers. He decides to open a Solo 401(k), which he can make an $19,500 employee traditional contribution to, and he can make an employer contribution of $37,500 for total contributions of $57,000 (the maximum allowed). This radically changes his Section 199A math, since (as will be demonstrated) his taxable income is now below $163,300. Once your income is below $163,300, you qualify for the Section 199A deduction only subject to the computational limits. Thus, in Jackie’s case, his Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($240,000 less $11,752 less $12,400 less $57,000 = $158,848) = $31,770; or,

20% of QBI: 20% times ($240,000 less $11,752 less $57,000 = $171,248) = $34,250

Thus, Jackie’s Section 199A deduction is now $31,770! By managing his taxable income (by maximizing retirement savings), Jackie turned a $57,000 deduction into a more than $88,000 of deductions. Sure, the $57,000 deduction for retirement plan contributions is an “80% deduction,” but it creates the additional $31,770 of a Section 199A deduction (which is itself a “100 percent” deduction).

Jackie also lowered his marginal federal income tax rate from 35 percent to 24 percent and reduced his taxable income from $215,848 to $127,078!

Note that contributions to a health savings account would be another tool to deploy to lower your taxable income if you are concerned about Section 199A’s taxable income limitations.

Taxpayers bumping up against Section 199A taxable income limitations will likely need to prioritize traditional employee contributions to Solo 401(k) plans over Roth employee contributions. In addition, self-employed taxpayers bumping up against the taxable income limits in 2021 may want to establish 2021 Solo 401(k)s (if they are eligible to do so) to lower taxable income in order to qualify for the Section 199A deduction.

It will be wise for taxpayers to consult with tax advisors to run the numbers on Section 199A and other tax planning considering the complexity of the rules and the potential benefits of successful planning.

Charitable Contributions

The IRS gave us a bit of a head-scratcher in the instructions to the new Form 8995. The Form 8995 is used (starting with 2019 tax returns) to compute the QBI deduction. In the instructions, it states that charitable contributions reduce QBI.

Here is an example of how that rule would play out:

Cosmo is the sole shareholder of Acme Industries, an S corporation. In 2019, Acme reports QBI operating income of $100,000 to Cosmo on his Form K-1. It also reports $1,000 of charitable contributions made by Acme during 2019. The total QBI Cosmo can claim from Acme Industries is only $99,000, as the charitable contribution reduces QBI, according to the IRS. This is true even if Cosmo claims the standard deduction and thus has no use for the charitable contribution on his 2019 tax return.

Personally, I believe the IRS is on questionable ground in claiming charitable contributions reduce qualified business income. However, with some rather simple tax planning (which I generally believe to be prudent), you can avoid this issue altogether. If you want to make a charitable contribution, simply do so in your own name. Do not have your business — whether an S corporation, a small partnership, or a sole proprietorship, make the charitable contribution.

Rental Real Estate

The IRS and Treasury issued Notice 2019-7 and Revenue Procedure 2019-38 providing a safe harbor under which rental real estate activity can qualify for the Section 199A deduction. A safe harbor is a set of requirements, which, if satisfied, automatically qualify a taxpayer for a particular benefit. Stated differently, a safe harbor is a sufficient, but not necessary condition, to receive a benefit.

While rental activities that constitute a trade or business can still qualify for the deduction if they do not meet the requirements of the safe harbor, as a practical matter it will be much easier to sustain the deduction if you can qualify for the safe harbor.

Requirements

The requirements to satisfy the safe harbor with respect to any “rental real estate enterprise” (a “RREE”) are as follows:

Separate books and records documenting the income and expenses of the RREE must be maintained.

At least 250 hours per year of qualifying activity must be done with respect to the RREE.

Starting in 2020, detailed records documenting the time spent on the RREE must be maintained (see Revenue Procedure 2019-38).

A statement electing the application of the safe harbor must be attached to the tax return.

Multiple Rental Properties

Rental property can be combined for purposes of determining if you have an RREE. However, residential and commercial real estate cannot be aggregated and must be kept separate. Thus, at a minimum if you own both commercial and residential property, you have two RREEs, and you must apply the tests to each separately to determine if each RREE qualifies for the safe harbor.

