Tag: Roth IRA conversion

Categories
Annuities Deferred Income Annuities Income Tax Planning Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract (QLAC)

Is a QLAC Right for You?

2014 marked the introduction of qualified longevity annuity contracts, or QLACs. For those of you not familiar with them, a QLAC is a deferred fixed income annuity designed for use in retirement plans such as 401(k) plans and traditional IRAs (a) that’s limited to an investment of the lesser of $125,000 or 25% of the value of a retirement plan and (b) requires that lifetime distributions begin at a specified date no later than age 85. QLAC investment options are currently limited to deferred income annuities, or DIAs.

The purchase of deferred fixed income annuities in retirement plans for longevity protection isn’t a new concept. What’s unique about QLACs is the ability to extend the start date of required minimum distributions (RMDs) from April 1st of the year following the year that you turn 70-1/2 to up to age 85. This provides potential income tax planning opportunities for QLAC holders subject to the purchase cap.

Potential Income Tax Savings

A lot of individuals are selling QLACs short due to the purchase cap. While on the surface, $125,000 may not represent a sizable portion of a retirement plan with assets of $750,000 or more, the potential lifetime income tax savings can be significant.

The amount of savings is dependent on six factors: (a) amount of QLAC investment (b) age at which QLAC investment is made, (c) deferral period from date of QLAC purchase until income start date, (d) rate of return, (e) income tax bracket, and (f) longevity.

Illustration

I have prepared the attached exhibit to illustrate potential income tax savings achievable by investing $125,000 at three different ages in a QLAC by comparing it to a non-QLAC investment that’s subject to the RMD rules. Assumptions used in the preparation of the exhibit are as follows:

  1. $125,000 is invested in a non-QLAC vehicle at one of three different ages: 55, 60, or 65.
  2. Rate of return is 5%.
  3. RMD’s are taken from age 71 through 85, the range of ages between which RMD’s and QLAC distributions, respectively, are required to begin.
  4. Income tax brackets are 2015 federal income tax brackets plus 5% for assumed state income tax.

In addition to assumed rates of return and income tax brackets, a key assumption is the age at which the QLAC investment is made. All else being equal, purchases at earlier ages avoid greater amounts of RMDs and associated income tax liability. Per the exhibit, the amount of projected income tax savings over 15 years ranges from approximately $20,000 to $97,000 depending upon assumed QLAC investment date and income tax bracket.

Considerations

Reduction of RMDs and associated income tax liability is an important goal, however, it may not be the best strategy for achieving the overriding goal of retirement income planning, i.e., making sure that you have sufficient income to meet your projected expenses for the duration of your retirement.

There are several questions you need to answer to determine the amount, if any, that you should invest in a QLAC:

  • What are your projected federal and state income tax brackets between age 71 and 85?
  • What are the projected rates of return on your retirement funds between 71 and 85 taking into consideration the likelihood of at least one bear market during this time?
  • What is your, and your spouse, if married, projected life expectancy?
  • Which years between age 71 and 85 can you afford to forego receipt of projected net RMD income, i.e., RMD less associated income tax liability?
  • Will you need to take retirement plan distributions in excess of your RMDs, and, if so, in which years and in what amounts?
  • What other sources of income do you have to replace the projected RMD income you won’t be receiving?
  • What is the projected income tax liability you will incur from withdrawing funds from other sources of income?
  • What is the amount of annual lifetime income that you will receive from a QLAC beginning at various ages between 71 and 85 assuming various investment amounts, with and without a death benefit with various payout options?
  • Does it make more sense to invest in a non-QLAC longevity annuity such as a fixed index annuity with an income rider?
  • Should you do a Roth IRA conversion instead?

Given the fact that opportunities to reduce RMDs and associated income tax liability are limited, QLACs are an attractive alternative. Projected income tax savings are just one factor to consider and can vary significantly from situation to situation, depending upon assumptions used. There are a number of other considerations that need to be analyzed before purchasing a QLAC to determine the best strategies for optimizing your retirement income.

Categories
Roth IRA

5 Ways to Reduce Your Tax Liability Using Roth IRA Conversions

One of the most important financial goals for retirees is maximization of after-tax income. There are two ways to accomplish this: (a) maximize pre-tax income and (b) minimize income tax liability. A Roth IRA can go a long way toward helping you achieve the latter.

There are two ways to fund a Roth IRA: (a) annual contributions and (b) conversions. Annual contributions, in and of themselves, generally won’t result in a significant source of retirement income due to the relatively low limitation – currently $5,500 or $6,500 if you’re age 50 or older. In addition, eligibility to make Roth IRA contributions is limited to the extent that your income exceeds defined limits.

Roth IRA conversions, on the other hand, have the ability to generate substantial after-tax income while also reducing income tax liability for up to 20 to 30 years or more of retirement. Since income tax liability on the value of Roth IRA conversions will need to be paid, timing of conversions is key. See the May 10, 2010 post, Be on the Lookout for Roth IRA Conversion Opportunities, for a discussion of this topic.

There are five ways that you can potentially reduce your income tax liability and increase your after-tax income during your retirement years by doing Roth IRA conversions.

1. Never pay income tax on the growth of your Roth IRA

While you’re required to include the value of your IRA, 401(k) or other qualified plan assets that you convert to a Roth IRA in your taxable income in the year of conversion, 100% of the growth of your Roth IRA is excluded from taxation. This is true whether or not you ever take any distributions from your Roth IRA.

Individuals who did Roth IRA conversions in March, 2009 when the Dow dipped below 7,000 didn’t mind paying income tax on those conversions in retrospect given the fact that the Dow is currently hovering over 17,000 less than six years later. The income tax savings on the growth of the equity portion of their converted accounts over this period of time plus future potential growth is significant for those in this situation.

2. Roth IRA accounts aren’t subject to required minimum distribution rules

If you don’t do a Roth IRA conversion, 100% of the value of your traditional IRA, 401(k), and other qualified plan assets, including appreciation, will be subject to IRS’ required minimum distribution, or RMD, rules. These rules require you to take annual minimum distributions from your retirement plan accounts beginning by April 1st of the year following the year that you turn 70-1/2. 100% of distributions reduced by any allowable portion of nondeductible contributions are taxable.

As an example, suppose you were born on January 7, 1940 and you own a traditional IRA account with a value of $500,000 on December 31, 2013, you would be required to take a minimum distribution of $21,008.40 from your account by December 31, 2014 and include it in your 2014 taxable income. If instead you owned a Roth IRA account with the same value, you wouldn’t be required to take any distributions from your account.

3. Potentially reduce net investment income tax

The RMD rules sometimes force people to take distributions from their taxable IRA accounts that they don’t need. Often times, they transfer RMDs from their taxable IRA account to a nonretirement investment account and leave them there. For individuals with high levels of income, this can result in additional taxation as a result of subjecting the earnings on their nonretirement account to the net investment income tax of 3.8%. This isn’t an issue for Roth IRA account holders since the RMD rules don’t apply to them.

4. Roth IRA distributions aren’t included when calculating taxable Social Security benefits

The taxation of Social Security benefits is dependent upon your combined income and tax filing status. Combined income includes adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest, and 50% of Social Security benefits.

Single filers are subject to tax on 50% of their Social Security benefits for combined income between $25,000 and $34,000 and up to 85% of benefits when combined income exceeds $34,000. Married filing joint taxpayers are subject to tax on 50% of their Social Security benefits for combined income between $32,000 and $44,000 and up to 85% of benefits when combined income exceeds $44,000.

Roth IRA distributions aren’t included in adjusted gross income, therefore, they don’t affect taxation of Social Security benefits.

