Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: Timing matters with estimated tax payments

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: Your recent column about how to distribute estimated tax payments over the year (equal versus backend loaded) may have missed an important nuance. Your answer regarding the Form 2220 safe harbor is correct and would apply if the taxpayer’s income were retirement fund distributions. As I read the query, however, it’s possible (perhaps likely?) that the year-end distributions are from a taxable brokerage account. In that case, even absent intra-year distributions to the taxpayer, the dividends appearing in the account are deemed constructively received when paid by the portfolio companies into the brokerage account.

I can understand how an IRS agent would simply argue for equal payments. And I similarly understand that a competent accountant would know the safe harbor rules. It’s impossible to know which of them is correct here from the letter as printed.

Answer: My answer relied on guidance from Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting, and he says that you have a point.

The original writer stated that they received the majority of their income at the end of the year, and most of it was dividends from their brokerage account. The writer had been told by an IRS agent that estimated tax payments were due throughout the year, while the writer’s accountant contended that wasn’t necessary. The writer didn’t specify whether it was a taxable or retirement account or when the dividends were actually paid into the account.

Luscombe assumed that the dividends were received at the end of the year, but the writer could have meant that dividends were only withdrawn then.

If the account is a qualified retirement brokerage account, it wouldn’t matter when the dividends were paid, only when the withdrawal was made, Luscombe notes. If it’s a taxable account receiving dividends throughout the year, then the IRS agent would be correct that the dividends would be taxable based on when they were received into the account.

Q&A: Should I consider Roth conversions now or after I retire?

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: My husband and I both waited until age 70 to start Social Security. I will be 72 in September and am considering retirement. My husband is retired, 74, and taking required minimum distributions (RMDs). We have always tried to maximize contributions to our pre-tax retirement accounts and are now realizing the downside as we pay taxes on those mandatory withdrawals. Should I consider Roth conversions now or after I retire? I realize I will need to pay taxes on those conversions, but would it be best to do that when my income is lower? I am thinking about my kids and their future.

Answer: Late-in-life Roth conversions can be tricky. The amount you convert is removed from RMD calculations, lowering future tax bills. But the conversion is added to your current taxable income, potentially making more of your Social Security taxable and temporarily raising your Medicare premiums (thanks to income-related monthly adjustment amounts or IRMAA) in addition to generating a big tax bill.

Theoretically, a conversion could still make sense if your current tax rate is lower than the one you’ll have once you start required minimum distributions at 73. The case for conversion is strengthened if you want to pass this money to your kids. They likely would have to empty any inherited retirement account within 10 years, and they could be in their peak earning (and tax-paying) years when they do so. By converting now, you would in effect be paying the tax bill for them, perhaps at a lower rate than they might face, and allowing them to inherit the money tax-free.

A tax pro can help you with the calculations so you’ll understand the financial impact of a conversion. Then you can make an informed decision about whether to proceed.

Q&A: Am I eligible for my ex-husband’s Social Security?

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: My ex-husband and I were married for 10 years. I married again, but am now a widow. I was told I could collect benefits on my prior marriage when my ex-husband passes. But, now that I’m a widow, I am wondering if I’m eligible to collect on my ex-husband’s record, though he is living. I’m currently getting my late husband’s benefit.

Answer: You could be entitled to a divorced spousal benefit based on your ex’s earning’s record. The divorced spousal benefit could be up to half of your ex’s benefit at his full retirement age. You would only collect that amount if it was greater than what you are currently receiving, however. You can call Social Security to check if you’re entitled to a larger benefit.

To recap: Survivor benefits are up to 100% of what the primary worker received at their death, while spousal benefits are up to half of what the (still living) primary worker would receive at full retirement age. Someone who is divorced can be entitled to benefits based on their ex’s’ work records if the marriage lasted at least 10 years.

Q&A: How are IRA withdrawals taxed?

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I’m aware that assets held in tax-advantaged accounts, such as an IRA or 401(k), avoid capital gains taxes on the sale of an asset. However, will those capital gains taxes have to be paid later when it is time to withdraw money from those accounts? If yes, can I offset it with any capital losses?

Answer: Traditional retirement accounts such as IRAs or 401(k)s change how investment gains are taxed. You don’t pay tax when investments within the accounts are sold, but withdrawals from the account are typically taxed as ordinary income, not as capital gains. So you won’t have an opportunity to directly offset capital gains with losses as you would with nonretirement accounts.

However, if your losses exceed your gains in your nonretirement accounts, you can use up to $3,000 of capital losses to offset ordinary income each year. Any remaining losses can be carried forward to the next year where it’s rinse and repeat: capital losses offset capital gains, with up to $3,000 of any remaining loss used to offset ordinary income. This goes on until the losses are finally used up.

Q&A: What exchange rate do credit cards use?

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: Are the card companies required to use a certain exchange rate for foreign transactions? I’ve used two different cards for purchases abroad, and the one that charges a fee used a better exchange rate so the total cost to me, including the fee, was less. How can I find out what exchange rates are used?

Answer: Credit card issuers can choose the exchange rates they use, although many employ the rates selected by their payment networks, such as Visa or MasterCard. These rates are typically close to the wholesale interbank rate.

Issuers can also choose when to make the exchange. The issuer may use the rate in effect when the transaction is processed, for example, which may be different from the time of purchase. So even if you used the two cards the same day, you might not get comparable exchange rates.

You can find more information about how your cards process foreign transactions in the cardmember agreement you received when you got the card. If you no longer have that document, you can request the issuer mail it to you or check the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s credit card agreement database.

Since most issuers use near-wholesale exchange rates, travel experts typically recommend using credit cards without foreign transaction fees to save money. You should also be wary of “dynamic conversion” — the offer you often get at the point of sale to have the transaction processed in your home currency rather than the local currency. Dynamic conversion rates are typically terrible with big markups, so always choose the local currency.

Q&A: Should you pay for a financial plan before hiring an advisor?

By 1 Comment

Dear Liz: My spouse and I are retired. We have substantial investment assets, significant cash reserves and considerable equity in our home. Over nearly 40 years together, we’ve worked with several financial advisors, but every decade or so, we’ve become dissatisfied and moved on. Now, at this stage of life, we want a clearer roadmap for the next five to 10 years and beyond.

We’ve read your columns for years and have taken your advice about fiduciary financial advisors seriously. We’re currently looking for a new independent advisor, but we’re finding that many only offer financial planning if we also hire them under an assets-under-management (AUM) arrangement. Others will provide a standalone financial plan for a flat fee prior to having a client come on board for asset management.

We feel strongly that before committing to a long-term advisor relationship, we should first get an independent, comprehensive financial plan — essentially a snapshot of where we are now and how best to move forward. Does that approach make sense? Should we prioritize paying for a standalone financial plan before deciding whether to hire someone for ongoing investment management?

Answer: As you’ve discovered, many fiduciary fee-only advisors bundle financial planning advice with investment management because AUM fees are more lucrative than charging for plans. But that doesn’t mean it’s the best approach for every client.

Paying for a financial plan means shelling out more money up front, but you’ll get the opportunity to check out the advisor’s approach, communication style and attention to detail before entrusting them with your investments. The plan should include all the usual areas such as insurance, taxes, asset allocation and estate planning, with a special emphasis on the topics that are important at your stage of life, such as sustainable withdrawal rates, paying for long-term care and protecting your assets from fraud and cognitive decline.