Tag: gross income

Categories
Income Tax Planning

New Tax Law – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog – Part 2 of 2

Part 1 of this post focused on the two investment-related tax areas of the new tax law that went into effect on January 1st – (a) the Medicare investment income tax and (b) long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. It made the point that while the amount of potential income tax liability resulting from exposure to one or both of these changes may be significant, neither one in and of itself, or in combination for that matter, should cause you to overhaul an otherwise appropriate retirement income planning investment strategy.

After preparing income tax projections using current vs. prior tax law, your CPA or other income tax professional will be able to determine two things: (a) the total amount of your additional projected income tax liability attributable to various changes in the law, and (b) the amount of your additional projected income tax liability attributable to specific changes in the law, including the Medicare investment income tax and 20% long-term capital gains and qualified dividends tax.

Once you determine the amount of your projected income tax liability attributable to specific changes in the law, the next step is to determine (a) the applicable income threshold type and amount that you have exceeded, and (b) the projected amount of excess income over the applicable threshold amount. In the case of the Medicare investment income tax, the threshold type is modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) and the amount is $200,000 if single or $250,000 if married filing joint. If your additional projected income tax liability is attributable to long-term capital gains and/or qualified dividends, the threshold type is taxable income and the amount is $400,000 if single or $450,000 if married filing joint.

Whether you’re affected by the Medicare investment income tax or the 20% (vs. 15%) tax on long-term capital gains and dividends, the next step is to determine the various components of income that comprise your gross income. Once you do this, you need to determine which specific non-investment related components can be reduced, as well as the amount of reductions for each component, in order to reduce the amount of your projected income tax liability attributable to changes in the tax law.

It’s important to keep in mind that some types of income can be reduced indirectly. An example of this is taxable salary which can be reduced significantly by various types of pre-tax deductions as available, including, but not limited to, 401(k) plan and cafeteria plan contributions. Another example is self-employment income which can be reduced by self-employment expenses.

In addition to determining which specific non-investment related components can be reduced, it’s also important to determine if any losses can be created or freed up as another means of reducing gross income. This can include capital losses to offset capital gains, net operating losses, as well as passive activity loss carryovers that can be freed up as a result of the sale of a rental property. The latter strategy can be a double-edged sword since this may also result in a capital gain that may increase exposure to the Medicare investment income tax and/or the 20% capital gains tax.

Since the starting point for determining exposure to both the Medicare investment income tax and 20% capital gains tax calculations is adjusted gross income (“AGI”), the next step is to determine potential deductions for AGI, or “above-the-line” deductions, that you may not be currently taking advantage of. This includes self-employed retirement plan contributions, self-employed health insurance premiums, and health savings account (“HSA”) contributions, to name a few.

If your issue is the 20% capital gains tax, in addition to reducing your AGI, there’s another way that you can potentially reduce your exposure to this tax and retain the 15% favorable capital gains tax. Keeping in mind that the threshold type in the case of the 20% capital gains tax is taxable income which is calculated by subtracting itemized deductions and personal exemptions from AGI, you may be able to increase your itemized deductions in order to reduce your taxable income.

As you can see, there are things you can do to reduce your exposure to the Medicare investment income tax and 20% capital gains tax without changing your investment strategy. If you have an otherwise appropriate retirement income planning investment strategy, don’t let the tax tail wag the dog.

Categories
Annuities Deferred Income Annuities Fixed Index Annuities

Invest in DIA to Fund LTCI Premiums When Retired – Part 4 of 4

The first three posts in this series discussed five differences between fixed index annuities (“FIA’s”) with income riders and deferred income annuities (“DIA’s”) that will influence which retirement income planning strategy is preferable for funding long-term care insurance (“LTCI”) premiums in a given situation. If you haven’t done so already, I would recommend that you read each of these posts.

This week’s post presents a sample case to illustrate the use of a FIA with an income rider vs. a DIA to fund LTCI premiums during retirement.

Assumptions

As with all financial illustrations, assumptions are key. A change in any single assumption will affect the results. The following is a list of assumptions used in the sample case:

  1. 55-year old, single individual
  2. Planned retirement start age of 68
  3. Life expectancy to age 90
  4. Current annual LTCI premium of $4,000 payable for life
  5. Need to plan for infrequent, although potentially double-digit percentage increases in LTCI premium at unknown points in time
  6. Given assumptions #4 and #5, plan for annual pre-tax income withdrawals of approximately $6,000 beginning at retirement age
  7. Solve for single lump sum investment at age 55 that will provide needed income
  8. Investment will come from a nonqualified, i.e., nonretirement, investment account
  9. One investment option is a fixed index annuity (“FIA”) with an income rider with lifetime income withdrawals beginning at age 68.
  10. Second investment option is a deferred income annuity (“DIA”) with no death benefit and lifetime income payout beginning at age 68.
  11. FIA premium bonus of 10%
  12. FIA annual return of 3%
  13. FIA income rider charge of 0.95% of income rider value otherwise known as the guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit (“GMWB”)
  14. No withdrawals are taken from the FIA other than the income withdrawals.
  15. All investments are purchased from highly-rated life insurance companies known for providing innovative and competitive retirement income planning solutions.