5. More opportunities for income tax bracket planning

For all taxpayers, taxable income is subject to seven different rates of tax ranging from 10% to 39.6% depending upon the amount of taxable income. Given the foregoing four potential ways of reducing taxable income and associated income tax liability, Roth IRA conversions can also reduce the income tax rates that are used to calculate income tax liability on other sources of income. This allows for more opportunities for income tax bracket planning to potentially further reduce income tax liability in one or more years.

Although it’s not income-tax related, one other potential benefit of Roth IRA conversions that shouldn’t be overlooked is their impact on the calculation of Medicare Part B premiums. Monthly Medicare Part B premiums currently range from $104.90 to $335.70 depending upon tax filing status and the amount of modified adjusted gross income from two years ago. Roth IRA distributions aren’t included in the calculation of adjusted gross income. As such, they don’t affect the amount of Medicare Part B premiums paid.

As you can see, assuming (a) you can get over the hurdle of prepaying a portion of your income tax liability when you do Roth IRA conversions and (b) you have sufficient nonretirement funds to pay the tax, this can create several tax reduction opportunities as well as a potential reduction of Medicare Part B premiums throughout your retirement years. These benefits, combined with the ability to eliminate taxation on the growth of Roth IRA accounts, can result in greater and longer-lasting after-tax retirement income compared to not doing any Roth IRA conversions.

Categories
Deferred Income Annuities Longevity Insurance Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract (QLAC) Retirement Income Planning

Don’t Expect to See QLAC’s Soon

One of the most exciting retirement income planning opportunities since the elimination of the Roth IRA conversion income threshold in 2010 has been approved, however, it isn’t available yet for purchase.

For those of you who may not be familiar with the change in Roth IRA conversion eligibility rules, prior to 2010, only taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income of less than $100,000 were eligible to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. With the elimination of the income threshold, Roth IRA conversions have soared in popularity since anyone may convert part, or all, of his/her traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. See Year of the Conversion to learn more.

The most recent potential retirement income planning game-changer, qualified longevity annuity contracts, or “QLAC’s,” have received a fair amount of press since the Treasury and IRS finalized a regulation in the beginning of July blessing their use. I have personally written two other articles about them, beginning with 6 Ways a New Tax Law Benefits a Sustainable Retirement published July 25th in the RetireMentors section of MarketWatch and my August 4th Retirement Income Visions™ blog post, You Don’t Have to Wait Until 85 to Receive Your Annuity Payments.

What are QLAC’s?

QLAC’s came about in response to increasing life expectancies and the associated fear of outliving one’s assets. With the passage of IRS’ final regulation, retirement plan participants can now invest up to the lesser of $125,000 or 25% of their retirement plan balance in specially-designated deferred income annuities, or “DIA’s,” that provide that lifetime distributions begin at a specified date no later than age 85. Unlike single premium immediate annuities, or “SPIA’s,” that begin distributing their income immediately after investment, the start date for DIA income payments is deferred for at least 12 months after the date of purchase.

As discussed in my July 25th MarketWatch article, QLAC’s offer a new planning opportunity to longevitize your retirement in six different ways. While longevity is the driving force for QLAC’s, the income tax planning angle, which is the first possibility, has been attracting the lion’s share of media attention. Specifically, QLAC’s provide retirement plan participants with the ability to circumvent the required minimum distribution, or “RMD,” rules for a portion of their retirement plan assets. These rules require individuals to take annual minimum distributions from their retirement plans beginning by April 1st of the year following the year that they turn 70-1/2.

Where Do I Buy a QLAC?

I’ve had several people ask me recently, “Where do I buy a QLAC?” Unlike the Roth IRA conversion opportunity that expanded the availability of an existing planning strategy from a limited audience to anyone who owns a traditional IRA with the elimination of the $100,000 income barrier beginning on a specified date, i.e., January 1, 2010, the implementation of IRS’ QLAC regulation is much more complicated. This is resulting in an unknown introduction date for QLAC offerings.

There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the nature of the product itself. First and foremost, although an existing product, i.e., a deferred income annuity, or “DIA,” will initially be used as the funding mechanism for QLAC’s, the contracts for DIA’s that are currently available don’t necessarily comply with all of the various provisions of IRS’ new QLAC regulation. While the three mentioned are the most important, i.e., (1) Only available for use in retirement plans, (2) limitation of lesser of $125,000 or 25% of retirement plan balance, and (3) distributions must begin at a specified date no later than age 85, there are other technical requirements that must be met in order for a DIA to be marketed and sold as a QLAC.

In addition to understanding and complying with the nuances of the IRS regulation, life insurance carriers that want to offer QLAC’s are scrambling to restructure existing DIA products and develop new products that will (a) match consumers’ needs, (b) be competitive, and (c) meet profit objectives. This requires a host of system and other internal changes, state insurance department approvals, and coordination with distribution channels, all of which must occur before life insurance companies will receive their first premiums from sales of this product.

Another important obstacle to the introduction of QLAC’s is the fact that fixed income annuities with deferred income start dates, including DIA’s and fixed index annuities, or “FIA’s,” with income riders, are a relatively new product to which many consumers haven’t been exposed. While both products are designed, and are suitable, for use in retirement income plans, most investment advisors don’t currently have the specialized education, licensing, and experience to understand, let alone offer, these solutions to their clients. See What Tools Does Your Financial Advisor Have in His or Her Toolbox?

So when will you be able to purchase QLAC’s? Although current speculation is that product launch may begin in the fourth quarter of this year, it’s my personal opinion that widespread availability will not occur until well into 2015. This will give investment advisers and consumers, alike, additional time to get more educated about fixed income annuities, including their place in retirement income plans. Once the word spreads, I believe that the demand for fixed income annuities will increase significantly, especially if the timing is preceded by a stock market decline.

Categories
Celebration

Retirement Income Visions Celebrates 4-Year Anniversary!

Thanks to my clients, subscribers, and other readers, Retirement Income Visions™ is celebrating its four-year anniversary. Retirement Income Visions™ published a weekly post each Monday morning beginning four years ago through and including the March 11, 2013 post.

Beginning with the March 25, 2013 post, Retirement Income Visions™ changed to a biweekly publication schedule. This was in response to my acceptance of another retirement income planning writing gig as a Wall Street Journal MarketWatch RetireMentors contributor. I continue to do all my writing on Saturday mornings, enabling me to fulfill my primary goal of providing outstanding, timely service to my clients.

Even with its reduced publication schedule, Retirement Income Visions™ continues to boast a fair number of followers. It has had over 72,000 pageviews in its four years of publication, including over 4,000 in the last 30 days.

In addition to becoming a RetireMentors contributor, I further distinguished myself as a retirement income planning expert when I became one of the first recipients of the Retirement Income Certified Professional® (RICP®) designation from The American College on July 1st. The RICP® educational curricula is the most complete and comprehensive program available to professional financial advisors looking to help their clients create sustainable retirement income.

This past year, Retirement Income Visions™ deviated from its themed approach whereby it historically featured a long stretch of weekly posts focusing on a single retirement income planning strategy. After completing a lengthy series of weekly posts about fixed index and deferred income annuities from August 20, 2012 through November 5, 2012, I began mixing it up with a variety of educational topics.

The November 12, 2012 post, The Smooth COLA, straightened out some misconceptions about Social Security retirement benefit cost of living adjustments. The November 19, 2012 post, Black Friday – Think Roth IRA Conversion, proved to be a very timely post for those who did Roth IRA conversions at that time since they have benefited from a 23% increase in stock prices as of Friday, combined with a significant tax increase that went into effect on January 1st for higher income taxpayers.