Qualifying Activities

In a bit of good news, the 250 hours can be done by the owner, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors. However, many activities do not count toward the 250 hours, including building and long-term redevelopment, finding properties to rent, and arranging financing. Qualifying activities include collecting rent, daily operation of property, negotiating leases, screening tenants, and maintenance and repairs.

Triple Net Leases

Triple net leases do not qualify for the safe harbor. For purposes of the rule, these include “a lease agreement that requires the tenant or lessee to pay taxes, fees, and insurance, and to be responsible for maintenance activities for a property in addition to rent and utilities.”

House Hacking

For those using house hacking to pursue financial independence, there are several considerations. If you house hack by renting spare bedrooms in your primary residence (tenants, Airbnb, etc.), then you do not qualify for the safe harbor with respect to the rent generated by your primary residence. However, if your house hack consists of renting out separate units in a single building, the rental income could qualify for the safe harbor if (i) those other units are separate residences and not your own residence for any part of the year and (ii) you otherwise satisfy the requirements of the safe harbor.

REIT Mutual Fund Dividends

Dividends from REITs and REIT mutual funds can qualify for the QBI deduction. Generally, box 5 of Form 1099-DIV will indicate those REIT dividends which qualify as Section 199A dividends.

Example

In 2018 Luke makes $50,000 from his W-2 job. He operates a sole proprietorship that generates a $4,000 taxable loss (which would have been QBI had it been net income). Luke also receives $3,000 of dividends from the Acme Real Estate Mutual Fund, which he holds in a taxable account. Acme’s Form 1099-DIV provided to Luke indicates in box 5 that $2,400 of the dividends are Section 199A dividends. Luke claims the standard deduction. In Luke’s case, his Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($50,000 less $4,000 plus $3,000 less $12,000 = $37,000) = $7,400; or,

20% of REIT Dividends: 20% times $2,400 = $480

Thus, Luke’s Section 199A deduction is $480. He gets this deduction even though the dividend was paid by a mutual fund and even though he had a QBI loss. His QBI loss will carryover to 2019, and will reduce his 2019 QBI that potentially qualifies for the Section 199A deduction.

Lastly, note that if Luke held the Acme mutual fund shares in a retirement account (traditional and/or Roth IRA/401(k), etc.) or a health savings account, the REIT dividend would not have qualified for the Section 199A deduction.

Conclusion

Even as of January 2021, taxpayers and practitioners are learning new wrinkles in the Section 199A QBI deduction. For taxpayers with side hustles and small businesses, it can represent a significant income tax break. Some taxpayers will need professional help to determine how best to maximize the deduction.

The Passive Activity Loss Rules

Situations Where Real Estate Losses Can Offset Other Income

Other Rental Income

Real Estate Professionals

Active Participation

Future Passive Income

Dispositions

Conclusion

A Necessary Predicate

Stock Basis vs. Real Estate Basis

Leverage and Tax Basis

Step-Up at Death

Rental Real Estate: Taxable Accounts and Retirement Accounts

Stepped-Up Stock Basis

Other Considerations

Costs

Valuations

Capital Gains

Rules, Rules, Rules

Unrelated Debt Financed Income (“UDFI”) Tax

Real Estate Losses

Gilding the Lily

Conclusion

What is Tax Basis?

Depreciation

Step-up at Death

Tax Loss Harvesting

Retirement Accounts

Conclusion

Options

Considerations

Trustee-to-Trustee Rollover

Timing

Basis

SIMPLE IRAs and SEP IRAs

December 31st

Illustrative Example

Tactics vs. Goals

Further Reading

Why Do a Backdoor Roth IRA?

History of the Backdoor Roth IRA

Roth IRA Contributions

Roth IRA Conversions

The Backdoor

December 31st

The Pro-Rata Rule

Tax Reporting

Further Reading

The Basics

80% Deductions

Planning Options

Roth Contributions

HSAs/IRAs/Small Business Retirement Plans

HSA Contributions

Deductible Traditional IRA Contributions

Taxable Accounts

S Corporation Owners

Your Employees

Upper Income Taxpayers

Conclusion

Solo 401(k)

SIMPLE IRA

SEP IRA

Side Hustlers

Other Plans

SIMPLE 401(k)s

Keoghs

401(k)s

Defined Benefit Pension Plans

Conclusion

Next Week

Spouses

Tax Baskets

Traditional Accounts

Roth Accounts

Health Savings Accounts

Taxable Accounts

Conclusion

Introduction

Takeaways