Investment Amount

The first thing that needs to be solved for is the amount of investment that must be made at the individual’s age 55 in order to produce lifetime annual income of approximately $6,000 beginning at age 68. The goal is to minimize the amount of funds needed for the investment while choosing a strategy from a highly-rated insurance company that’s known for providing innovative and competitive retirement income planning solutions.

It turns out that an investment of $50,000 to $65,000 is needed to produce lifetime annual income of approximately $6,000 beginning at age 68. Given the fact that my goal as a retirement income planner is to use the smallest amount of investment for a fixed income annuity to produce a targeted income stream in order to preserve the remainder of a client’s investment portfolio for my client’s other financial goals, the amount of the investment needed is $50,000.

Results

There are three items we will examine to compare the results between investing $50,000 in a FIA with an income rider vs. a DIA to fund LTCI premiums during retirement. They are as follows:

  • Annual gross income
  • Annual taxable income
  • Value/death benefit

Annual Gross Income

Per the Exhibit, the annual payout, or gross income, from the FIA is $5,764, or $236 less than the annual gross income of $6,000 from the DIA. This equates to a total of $5,428 for the 23 years of payouts from age 68 through age 90.

Annual Taxable Income

If the investment was made in a retirement account like a traditional IRA and assuming there have been no nondeductible contributions made to the IRA, 100% of the income would be taxable. This would be the case for both the FIA or DIA.

As stated in assumption #8, the investment will come from a nonqualified, i.e., nonretirement, investment account. Per Part 2 of this series, this makes a difference when it comes to taxation of the withdrawals. Per the Exhibit, 100% of the annual FIA income of $5,764 is fully taxable vs. $3,066 of the DIA income. This is because the DIA, unlike the FIA, is being annuitized and approximately 50% of each income payment is nontaxable as a return of principal. Over the course of 23 years of payouts, this results in $62,054 of additional taxable income for the FIA vs. the DIA.

The amount of income tax liability resulting from the additional taxable income from the FIA will be dependent upon several factors that will vary each year, including (a) types, and amounts, of other income, (b) amount of Social Security income, (c) potential losses, (d) adjusted gross income, (e) itemized deductions, (f) marginal tax bracket, and (g) applicable state income tax law.

Value/Death Benefit

While the present value of the future income stream of a DIA represents an asset, you generally won’t receive an annual statement from the life insurance company showing you the value of your investment. In addition, while some DIA’s will pay a death benefit in the event that the annuitant dies prior to receiving income, per assumption #10, this isn’t the case in this situation. Consequently, the DIA column of the “Value/Death Benefit” section of the Exhibit is $0 for each year of the analysis.

On the other hand, there’s a projected value for the FIA from age 55 through age 79. This value is also the amount that would be paid to the FIA’s beneficiaries in the event of death. There’s a projected increase in value each year during the accumulation stage between age 55 and 67 equal to the net difference between the assumed annual return of 3% and the income rider charge of 0.95% of the income rider value.

Per the Exhibit, the projected value/death benefit increases from $56,278 at age 55 to $68,510 at age 67. Although the assumed premium bonus of 10% is on the high side these days, this is reasonable given the fact that FIA values never decrease as a result of negative performance of underlying indexes, the assumed rate of return of 3% is reasonable in today’s low index cap rate environment, and the assumed income rider charge of 0.95% of the income rider value is on the upper end of what’s prevalent in the industry. The projected value/death benefit decreases each year from age 68 to age 79 until it reaches $0 beginning at age 80 as a result of the annual income withdrawals of $5,764.

Conclusion

As discussed in Parts 1 – 3 of this series, there are five important differences between FIA’s with income riders and DIA’s that will influence which retirement income planning strategy is preferable for funding LTCI premiums during retirement in a given situation. Two of the differences, income start date flexibility and income increase provision, haven’t been addressed in this post.

In addition to the five differences, the amount of the investment required to produce a targeted lifetime annual income amount to pay LTCI premiums, including potential increases, will differ depending upon the particular FIA or DIA strategy used. In the illustrated case, which isn’t uncommon today, an investment of $50,000 resulted in an almost identical lifetime income payout whether a FIA with an income rider or a DIA is used.

As illustrated, the taxable income associated with a DIA in a nonqualified environment is much less compared to a FIA. As previously discussed, the amount of tax savings resulting from the reduced taxable income will depend upon an analysis of several factors and will vary each year. Ignoring the potential income tax savings resulting from the tax-favored DIA payouts, the FIA with income rider would be the preferred investment choice for many individuals in this case given the presence, duration, and projected amount of, the investment value/death benefit.

The FIA edge is reinforced by the fact that, unlike most traditional DIA’s, the income start date and associated annual lifetime income payout amount for FIA’s is flexible. This would be an important consideration in the event that the year of retirement changes. Furthermore, this is quite possible given the fact that the individual is 13 years away from her projected retirement year.

As emphasized throughout this series, the purchase of LTCI needs to be a lifetime commitment. Planning for the potential purchase of a LTCI policy should be included as part of the retirement income planning process to determine the sources of income that will be used to pay for LTCI throughout retirement. Whether it’s a FIA with an income rider, a DIA, or some other planning strategy that’s used for this purpose will depend on the particular situation.