The November 26, 2012 through December 17, 2012 posts featured two two-part miniseries about two important Social Security topics, Social Security as a deferred income annuity and considerations when choosing a Social Security starting age.

The January 7, 2013 post, The 2013 Tax Law Schizophrenic Definition of Income – Part 1, was timely, as it was quoted extensively and linked in Robert Powell’s MarketWatch January 11, 2013 Now is the Time for Tax-Efficient Investments article. The January 7th post and the January 14th, 21st, and February 4th posts, which included Part 2 of the January 7th post and a two-part miniseries, New Tax Law – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog, provided readers with a comprehensive understanding of the new tax laws that went into effect on January 1st.

The next four posts, beginning with the February 11, 2013 post, The Almost Irrevocable Retirement Income Planning Decision, through the March 4, 2013 post, Insure Your Longevity Risk with Social Security, featured a series of four timely Social Security topics.

Retirement Income Visions™ really began mixing it up, beginning with the March 11, 2013 post, Consider the Future Purchase Option When Buying Long-Term Care Insurance, through the July 29, 2013 post, Immediate Annuities – Where’s the Planning? The eleven posts in this stretch presented a number of different topics, including long-term care insurance, retirement income planning considerations and strategies, fixed index and immediate annuities, Medicare, longevity insurance, budgeting, and personal financial management systems.

As I’ve traditionally done in previous “anniversary” posts, I would like to conclude this post by thanking all of my readers for taking the time to read Retirement Income Visions™. Once again, a special thanks to my clients and non-clients, alike, who continue to give me tremendous and much-appreciated feedback and inspiration. Last, but not least, a big thank you to Nira, my incredible wife, for her enduring support of my blog and MarketWatch RetireMentors writing and other professional activities.

Categories
Roth IRA

Black Friday – Think Roth IRA Conversion

This Friday is Black Friday. It’s the day after Thanksgiving when major retailers open early promoting significant price reductions on lots of items. It has routinely been the busiest shopping day of the year since 2005.

There’s another major sale taking place as I write this post that’s not being publicized. It’s happening in the investment world. It’s one of those perfect storm moments when a confluence of seemingly unrelated factors occurs that results in a short-lived opportunity for those who act on it.

With the recent 1,000 point, or 8%, drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), closing at 13,593 on September 14th and finishing at 12,588 on Friday, combined with a distinct possibility of higher income tax rates in 2013, with one notable exception, this is one of those moments for individuals considering a Roth IRA conversion.

Let’s start with the exception which is the result of the last major Roth IRA conversion opportunity. In 2010, individuals who did Roth IRA conversions were given the choice of including income from their conversion on their 2010 income tax returns or deferring it. If they chose the latter, they were required to report 50% of the income on their 2011 income tax returns and 50% on their 2012 returns.

Several of my clients did sizeable conversions in 2010, choosing to defer 50% of their Roth IRA conversion income to 2011 and 50% to 2012. While these individuals have enjoyed 30% increases in the equity portion of their Roth IRA accounts since 2010 as a result of the increase in the DJIA from the 10,000 level that will never be taxed, they will also be including large amounts of income from their 2010 conversions on their 2012 income tax returns. Without offsetting losses or deductions, most of these individuals won’t be good candidates for a 2012 Roth IRA conversion.

If your 2012 taxable income is being inflated by a large amount of deferred income from a 2010 Roth IRA conversion without offsetting losses or deductions, you may not be a good candidate for a 2012 Roth IRA conversion. Assuming that you don’t fall under this exception and you haven’t already done a sizeable Roth IRA conversion in 2012, you should be evaluating this strategy as part of your 2012 year-end income tax planning. Once again, there isn’t one, but two, events that make this a potentially timely transaction depending upon your tax situation, either one of which qualifies as a potential trigger.

While it’s possible that the stock market may decline further and income tax rates may not increase in 2013, the recent significant stock market decline in and of itself presents a Roth IRA conversion opportunity. In addition to avoiding taxation on future appreciation of conversion amounts, Roth IRA conversions result in reduction of taxable IRA accounts which in turn offers two other potential benefits.

Smaller taxable IRA accounts translate to smaller required minimum distributions (“RMD’s”) and reduced taxable income beginning at age 70-1/2. In addition, to the extent that you have less taxable income, you may be able to reduce the amount of your taxable Social Security benefits, providing for a second tax reduction opportunity as well as enhanced retirement income longevity.

While you’re setting your alarm clock to take advantage of all of those Black Friday sales, don’t forget about the Roth IRA conversion sale. It may be one of those short-lived investment opportunities that you won’t see for a long time.

Categories
Annuities Celebration Income Tax Planning IRA Retirement Income Planning Roth IRA Social Security

Retirement Income Visions™ Celebrates 2-Year Anniversary!

Retirement Income Center

Thanks to all of my subscribers and other readers, Retirement Income Visions™ is celebrating its two-year anniversary. Since its debut on August 16, 2009, Retirement Income Visions™ has published a weekly post each Monday morning, the theme of which is Innovative Strategies for Creating and Optimizing Retirement Income™.

As stated in the initial post two years ago, Retirement Income Visions™ Makes Its Debut, the importance of retirement income planning as a separate and distinct discipline from traditional retirement planning was magnified during the October, 2007 – March, 2009 stock market decline. Although the stock market experienced three positive and encouraging days this past week, the market volatility the last three weeks has only served to emphasize the need for a comprehensive retirement income plan.

Add to the mix the increasing instability of the Social Security and Medicare programs and the rapid decline of traditional pensions as a source of retirement income. Not to mention increasing life expectancies, soaring health care costs, and an economic situation ripe for inflation. Retirement income planning is no longer an option – it has quickly become a downright necessity.

Since inception, Retirement Income Visions™ has used a themed approach, with several weeks of posts focusing on a relevant retirement income planning strategy. This past year was no exception. The weekly posts, together with the customized Glossary of Terms, which currently includes definitions of 99 terms to assist in the understanding of technical subject matter, has contributed to a growing body of knowledge in the relatively new retirement income planning profession.

Going back a year, the six August 16 through September 20, 2010 posts completed a 36-part series on Roth IRA conversions. This was a very timely topic with the January 1, 2010 availability of this strategy to all taxpayers regardless of income level, combined with the ability to defer 50% of the reporting of income from a 2010 Roth IRA conversion to 2011 and the other 50% to 2012.

The September 27, 2010 post, Plan for the Frays in Your Social Security Blanket, began a 25-part educational series about Social Security. The first two parts discussed some of the historical events in connection with changes to the Social Security system affecting benefit amounts and delay in the commencement of receipt of benefits. The October 11, 2010 post, Do Your Homework Before Flipping the Social Security Switch, began a five-part series regarding various considerations in connection with electing to begin receiving Social Security benefits before full retirement age (“FRA”).

The November 15, 2010 post, Wait Until 70 to Collect Social Security? examined the opposite end of the spectrum, i.e., delaying the start date of receipt of Social Security benefits. The follow-up three-part series, Pay-to-Play Social Security, presented the “do-over” strategy, a little-publicized strategy for increasing monthly benefits in exchange for repayment of cumulative retirement benefits received.

The “file and suspend” and “double dipping” strategies for potential maximization of Social Security benefits were addressed in the next two two-part posts from December 13, 2010 through January 3, 2011, Breadwinner Approaching Social Security Retirement Age? – File and Suspend and Working? Remember Your Social Security Spousal Benefit When Your Spouse Retires.

