Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Retirement

Q&A: Can Roth conversions help reduce the widow’s penalty?

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: The letter writer who asked about Roth conversions should also consider that they or their spouse will eventually be a widow(er) and will be subject to the income tax “widow’s penalty.”

Roth conversions now protect the survivor against some of that tax bite.

Answer: The widow’s penalty refers to the higher financial burden many survivors face after losing a spouse as they change from “married filing jointly” status to “single” status.

While their incomes may drop, their taxes and other costs may rise.

Having at least some money in a tax-free account can help with this as well as a number of other situations in retirement, which is why it’s important to fund a Roth account during your working years if you can.

The main downside to Roth contributions is that you don’t get an upfront tax break for making them.

Conversions, though, are more complicated.

They trigger a tax bill and can have ripple effects, such as reducing eligibility for tax credits, financial aid or health insurance subsidies.

Late-in-life conversions can increase Medicare premiums and cause more of your Social Security checks to be taxable. That’s why conversions should only be considered after careful consultation with tax pros.

Q&A: What to do when you missed years of inherited IRA distributions

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I inherited my father’s IRA through a trust in 2010. Unbeknownst to me at the time, I’ve now found out I should have taken that money out over the following years, but I didn’t.

I turned 73 in May of this year, and I’d like advice on what I should do with that account.

Answer: Get thee to a tax pro. You’ve got some distributions to make, taxes to pay and penalties to mitigate.

Today’s rules for inherited IRAs require most non-spouse beneficiaries to empty the accounts within 10 years, thanks to the SECURE Act of 2019.

Before that, most beneficiaries could spread required minimum distributions over their own lifetimes.

Depending on the type of trust, you might have been required to take RMDs at the same pace your father was taking them. But either way, distributions were supposed to be made.

You (or better yet, your tax pro) will need to reconstruct the distributions that should have been taken since 2010, says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting.

Those distributions should be made as soon as possible, and then you (or better yet, your tax pro) can ask for relief from the possible 25% excise tax penalty that would otherwise be owed on the distributions you missed.

Your tax pro will need a copy of the trust, your dad’s date of death and the IRA’s Dec. 31 balances for every year since then.

Q&A: When a new school district has a bad retirement plan

By 2 Comments

Dear Liz: I have taught for 22 years and recently accepted a position in a neighboring school district. I have a 403(b) retirement plan invested in a low-cost target date fund. The neighboring district’s vendor list does not include this option. Would it be more advantageous to leave my money in the current account or to roll it into a brokerage with a target date fund? If so, how do I choose what’s right for me?

Answer: As a teacher, you need to be aware that many districts’ 403(b) plans are scandalously bad. Instead of offering sensible, low-cost options, these subpar retirement plans are filled with high-fee annuities.

Your current plan is one of the better ones, since you have access to low-cost mutual funds. You can investigate the neighboring district’s plan at 403bwise.org, a nonprofit site dedicated to educating teachers about the issue. The site has reviews of many districts’ plans. If your new district isn’t included, the site has tips on how to get more information, evaluate your options and press for change.

If the new plan is a stinker, you can leave your money in the old plan, although you won’t be able to make new contributions. You also could consider rolling the account into an IRA at a brokerage. (Don’t move it to a regular brokerage account, as that would be considered a withdrawal that can be taxed and penalized.) An IRA would give you vastly more investment options, but if your 403(b) allows loans you’d lose the ability to borrow against your account. Also, workplace retirement plans such as 403(b)s and 401(k)s typically allow penalty-free withdrawals starting at age 55 if you leave your job, while with IRAs you generally must wait until age 59½.

The question remains if you should consider investing in the new district’s plan. The answer is yes if it includes any of 403bwise’s “green” rated options of low-cost funds. The answer is probably no otherwise. Teachers without good investment options should consider lobbying their district to adopt another type of retirement account, the 457(b) plan. For more information, check out 403bwise’s sister site, 457bwiser, at https://457bwiser.org/.

Q&A: Roth IRA conversions can benefit your heirs—but at a cost

By

Dear Liz: I have been reading the questions about converting an IRA to a Roth and want to know how it might apply to my situation. I have been getting my required minimum distributions for a while, and I have been paying the surcharges on Medicare because of my higher income. Would it still be worth it to convert to a Roth? My children have very good income so inheriting my IRA and paying the taxes on that will probably be a burden. Thoughts?

Answer: A Roth IRA is a wonderful asset to inherit. Beneficiaries typically must empty the account within 10 years, but the withdrawals are entirely tax free.

That generosity comes at a cost, of course. You’d have to pay the taxes on any amounts you convert from your IRA, and the conversions could trigger even higher Medicare premiums. A tax pro can guide you about whether conversions make sense as well as how to do them: gradually over time or all at once.

Got a question about money? You can submit it here.

Q&A: Will Taking Social Security at 62 Affect Your Spousal or Survivor Benefit?

By

Dear Liz: I am a teacher, retiring this June. I have my teacher’s pension and will receive a small Social Security benefit as well. I am married and my husband’s Social Security benefits are far greater than mine. Should I start drawing on my Social Security benefits next year when I turn 62, assuming when my husband starts drawing on his when he turns 70 in seven years I will then get a higher benefit? Is there any downside to taking my Social Security benefits for seven years while I wait for him to start taking his?

Answer: Your early start would reduce the future spousal benefit you’ll be eligible for when your husband applies at age 70, says Mary Beth Franklin, a former Investment News columnist and author of “Maximizing Social Security Benefits.” The early start would not, however, reduce your future survivor benefit should your husband die first.

Spousal and survivor benefits are both based on your husband’s work record, but they’re calculated using different rules.

Spousal benefits can be up to 50% of your husband’s benefit at his full retirement age. If you’re already receiving your own benefit, the spousal “top off” adds an additional amount to your check once your husband applies and you’re eligible for a spousal benefit. The top off amount is calculated by subtracting your benefit at full retirement age (FRA) from 50% of your husband’s benefit at full retirement age.

A simplified example may help show the effect of an early start. Let’s suppose your own retirement benefit would be $1,000 a month at age 67 and your husband’s benefit at his full retirement age would be $3,000. Social Security subtracts your FRA benefit ($1,000) from half of his ($1,500) to determine the “top off” amount ($500). If you apply for your own unreduced benefit at age 67, the top off amount would be added once your husband applies for his benefit and triggers a spousal benefit for you.

If you start early, on the other hand, your own benefit would be permanently reduced. Starting at 62 means you’d receive $700 a month. Once your husband applies and the spousal benefit is triggered, you’d get the additional $500, but now you’d be receiving $1,200 a month instead of $1,500 you would get if you’d waited.

That doesn’t mean you should delay, Franklin notes. The additional cash could make it easier for your husband to put off filing. And, as noted above, an early start on your own benefit wouldn’t affect any future survivor benefit.

While spousal benefits are based on your husband’s benefit at full retirement age, survivor benefits are based on what he actually receives (or what he had earned, if he dies before starting benefits). If your husband waits to file until after his full retirement age, his benefit earns 8% annual delayed retirement credits until his benefit maxes out at age 70. As a survivor, you would be eligible to receive up to 100% of that benefit.

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

By

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.