The Widow’s Tax Trap and RMDs

People worry about taxation in retirement. In particular, they worry about the taxation of required minimum distributions (RMDs), especially after the death of a spouse. Widows find themselves in the single tax brackets after decades of enjoying the more favorable married filing jointly tax brackets. 

Widows and widowers finding themselves as single taxpayers is often referred to as the Widow’s Tax Trap. 

RMDs require taxable withdrawals from traditional retirement accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s. But just how bad are they when a widow or widower is in the Widow’s Tax Trap?

Let’s unpack just how bad the combination of the Widow’s Tax Trap and RMDs is for an 81 year-old widow with a very tax inefficient structure: almost $3.7 million of her approximately $4.5 million of financial wealth in a traditional IRA.

My experience tells me many financial planners and gurus will tell you this is a terrible outcome. That $3.7 million traditional IRA is infested with taxes!

But is it really?

81 Year-Old Widow in the Widow’s Tax Trap

I put together an analysis of an affluent widow in the Widow’s Tax Trap. Let’s call her Jane. Her traditional IRA causes her to have an RMD of almost $190,000. Wow!

Grab the tax analysis file here!

To be fair, most Americans will never have a $3.7 million traditional IRA and/or a $190K RMD. But I analyze them to demonstrate “what if the widow is highly inefficient from a tax perspective?”

What are the federal income tax rates on that feared RMD? 

Isn’t it remarkable that an 81 year-old widow with almost $3.7 million in a traditional IRA has more of her RMD taxed in the 12 percent tax bracket than in the 32 percent tax bracket?

Despite all the fear of taxation of RMDs, that’s the reality when it comes to a very affluent, very inefficient 81 year-old widow. 

Some might say “but what about IRMAA?” “What about the net investment income tax?”

Yes, Jane pays IRMAA of approximately $6,500 in two years because of her RMDs. And yes, the RMDs trigger approximately $500 of net investment income tax.

But do either of these have any impact on Jane’s lived experience and financial success?

Absolutely not!

The government scores some Garbage Time Touchdowns on Jane by collecting some IRMAA, some net investment income tax, and some income tax in the 32 percent bracket. 

A Garbage Time Touchdown is a late in the game touchdown scored by a team that will lose the game regardless of the touchdown. As a New York Jets fan, sadly I’m an expert in Garbage Time Touchdowns.

Jane has some tax inefficiencies that are just Garbage Time Touchdowns.

Think about the lifetime arc of Jane’s taxes in today’s tax planning world:

• As a single individual, Jane likely deducted workplace retirement plan contributions at a 22, 24, or 32 percent rate. Win versus the IRS!
• As a married couple, Jane and her husband likely deduct into workplace retirement plans at a 22 or 24 percent rate. Win versus the IRS!
• In early retirement, they live off taxable accounts and do not do Roth conversions. They may pay nothing in federal income tax! Win versus the IRS!
• Once taxable accounts are depleted, traditional retirement account distributions could have benefitted from the Hidden Roth IRA. Win versus the IRS!
• Even RMDs are likely subject to the 12 percent and 22 percent brackets while they are both alive. Win versus the IRS!
• As a widow, the relatively minor tax inefficiencies creep in. These are Garbage Time Touchdowns. 

This arc, which eschewed Roth 401(k) contributions and taxable Roth conversions, screams “Jane wins a blow out victory over the IRS” over the course of her lifetime. 

Sure, at the end Jane gave up some Garbage Time Touchdowns to the IRS, but not after decades of defeating the IRS. 

What’s more important than winning the spreadsheet is lived experience. Notice that Jane paying 32 percent on about six percent of her RMD has $200K of after-tax cash flow? 

In order for the Widow’s Tax Trap to bite hard, the widow generally has to have about $200K or more of after-tax cash flow.

The taxes bite when widows can most afford them!

Watch me break down the tax analysis of our 81 year-old widow on YouTube.

Roth Conversions to Avoid the Widow’s Tax Trap

Should Jane and her husband have done taxable Roth Conversions in retirement to avoid the widow paying 32 percent federal income tax on some of her RMDs?

Here vocabulary becomes very important. Yes, some taxable Roth conversions taxed at 22 percent or 24 percent could have been beneficial. But they were hardly necessary.

Outside of cases where taxable Roth conversions create enough required income to qualify for a Premium Tax Credit, taxable Roth conversions are not necessary. 

Yes, there are times where large taxable Roth conversions can be beneficial in that they mitigate harmful effects of the Widow’s Tax Trap. But the analysis above shows that the harmful effects of the Widow’s Tax Trap aren’t all that harmful for the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans. This is true even those with most of their financial wealth in traditional retirement accounts. 

Why would Jane and her husband prioritize large scale taxable Roth conversions to avoid having six percent of her RMDs as a widow being subject to the 32 percent tax bracket? 

Further Reading

The tax planning landscape has changed. One resource that puts aside the fear and realistically tackles today’s tax and retirement planning landscape is Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement, a book I’m proud to have co-authored with Cody Garrett. 

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

Follow me on LinkedIn: @SeanWMullaney

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, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.