Income taxation and associated planning strategies was the subject of the subsequent respective two- and four-part January 10 through February 14, 2011 series, Say Goodbye to Up to 30% of Your Social Security Benefits and Increase Your After-Tax Social Security Benefits. The February 21, 2011 post, Remember Your Future Widow(er) in Your Social Security Plan made the point that the decision regarding the start date of Social Security Benefits, in addition to fixing the amount of your retirement benefit, may also establish the amount of your spouse’s monthly benefit.

Retirement Income Visions™ Social Security series culminated with the three-part February 28 through March 24, 2011 series, Your Social Security Retirement Asset. These three posts discussed the importance of Social Security as an asset, perhaps one’s most important asset, in addition to its inherent role as a monthly retirement income stream.

With the media’s emphasis in 2010 on the two-year deferral of inclusion of income from a 2010 Roth IRA conversion as the motivating factor for pursuing this planning technique, I felt that there wasn’t enough attention given to the potential long-term economic benefits available through use of this investment strategy. Roth IRA Conversions – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog began a six-part series on this important topic on March 21, 2011 that ran through April 25, 2011. The May 2 and May 9, 2011 Roth IRA Conversion Insights two-part series followed up the Roth IRA conversion economic benefit discussion.

The importance of nonretirement assets in connection with retirement income planning was discussed in the May 9, 2011 Roth IRA Conversions Insights post as well as the May 23 and May 30, 2011 respective posts, Nonretirement Investments – The Key to a Successful Retirement Income Plan and Nonretirement vs. Retirement Plan Investments – What is the Right Mix? This was followed up with two posts on June 6 and 13, 2011 regarding traditional retirement funding strategies, Sizeable Capital Loss Carryover? Rethink Your Retirement Plan Contributions and To IRA or Not to IRA?

The June 20 and June 27, 2011 posts, Do You Have a Retirement Income Portfolio? and Is Your Retirement Income Portfolio Tax-Efficient? addressed the need for every retirement income plan to include a plan for transitioning a portion, or in some cases, all, of one’s traditional investment portfolio into a tax-efficient retirement income portfolio. This was followed by the July 5, 2011 timely Yet Another “Don’t Try to Time the Market” Lesson post.

The July 11, 2011 Shelter a Portion of Your Portfolio From the Next Stock Market Freefall began a new timely and relevant ongoing series about indexed annuities. This post was published just ten days before the July 21st Dow Jones Industrial Average peak of 12,724.41 that was followed by the beginning of a steady stock market decline coinciding with the final days of U.S. debt limit negotiations and Standard & Poor’s unprecedented U.S. credit rating downgrade, culminating with a closing low of 10,719.94 this past Wednesday. As implied in the titles of the July 18 and July 25, 2011 posts, Looking for Upside Potential With Downside Protection – Take a Look at Indexed Annuities and Limit Your Losses to Zero, this relatively new investment strategy has the potential to be a key defensive component of a successful retirement income plan.

As I did a year ago, I would like to conclude this post by thanking all of my readers for taking the time to read Retirement Income Visions™. Once again, a special thanks to my clients and non-clients, alike, who continue to give me tremendous and much-appreciated feedback regarding various blog posts. Last, but not least, thank you to my incredible wife, Nira. In addition to continuing to support my weekly blog-writing activities, she also endured my year-long family tree project that I recently completed. Well, sort of. Is a family tree ever completed?

Categories
Roth IRA

Roth IRA Conversion Insights – Part 2 of 2

Retirement Income Center

Last week’s post discussed the first three insights to be gained from analyzing two scenarios – one with no Roth IRA conversion and a second with a Roth IRA conversion – that were presented in the April 25, 2011 post, Roth IRA Conversions – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog – Part 6 of 6. This week’s post addresses three additional insights that can be used when confronted with a Roth IRA conversion decision.

Availability of Nonretirement Investment Assets is Essential

As we saw in the two scenarios in Part 6, the availability of nonretirement investment assets is essential (1) in meeting financial needs prior to distributions from a traditional IRA account where there will be no Roth IRA conversion and (2) in fulfilling income tax obligations related to (a) Roth IRA conversions or (b) distributions from traditional IRA accounts in the case of non-conversion.

In the case of nonconversion, insufficient retirement assets to (a) pay the income tax liability attributable to required minimum distributions (“RMD’s”) from traditional IRA accounts and/or (b) meet ongoing financial needs will result in larger distributions from traditional IRA accounts that will in turn result in a larger income tax liability. Per Exhibit 1 of Part 6 of Roth IRA Conversions – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog, the traditional IRA account distribution increased by 30% in the year that this occurred vs. the approximate 5% annual increases attributable to increasing RMD’s up until that point.

Whenever you do a sizeable Roth IRA conversion or series of conversions and the Roth IRA conversion income isn’t sheltered by offsetting losses and/or deductions, a sizeable income tax liability will arise. Per Exhibit 2 of Part 6, there was total Roth IRA conversion income of approximately $236,000 resulting in associated income tax liability totaling approximately $71,000, or 30% of the amount of the conversions over five years. As a result of this immediate and substantial drain of cash, when it came time for taking distributions to meet retirement needs beginning at age 65, the remaining assets in the nonretirement account could only sustain six years of withdrawals before the account was depleted.

Calculation of Projected Capital Gains and Losses is Important

While it was assumed in both scenarios that there would be no capital gains or losses in connection with withdrawals from the nonretirement investment account, the calculation of projected capital gains and losses is important to simulate real life. Unless cash is readily available, there will be a taxable transaction any time that a withdrawal is taken from a nonretirement investment account. As we saw in Exhibits 1 and 2, this will occur in the following three situations:

  1. Income tax liability attributable to a Roth IRA conversion or series of conversions
  2. Ongoing distributions to meet retirement needs
  3. Income tax liability attributable to distributions from traditional IRA accounts

Depending upon the value vs. cost basis of the assets that are liquidated to generate the cash for the withdrawal, there will either be a capital gain or a capital loss. Furthermore, capital gains will either be short- or long-term depending upon how long the assets were held before they were sold, with the latter resulting in favorable tax treatment. To the extent that net capital gains are generated, additional withdrawals from nonretirement accounts will be required to pay the income tax liability attributable to the gains. On the other hand, annual net capital losses in excess of $3,000 can be carried forward to offset future years’ capital gains.

Worst Case Assumptions Should Always be Used

Given the fact that, per insight #1 of Part 1 that actual results are likely to be different than projected results, worst case assumptions should always be used in the preparation of any Roth vs. non-Roth IRA conversion analysis. While there’s a natural tendency to use current interest, inflation, and income tax rates in all projection years since we’re familiar with these rates and it’s easy to do, there’s a strong likelihood that the projected results will be flawed, especially given today’s historic low rates for all three of these items. While many of my readers may not be old enough, I remember 15% interest and 13% inflation rates when I reentered the working world after receiving my MBA in 1980.

In addition to using worst case assumptions, multiple Roth vs. non Roth IRA projections should be prepared to simulate a wide range of possibilities. Having said this, you don’t want to prepare so many projections that you suffer from analysis paralysis.

I hope that the six-part Roth IRA Conversions – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog plus this two-part Roth IRA Conversion Insights series enables you to look at Roth IRA conversions from a new perspective.

Categories
Roth IRA

Roth IRA Conversion Insights – Part 1 of 2

Retirement Income Center

Last week’s post completed a six-part series discussing the three primary benefits to be derived from a Roth IRA conversion: (1) elimination of taxation on 100% of the growth of Roth IRA conversion assets, (2) elimination of exposure to required minimum distributions on traditional IRA funds converted to a Roth IRA, and (3) potential reduction in taxation of Social Security benefits.

