Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Investing

Q&A: Beware the insurance salesperson in financial planner’s clothing

By

Dear Liz: Do you have any general advice for choosing a tax preparer? My financial advisor has recommended switching my 403(b) contributions over to Roth 403(b) with the same investment plan. I am worried that this could put us at risk for a higher tax bracket currently.

Answer: Ideally, a financial advisor wouldn’t recommend switching to a Roth option without knowing a fair amount about your current and future tax situations. Otherwise, the advisor wouldn’t be qualified to determine whether giving up the current tax break is likely to pay off later.

Unfortunately, not all financial advisors are truly qualified to give the advice they do. Some, particularly those advising people about 403(b) investments, are insurance salespeople rather than fiduciary financial planners.

You can get referrals to tax pros from the National Assn. of Enrolled Agents and your state’s chapter of certified public accountants. (The American Institute of CPAs has compiled a list of those at its website.) Both enrolled agents and CPAs are fiduciaries who promise to put your best interests first.

For broader financial advice, consider getting referrals from one of the organizations representing fee-only fiduciary planners such as the Garrett Planning Network, the XY Planning Network, the National Assn. of Personal Financial Advisors and the Alliance of Comprehensive Planners.

Also, teachers should consider spending some time on the nonprofit 403bwise website, which grades school districts’ retirement plans and seeks to educate teachers about the costs of trusting the wrong people.

Q&A: He’s held stocks for decades. Should he sell before he dies?

By

Dear Liz: My father-in-law, age 100, has more than $1 million in stocks and bonds purchased in the 1980s and 1990s. With the stock market so high, I have suggested that he might want to sell the investments, take the tax hit and consolidate into short-term certificates of deposit or similar. This would make it easier for his family to manage (in trust) upon his death. Does this make sense or do we leave it alone?

Answer: Selling now means your father-in-law would have to pay a substantial and perhaps unnecessary tax bill on the gains he’s incurred over the years. If he instead leaves those assets to his heirs at his death, most likely no tax would be owed on the gains.

There are some exceptions, such as if the investments are held in retirement accounts or an irrevocable trust. But investments held in revocable trusts, such as living trusts, should qualify for the favorable step-up in basis that would eliminate the taxable capital gain at his death.

Yes, there’s always a risk that the markets could drop — but they would have to drop pretty far to wipe out all his gains, assuming he’s got a reasonably diversified portfolio. A fee-only, fiduciary financial planner could review the portfolio and offer recommendations about any changes that might be needed, while a tax pro could discuss potential strategies for minimizing the tax bill.

Q&A: Closing the case on the couple moving into their rental property

By

Dear Liz: You recently answered a question from a couple who wanted to move into their rental property, make it their primary residence and use the $500,000 home sale exclusion if they sold the property after living there for two years. You should have made it clearer that not all of the gains on the property would qualify for the exclusion.

Answer: Quite right. In 2008, Congress closed the loophole that allowed people to exclude all the gains when they turn rental property into their primary residence. So the couple would not be able to count the gain that occurred between 2009 and whenever they move in. They would, however, be allowed to include the gain from 1988, when they bought the property, through 2008, as well as any increase in value after they move in if they live in the house at least two years, says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting.

In some parts of the country, there may not be enough gains from those two periods to qualify for the full $250,000-per-owner exclusion, especially after accounting for the depreciation recapture, which requires landlords to pay back the depreciation tax break when they sell a rental property.

In higher-cost areas, however, there still could be more than $500,000 of qualifying gains, Luscombe says.

Q&A: I need new wheels. What’s the best way to pay for them?

By

Dear Liz: Is it better to buy a car with saved money or finance the $25,000 needed? In my case I will have to sell stocks. Maybe this is a good time to do that since things look like they are taking a turn in the stock market.

Answer: Borrowing money can make sense when the asset you’re buying is likely to increase in value. For example, a mortgage could allow you to purchase a home that will appreciate over time, and a student loan could help increase your earning power.

Borrowing money makes less sense when you’re buying something that’s all but guaranteed to lose value, such as a car. Many people don’t have enough cash to pay for a reliable vehicle, of course, so financing is their best option. If you do have a choice, however, cash is best.

Selling stocks can help you raise cash, of course, but probably will incur a tax bill. Also, stocks are meant to be a long-term investment, and you really can’t time the market. Yes, your shares may decline, but they could also rise, and historically they have done so over time.

If you don’t have cash savings but do have stocks that aren’t earmarked for another cause, such as retirement, then you might consider selling enough stocks to pay for the car and the tax bill. For your next car, though, consider saving up for the purchase in a high-yield savings account.