Part 6, the finale of the series worked through two comprehensive scenarios – one with no Roth IRA conversion and a second with a Roth IRA conversion – to determine which one was projected to result in more total investment assets throughout the life of the scenario. As emphasized in the post, the results of the two scenarios cannot be generalized and used as the basis for determining whether a Roth IRA conversion is appropriate in a particular situation. Furthermore, a detailed analysis needs to be prepared by a retirement income planner for every potential Roth IRA conversion situation.

Having said this, there are several insights to be gained from analyzing the two scenarios that can be applied to any potential Roth IRA conversion analysis. This post will discuss the first three with next week’s post addressing three others.

Actual Results are Likely to be Different Than Projected Results

By far, the most important insight to keep in mind going into any Roth IRA conversion analysis is that actual results are likely to be different than projected results. Without listing them individually, the multitude of assumptions that must be considered and the interaction between them is the reason for this. Contributing to the complexity and uncertainty is the lengthy timeframe that needs to be considered in most situations with the associated potential for multiple changes in the realization of each assumption. In addition, the timeframe needs to include spouses’ and other potential beneficiaries’ lifetimes when applicable.

Multi-Year Income Tax Planning is Critical

When I read, or attend presentations, about Roth IRA conversions, the importance of marginal income tax rates in the year(s) of conversion(s) and the years of distribution from traditional IRA accounts is often emphasized as one of the key factors in a Roth IRA conversion analysis. When I entered the tax profession in 1980 and the top marginal federal income tax rate was 70%, did I know that by 1987, the top rate would be slashed to 38.5% and would stay within three percentage points of this rate for at least the next 25 years with today’s top rate of 35% scheduled to remain in effect through 2012? While a strong argument can be made that a tax increase is inevitable given our huge federal budget deficit, no one knows for certain when this will occur or what future tax rates will be.

It’s not just about tax rates. Comprehensive multi-year income tax planning on both the “front-end” and “back-end” is critical to the success of any Roth IRA conversion analysis. Keeping in mind that a Roth IRA conversion generally shouldn’t be a one-year event, “front-end” planning should include preparation of multi-year income tax projections to determine how much of one’s contributory IRA should be converted and in which years. On the “back-end,” multi-year ongoing projections need to analyze the impact of projected required and discretionary distributions from contributory and Roth IRA accounts as well as nonqualified investment accounts in meeting one’s projected financial needs. Each “back-end” projection should include an analysis of taxable Social Security benefits. Finally, both “front-end” and “back-end” income tax projections need to consider all projected sources of income, losses, and deductions in each year.

Growth of Roth IRA Conversion Assets is Dependent on Roth IRA Conversion Timing

The number one benefit to be derived from a Roth IRA conversion, i.e., elimination of taxation on 100% of the growth of Roth IRA conversion assets, is dependent upon the timing of a Roth IRA conversion relative to stock market valuation assuming that a sizeable portion of one’s Roth IRA conversion portfolio is equity-based. In order to realize this benefit, by definition, there needs to be an increase in the value of one’s Roth IRA from the date(s) of conversion(s) to the future comparison date.

With the Dow Jones Industrial Average increasing by approximately 1,000 points, or 8%, in the past month to finish at 12,811 on Friday combined with a 100% increase, or doubling, from its close of 6,440 on March 9, 1999 a little over two years ago, the determination of the timing of a Roth IRA conversion is more difficult than it was last year at this time. Recharacterization, (see the April 19, 2010 post, Recharacterization – Your Roth IRA Conversion Insurance Policy) is a strategy that’s available for retroactively undoing a Roth IRA conversion that was done prior to a market decline if it’s implemented during a specified limited time period following a conversion.

Categories
Roth IRA

Roth IRA Conversions – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog – Part 6 of 6

Retirement Income Center

Parts 3, 4, and 5 of this six-part series discussed the three primary benefits to be derived from a Roth IRA conversion: (1) elimination of taxation on 100% of the growth of Roth IRA conversion assets, (2) elimination of exposure to required minimum distributions on traditional IRA funds converted to a Roth IRA, and (3) potential reduction in taxation of Social Security benefits.

This week’s post compares a scenario with no Roth IRA conversion to a second scenario with a Roth IRA conversion to determine which one is projected to result in more total investment assets throughout the life of the scenario. Benefit #3, i.e., potential reduction in taxation of Social Security benefits, isn’t included in the Roth IRA conversion scenario since, as stated in Part 5, this benefit is less certain than the other two and there are enough moving parts in both scenarios without including this possibility.

The decision whether or not to do a Roth IRA conversion is extremely complicated with many variables that need to be considered, a change in any one of which could significantly affect the results. Given this fact, it’s critical to understand that the results of the two scenarios presented in this blog post cannot be generalized and used as the basis for determining whether a Roth IRA conversion is appropriate for a particular situation. A detailed analysis needs to be prepared by a qualified retirement income planner for every potential Roth IRA conversion situation.

The following is a list of seven assumptions common to both scenarios:

  1. There are initially two investment accounts – a nonretirement investment account and a contributory IRA account.
  2. The scenario begins at age 50, at which time the value of each of the investment accounts is $200,000, and ends at age 85.
  3. The annual rate of return of the nonretirement and IRA accounts (contributory and Roth) is 2% and 6%, respectively.
  4. Retirement age is 65 at which time annual withdrawals of $30,000 increasing by 3% to pay for living expenses begins.
  5. There will be additional withdrawals required to pay for income tax liability attributable to the IRA withdrawals and Roth IRA conversions at an assumed combined federal and state rate of 30%.
  6. There will be annual required minimum distributions (“RMD’s”) from the contributory IRA account beginning at age 70-1/2 based on the value of the account on December 31st of the previous year using divisors obtained from the Uniform Lifetime Table.
  7. There are no capital gains in connection with withdrawals from the nonretirement investment account.

In addition to the foregoing seven assumptions, the Roth IRA conversion scenario assumes annual Roth IRA conversions of $50,000 beginning at age 50 through age 53 with a final conversion of the balance of the contributory IRA account at age 54.

Exhibit 1 assumes no Roth IRA conversion. It’s fairly straightforward from age 50 through age 64, with both investment accounts simply growing by their assumed rates of return of 2% and 6%, respectively. The annual withdrawals of $30,000 increasing by 3% begin at age 65 with the initial source of 100% of the withdrawals coming from the nonretirement investment account. The nonretirement investment account withdrawals are reduced by the contributory IRA account RMD’s beginning at age 70-1/2, the initial amount of which is projected to be approximately $24,000, however, they are increased by the income tax attributable to the IRA account withdrawals at an assumed rate of 30%. As a result, the total withdrawals from both accounts is projected to increase from approximately $34,000 at age 69 to approximately $42,000 ($18,000 + $24,000) at age 70.

When the value of the nonretirement investment account is no longer sufficient to fund the difference between the annual inflated living expenses of $30,000 and the IRA account RMD’s plus the income tax attributable to the RMD’s, which occurs beginning at age 77, additional withdrawals from the IRA account above and beyond the RMD’s are required. Per Exhibit 1, the IRA account withdrawals are projected to increase from approximately $33,000 at age 76 to $43,000 at age 77. When the nonretirement investment account is depleted at age 78, the IRA account withdrawals are projected to jump from approximately $43,000 at age 78 to approximately $57,000 at age 78. The IRA account withdrawals increase by 3% each year plus income tax at a rate of 30% until they are projected to be approximately $70,000 at age 85.

Exhibit 2 assumes a staged Roth IRA conversion, with annual conversions of $50,000 from age 50 through age 53 and a final conversion of the balance of the contributory IRA account at age 54. Unlike Exhibit 1 in which there are no withdrawals from the nonretirement investment account before age 65, annual withdrawals of $15,000 for four years plus a final projected withdrawal of approximately $11,000, for a total of $71,000, are required to pay the income tax attributable to the annual Roth IRA conversions. After age 54, there are no further withdrawals required from any of the investment accounts to pay for income taxes since (1) the contributory IRA account is depleted at age 54 as a result of the Roth IRA conversions resulting in no RMD’s or other taxable withdrawals from this account, and (2) there is no income tax attributable to withdrawals from the Roth IRA account.

Per Exhibit 2, as a result of the age 50 – 54 withdrawals from the nonretirement investment account required to pay the income tax liability attributable to the annual Roth IRA conversions and the annual living expense distributions of $30,000 increasing by 3% beginning at age 65, this account is projected to be depleted at age 70 at which time the Roth IRA account will begin to be used to fund the difference. At age 71, a projected withdrawal of approximately $36,000 is taken from the Roth IRA account. This increases by 3% per year until the projected withdrawal amount is approximately $54,000 at age 85 which is approximately $16,000 less than the contributory IRA account projected withdrawal amount at age 85 per Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 3 is a comparison of the projected investment account values at each age for the “No Roth IRA Conversion” (Exhibit 1) vs. “Roth IRA Conversion” (Exhibit 2) scenario. Given all of the assumptions used in both scenarios, the total investment value of the “No Roth IRA Conversion” scenario is projected to be greater than the “Roth IRA Conversion” scenario from age 50 through age 80, with the projected difference increasing from approximately $74,000 at age 54 following the completion of the staged Roth IRA conversion to approximately $99,000 at age 69. The projected difference decreases each year until age 81 when the total value of the “Roth IRA Conversion” assets is projected to begin to be greater than the “No Roth IRA Conversion” assets.

Once again, as stated earlier in this post, it needs to be emphasized that the results of the two scenarios presented in this blog post cannot be generalized and used as the basis for determining whether a Roth IRA conversion is appropriate for a particular situation. Furthermore, a detailed analysis needs to be prepared by a qualified retirement income planner for every potential Roth IRA conversion. Some lessons, however, can be derived from this exercise that can be applied to individual planning scenarios that will be the subject of next week’s post.

Categories
Roth IRA Social Security

Roth IRA Conversions – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog – Part 5 of 6

Retirement Income Center

Parts 3 and 4 of this series addressed the first two of three primary economic benefits associated with a Roth IRA conversion: (1) elimination of taxation on 100% of the growth of Roth IRA conversion assets and (2) elimination of exposure to required minimum distributions, with the first one being the most important and overriding reason in most cases for doing a conversion. This post discusses the third and final benefit – potential reduction in taxation of Social Security benefits.

Economic benefit #3 has intentionally been saved for last. Unlike the first two benefits which will occur provided there is an increase in the value of the Roth IRA after the conversion (benefit #1) and you live until at least age 70-1/2 and you haven’t depleted your traditional IRA (benefit #2), reduction in taxation of Social Security benefits is less certain. This is why this benefit is prefaced by the word, “potential.”

As we know from reading the two-part series, Say Goodbye to Up to 30% of Your Social Security Benefits that was published on January 10, 2011 and January 17, 2011, you can lose up to 30% of your Social Security benefits to federal income tax. Per the series, the amount of benefits subject to tax in a particular year is dependent upon four factors: (1) tax filing status, (2) total amount of Social Security benefits received, (3) adjusted gross income, and (4) tax-exempt income. Generally speaking, factor #3 is the most important one in determining the percentage of benefits that will be lost to federal income tax. The greater your adjusted gross income, or “AGI,” the more likely a larger portion of your Social Security will be eaten up by federal income tax.

Traditional IRA distributions are included in AGI. This includes both voluntary as well as required minimum distributions, or “RMD’s.” Roth IRA distributions, on the other hand, typically aren’t included in AGI since they generally aren’t taxable provided that certain rules are followed regarding the timing of distributions. Assuming that you’ve obeyed the rules, you will reduce your AGI in future years when you would have otherwise taken taxable traditional IRA distributions had you not done your Roth IRA conversion.

While a reduction in AGI doesn’t necessarily translate to a reduction in taxation of Social Security benefits, as illustrated in Exhibit 1 of Part 2 of Say Goodbye to Up to 30% of Your Social Security Benefits, there’s a very good chance that this will happen unless the total of your AGI, tax-exempt income, and 50% of your Social Security benefits exceeds several hundred thousand dollars. Per Part 1 of that series, the loss of 30% of Social Security benefits to taxation won’t occur unless you’re in the top 35% tax bracket. In 2011, the 35% bracket isn’t an issue until taxable income, i.e., AGI less itemized deductions and personal exemptions, exceeds $379,150.

Although reduction in taxation of Social Security benefits won’t occur in every situation, it should nonetheless be included as part of most Roth IRA conversion analyses.

Categories
Roth IRA

Roth IRA Conversions – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog – Part 4 of 6

Retirement Income Center

Part 3 of this series discussed the first of three primary economic benefits to be derived from a Roth IRA conversion, i.e., elimination of taxation on 100% of the growth of Roth IRA conversion assets. As emphasized in the post, this is the most important and overriding reason in most cases for doing a conversion. The other two benefits are: (1) elimination of exposure to required minimum distributions on traditional IRA funds converted to a Roth IRA and (2) potential reduction in taxation of Social Security benefits. The second benefit is this week’s topic with the third benefit being the subject of Part 5 of this series.

Even though most people generally don’t celebrate half birthdays, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided for some reason, that two particular half birthdays are crucial as they pertain to income taxation of distributions from retirement plan assets – age 59-1/2 and age 70-1/2. Congress has determined that if you take distributions from a retirement plan, e.g., 401(k) plan, traditional IRA, etc., before age 59-1/2, this is too soon. If you dare to do this, subject to specified limited exceptions, in addition to paying income tax, you will be assessed a premature distribution penalty of 10% of the amount of your distributions. You may also be subject to a state-imposed penalty which is 2-1/2 percent in California where I live.

At the other extreme, Congress has mandated that 70-1/2 is the drop-dead age by which you must begin taking annual required minimum distributions, or “RMD’s,” from your various retirement plans. Up until this age, your employers and you have benefited by income tax deductions for contributions to your retirement plans and your assets have enjoyed the much-cherished benefit of tax-deferred growth. Beginning at age 70-1/2, it’s time for the government to begin receiving its share of your retirement assets.

If you’re not doing so voluntarily, at age 70-1/2, you must begin taking annual minimum distributions from your various retirement plans based on the value of your retirement assets on December 31st of the previous year and a life expectancy factor as specified in an IRS table. To the extent that either (a) you don’t take your “RMD” in a particular year or (b) the amount of your distribution falls short of your “RMD,” you will pay dearly. IRS’ penalty in this situation is onerous – 50% of the amount that you were suppose to take less the amount that you actually withdrew.

Even though I agree with Congress’ “RMD” justification and believe that the “RMD” tables are fair since they use a life expectancy that extends to 115 years, I personally don’t want to be forced to take X dollars from my IRA account in a particular year if I (a) have other more tax-favored retirement income sources to draw from and/or (b) don’t need the amount specified by IRS to meet my financial needs.

With foresight and proper planning, there is a way to reduce, or potentially eliminate, your exposure to “RMD’s” and associated forced taxation of retirement funds. That way, of course, is to convert a portion, or all, of your traditional IRA’s, including SEP-IRA’s, to Roth IRA’s. Roth IRA accounts are not subject to the “RMD” rules during the owner’s lifetime. While it’s a wonderful goal, reduction or elimination of “RMD’s” shouldn’t be the primary reason in most situations for doing a Roth IRA conversion. Generally speaking, it won’t make sense to pay income taxes today solely for the purpose of avoiding forced taxation of the same assets beginning at age 70-1/2.

As emphasized in Part 3, elimination of taxation on 100% of the growth of Roth IRA conversion assets is the most important and overriding reason in most cases for doing a conversion. To the extent that you’re able to achieve this goal while also minimizing your “RMD” exposure, more power to you!

Categories
Roth IRA

Roth IRA Conversions – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog – Part 2 of 6

Retirement Income Center

Per last week’s post, the 2010 “tax tail wag the dog” provision that enabled 2010 Roth IRA converters to avoid inclusion of the income from their conversion on their 2010 income tax returns and instead defer 50% of it to 2011 and the other 50% to 2012 was the driving force behind many Roth IRA conversions in 2010. As stated in the post, this was despite the fact that, until the 2010 Tax Relief Act was enacted in the last two weeks of the year which left tax rates unchanged for 2011 and 2012, converters were facing potential higher tax rates in those two years on their deferred income.

When the dust settles, was it really such a big deal that you could defer 50% of the income from a 2010 conversion to 2011 and the other 50% to 2012? In certain cases, this did enable some people to have their conversion income taxed at a lower tax rate due to the splitting of their income over two years, however, in many situations, this wasn’t the result. These individuals simply received the benefit of postponing payment of 50% of their tax liability for one year and the other 50% for two years. Yes, you can earn interest on 50% of those funds for an additional year and another 50% for an additional two years, however, with our current abysmal interest rate environment, how much additional after-tax earnings will you actually receive?

Now that Roth IRA conversions are no longer “on sale,” i.e., if you do a conversion in 2011 and future years, you must report 100% of the income from your conversion in the year that you convert your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, why should you do a Roth IRA conversion? As pointed out in the February 8 and 15, 2010 posts, The Ideal Roth IRA Conversion Candidate – Parts 1 and 2, there are several specific scenarios whereby the income from a Roth IRA conversion will result in little or minimal income tax liability. These specific fact patterns, once they are recognized, analyzed, and determined to be applicable to one’s situation, translate into slam-dunk Roth IRA conversion opportunities.

Assuming that you aren’t an “ideal Roth IRA conversion candidate,” why should you derail the investment growth of your nonretirement assets and instead use these valuable funds to pay income tax today on the income from a voluntary IRA distribution that you wouldn’t otherwise be required to pay for many years down the road in a lot of cases? After all, isn’t one of the basic guiding income tax principles that has been engrained in all of us from our earliest tax planning days is to defer income and associated taxation as long as possible? The answer to this question is yes – in most cases. The exception is when the projected long-term economic benefits from an alternative course of action exceed the projected benefits to be derived from not pursuing that course of action.

In the case of a Roth IRA conversion, what are the potential long-term economic benefits? There are three primary benefits to be derived, with the first one being the most important and overriding reason in most cases for doing a conversion: (1) elimination of taxation on 100% of the growth of Roth IRA conversion assets, (2) elimination of exposure to required minimum distributions on traditional IRA funds converted to a Roth IRA, and (3) potential reduction in taxation of Social Security benefits.

Benefit #1 will be discussed in Part 3 of this post, with the other two benefits being the subject of Parts 4 and 5, respectively. Part 6 will work through an example to demonstrate how the potential economic benefits to be derived from a Roth IRA conversion compare to the upfront cost, or tax liability, associated with a conversion.

Categories
Roth IRA

Roth IRA Conversions – Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Dog – Part 1 of 6

Retirement Income Center

I’m always amazed at how many people are motivated solely by tax incentives when it comes to investment decisions, paying little attention to, and in many cases, completely ignoring the potential long-term economic benefits that should be the driving force behind implementation of any investment strategy. With 2010 behind us, I can safely say that the Roth IRA conversion decision definitely falls in the “tax tail wag the dog” category.

Although the jury is still out on how many 2010 Roth IRA conversions will stick due to the ability to recharacterize, or undo, a Roth IRA conversion by the tax return due date (April 18, 2011), plus extension (October 17, 2011), of the conversion year, 2010 should turn out to be a banner year for Roth IRA conversions. The last time that Roth IRA conversions received so much attention was in their debut year in 1998 when the IRS allowed you to spread the tax from a conversion over four years.

So, even though the ability to do a Roth IRA conversion has been around since 1998, what was different about 2010 that drove more people than usual to consider, and actually transfer, a portion, or all in many cases, of their traditional IRA accounts into Roth IRA accounts? Two things: (1) Before 2010, only taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) of less than $100,000 were able to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. With the removal of this threshold in 2010, everyone with a traditional IRA account became eligible to do a Roth IRA conversion. (2) The “tax tail wave the dog” provision that enabled 2010 converters to avoid inclusion of the income from their conversion on their 2010 income tax returns and instead defer 50% of it to 2011 and the other 50% to 2012. As a matter of fact, this is the default. In order to report the income from a 2010 conversion on your 2010 tax return, you’re required to make an election to do so by checking a box on Line 19 of Part II of Form 8606 – Nondeductible IRAs when you file your 2010 income tax return.

While the $100,000 modified adjusted gross income change opened the door to more converters, this change, in and of itself, wasn’t, and shouldn’t continue to be, a reason for higher income individuals to do a conversion. Even though I labeled factor #2 the “tax tail wag the dog” provision, when you examine it closer, it was actually a potential tax trap for many individuals at the time it came into being. Prior to the enactment of the 2010 Tax Relief Act on December 17th, marginal income tax rates were scheduled to increase from 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent to 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent. Consequently, up until the last two weeks of 2010, even though 2010 conversion income could be deferred to 2011 and 2012, it appeared that it would be subject to higher tax rates in many cases unless an election was made to report the income in 2010.

It’s ironic that many people who did conversions before the 2010 Tax Relief Act was enacted were motivated solely by the ability to defer the inclusion of their conversion income from 2010 to 2011 and 2012. When faced with the prospect of higher tax rates beginning in 2011, many of these individuals should have instead been prompted to do their conversions in 2010 due to the fact that they could take advantage of lower tax rates by electing to report the income from their conversions on their 2010 income tax return.

So what are the long-term economic benefits of a Roth IRA conversion that should have overridden any potential tax incentives in 2010 and should continue to do so in 2011 and in future years? You’ll have to wait until next week when you read Part 2 of this post to find out.

Categories
Income Tax Planning Social Security

Increase Your After-Tax Social Security Benefits – Part 3 of 4

Retirement Income Center

Since it’s Super Bowl Sunday as I write this post, let’s discuss strategy as it pertains to winning the Social Security benefit game. If you want to be successful at increasing your after-tax Social Security benefits, you need to have a winning strategy. Hopefully you read Part 1 of this post and if you’re not yet receiving benefits, you’ve begun to implement your pre-benefit receipt game plan.

Once you’ve begun receiving your retirement benefits, there are two halves to winning the game when it comes to increasing after-tax benefits: (1) reduce taxable benefits, and (2) reduce the tax attributable to your benefits. If you’ve read Parts 1 and 2 and/or the previous two-part Say Goodbye to Up to 30% of Your Social Security Benefits series, you know that reduction of taxable benefits is all about minimizing the three components of “combined income,” i.e., (1) 50% of Social Security benefits, (2) adjusted gross income, and (3) tax-exempt income. Components #1 and #3 were addressed in Part 2.

Let’s turn our attention to component #2 – adjusted gross income, or “AGI.” As defined in Retirement Income Visions‘ Glossary, “adjusted gross income” is equal to gross income from taxable sources less deductions from gross income that are allowable even if you don’t itemize deductions. To the extent that you’re able to (a) reduce your gross income from taxable sources and/or (b) increase your deductions from gross income, you will reduce the amount of your adjusted gross income and, in turn, reduce your “combined income.”

Reduce Gross Income From Taxable Sources

Even though you can reduce your taxable Social Security benefits by reducing your gross income, why would you want to do this? After all, don’t you want to maximize your salary, self-employment income, pension income, rental income, partnership income, interest and dividend income, capital gains, etc.? Absolutely — with a caveat. Your goal should always be to maximize cash flow while minimizing taxable income. For those of you who receive annual Schedule K-1’s from entities in which you are a partner, shareholder, or limited liability company member, you know that quite often there’s a difference between what shows up on your K-1 as taxable income vs. the cash distributions you receive.

How do you reduce your gross income when you’re receiving Social Security benefits without negatively impacting your cash flow? Here are six ways to do this:

  • For taxable investments, i.e., nonretirement accounts, invest in immediate and/or deferred income annuities since a portion (sometimes substantial) of the distributions will be nontaxable.
  • Sell assets with unrealized losses to offset capital gains recognized earlier in the year.
  • Minimize distributions in excess of required minimum distributions (“RMD’s”) from self-managed non-Roth IRA retirement plans.
  • Minimize taxable Roth IRA conversions.
  • If you have net rental income from your rental property(ies), transfer mortgage balances from your home to one or more of your rental properties to increase your rental property interest deduction up to the amount of your net rental income. Even though your overall mortgage interest deduction may be unchanged, you may be able to reduce your taxable Social Security benefits.
  • Look for opportunities to sell properties that have passive activity loss carry forwards in order to recognize the losses.

Increase Deductions From Gross Income

When we think of tax deductions, what comes to mind most often are “itemized deductions,” including mortgage interest, real estate taxes, charitable contributions, etc. While these types of deductions reduce taxable income, they don’t reduce adjusted gross income. Although the opportunities in this area are limited, and assuming you’re not paying alimony, here’s three possibilities:

  • If you’re less than 70-1/2, maximize your IRA deduction.
  • If you’re self-employed, maximize your self-employed pension plan, i.e., SEP-IRA deduction.
  • If you’re not eligible for Medicare, establish and maximize contributions to a health savings account (“HSA”).

By the time you read this post, Super Bowl Sunday will be a memory. If you’re receiving Social Security benefits, your game and associated battle to reduce the taxation of your benefits is ongoing. Do you have a winning strategy in place to maximize your after-tax Social Security benefits?

Categories
Annuities Income Tax Planning Retirement Income Planning Roth IRA Social Security

Increase Your After-Tax Social Security Benefits – Part 1 of 4

Retirement Income Center

The last two posts, Say Goodbye to Up to 30% of Your Social Security Benefits – Parts 1 and 2 discussed taxation of Social Security benefits. As explained in both posts, up to 50% or 85% of Social Security benefits can be taxable depending upon the amount of one’s “combined income” (50% of Social Security benefits plus adjusted gross income increased by tax-exempt income) compared to specified thresholds that are dependent upon one’s tax filing status (i.e., single, head of household, married filing separate, or married filing joint) and one’s tax rates.

Although, as pointed out in last week’s post, taxation of Social Security benefits has been a thorn in Congress’ side ever since it came into being in 1984, it appears that it’s here to stay. Income taxation of Social Security benefits can be reduced or, in some cases, eliminated, in one or more years with proper planning. While much of the planning is ongoing throughout the years that one is collecting benefits, there are several opportunities that should be analyzed and potentially implemented beginning in one’s 40’s, many years before the receipt of one’s first Social Security check. This post focuses on pre-benefit receipt planning and Parts 2, 3, and 4 address planning strategies during the Social Security benefit receipt years.

Before discussing strategies that can be implemented to reduce taxation of Social Security benefits, let me make clear one strategy that generally isn’t effective. Although it hasn’t been given as much attention the last several years in our low-interest rate environment, income tax and investment planning strategies often include an analysis of after-tax return returns from taxable vs. tax-exempt investments. As mentioned in the previous two posts as well as the beginning of this one, “combined income,” which is the starting point for calculating taxable Social Security benefits, is increased by tax-exempt income. As a result, assuming that your goal is to reduce taxable Social Security benefits, other than the fact that the amount of income from a tax-exempt investment is generally less than the income from a similar taxable investment, inclusion of tax-exempt investments as part of your investment portfolio won’t be of much benefit to you.

Perhaps one of the greatest opportunities for reducing taxable Social Security benefits and ongoing associated taxation of same that can be implemented beginning 20 or more years before the receipt of one’s first Social Security check is a Roth IRA conversion or series of conversions over several years. This strategy was featured in the March 15, 2010 post, Want to Reduce Taxable Social Security Benefits? Consider a Roth IRA Conversion as part of Retirement Income Visions™ extensive Roth IRA conversion series.

As discussed in that post, to the extent that a Roth IRA conversion reduces the amount remaining in your traditional IRA, your required minimum distributions (“RMD’s”) that you must take from your traditional IRA’s beginning when you turn 70-1/2 will be reduced. Reduced RMD’s result in less “combined income” which can reduce the amount of taxable Social Security benefits and can also reduce the marginal tax rate that is applied to the taxable portion of your benefits, resulting in less taxes. It’s important to keep in mind that this strategy, in order to be effective, needs to be implemented before receipt of Social Security benefits. To the extent that it is executed while one is receiving benefits, it will generally increase taxable income and taxation of benefits.

Another strategy than can be implemented well before receipt of Social Security is investment in one or more non-qualified (i.e., not within an IRA or other retirement plan) deferred income annuities, or “DIAs”. For an introduction to this powerful retirement income planning investment strategy, please refer to the November 23, 2009 post, Deferred Income Annuities: The Sizzle in a Retirement Income Plan. When structured as a nonqualified annuity, there are two potential ways that DIAs can be used to reduce taxation of Social Security benefits. First, the payout start and end dates from one or more DIAs can be selected to plan for the amount of income that will be paid out to reduce taxation of Social Security benefits. Secondly, a portion, sometimes very sizeable, of DIA payouts from nonqualified investments are tax-favored since they aren’t subject to income taxation by virtue of an “exclusion ratio.” Furthermore, unlike tax-exempt investment income, the portion that is excluded isn’t added back to “combined income” when calculating taxable Social Security benefits.

Permanent life insurance is another strategy that can be implemented many years before receipt of Social Security retirement benefits to reduce taxation of those benefits. To the extent that there is build-up of cash value within whole life, universal life, or variable universal life insurance policies, this cash value, when not subject to modified endowment contract, or “MEC,” taxation rules, can be distributed either through loans and/or withdrawals during one’s retirement years, often with little or no associated income taxation. To the extent that this is achieved, this will favorably affect taxation of Social Security benefits.

When you get into your later 50’s and get closer to the earliest potential start date for receipt of your Social Security benefits, i.e., age 62, a key Social Security tax-reduction strategy that has been discussed extensively in several of the Social Security posts beginning with the October 4, 2010 post, Plan for the Frays in Your Social Security Blanket – Part 2 of 2, is the choice of benefit start date for you and your spouse if married. While a delay in start date can result in increased total benefits received during one’s lifetime, it will also result in delay of taxation of benefits as well as potential increased after-tax benefits once commencement of benefits occurs.