Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Retirement

Q&A: Backdoor Roth IRA contributions

By

Dear Liz: You mentioned in a previous column that a backdoor Roth contribution could be expensive if you have a large pretax IRA. I was in that situation, and opted to first roll my IRA into my employer’s 401(k). I then made a nondeductible contribution to a new IRA and shortly afterward converted it to a Roth. This allowed me to get money into a Roth without a big tax bill.

Answer: That’s a great solution for those who have access to 401(k) plans that accept such transfers, and many do.

For those who don’t know, backdoor Roths are a two-step process for people whose incomes are too high to contribute directly to a Roth. Instead, they contribute to a regular IRA and then convert that money to a Roth because there’s no income limit on conversions.

Taxes are usually owed on Roth conversions, based on how much pretax money you have in IRAs. But the conversion can be tax free if the contribution was nondeductible, you convert shortly after the contribution and you don’t already have a pre-tax money IRA.

Some questioned the legality of this particular loophole, but Congress blessed it in 2017 as part of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017.

Q&A: Retirement funds and creditors

By

Dear Liz: I keep reading conflicting things about 401(k)s and IRAs. If I roll over my 401(k) from my previous employer into an IRA, is it still protected from creditors? I’ve left it in the old 401(k) plan for now because I’ve read IRAs can be seized in lawsuits or bankruptcy, or alternatively that only $1 million is protected and the rest could be at risk. I’ve read that if I leave it in the 401(k), the whole amount is protected. Can you please help clear up this confusion so I can make a wise decision?

Answer: Your 401(k) is protected from creditors, full stop. Federal law bans creditors from taking money in a pension plan that was set up under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and that includes 401(k)s as well as traditional pensions.

Your IRA is protected in bankruptcy court up to a certain amount, currently $1,362,800. Whether creditors outside of bankruptcy court can access your IRA funds depends on state law. In California, for example, there’s no specific dollar amount.

If a creditor wins a judgment against you and goes after your IRA, a court would decide how much of the account was necessary for your support and protect that. The rest could go to the creditor.

Q&A: Here’s why two 401(k) accounts aren’t better than one

By

Dear Liz: I changed jobs more than three years ago and did not roll over my 401(k) when I started a 401(k) account with my new employer. I’m perfectly happy having separate accounts. However, I’ve read some IRS rules that I cannot understand about being penalized for not contributing to a 401(k) for five years. So my question: After turning 59½, will I face any sort of penalty or loss when I begin withdrawing funds from a 401(k) account that has been sitting idle?

Answer: There’s no penalty for not contributing to an old 401(k). In fact, you cannot contribute to an old 401(k). Once you leave the employer that sponsored the plan, you generally can’t put any more money into it.

What you may have stumbled upon are IRS rules that apply to employers who sponsor 401(k) plans that have a profit-sharing component.

Employers aren’t required to make contributions to these plans every year — there may be years when there’s no profit to share — but their contributions have to be “recurring and substantial.” If the employer hasn’t made contributions in three of the past five consecutive years, the plan could be terminated, said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting.

That obviously doesn’t apply to your situation, and if you want to continue managing two 401(k) accounts, you’re welcome to do so. But consider rolling the money into your new employer’s plan, if it’s a good one and accepts such transfers. That would mean one fewer account you need to track and also could give you access to more money if you wanted to take out a loan.

Q&A: IRA confusion leads to disappointment

By

Dear Liz: Many years ago, I read in a personal finance magazine about a mutual fund company that paid $1 million to a customer who had an IRA for 40 years. So I started an IRA at that company in December 1992 and paid $10,000. As of today, that account is worth only $80,000. What happened to the high payoff?

Answer: First things first. The maximum you were supposed to contribute to an IRA in 1992 was $2,000. If you were able to contribute more, you may have opened a different type of account, such as a regular taxable brokerage account. Either that or you have some explaining to do to the IRS.

Also, IRAs hadn’t been around for 40 years in 1992. They were created in 1974 by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. So what you probably read in the magazine was a hypothetical example of what someone might accumulate over time in an IRA. Someone who contributed $2,000 a year to an IRA for 40 years could wind up with $1 million, but only with returns in excess of 10%.

Actual returns historically have been closer to 8%, but that’s an average. Some years it’s less, some years it’s more. There are no guarantees. What you end up with depends on how you invested the money and what fees you paid, among other factors. If your investment had done as well as the broader stock market, as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500, you would have over $100,000 by now.

If your money is in an IRA, you could move it to be a better investment, such as a low-cost, broad-market index fund, without tax consequences. If it’s not in an IRA, then selling the investment to buy another could generate a tax bill, so consult a tax pro before taking any action.

Q&A: Side effects of IRA conversions

By

Dear Liz: I thought your readers would benefit from additional knowledge about Roth conversions. I started converting our IRAs to Roth IRAs when my wife and I turned 60 years old. Years later, I realized that our premiums for Medicare Part B and D were higher because our income in those years exceeded $174,000.

Answer: Triggering Medicare’s income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA) is just one of the potential side effects of a later-in-life Roth conversion.

That’s not to say these conversions are a bad idea.

People with substantial amounts in traditional retirement accounts might benefit from transferring some of that money to Roth IRAs, particularly if the required minimum withdrawals that start at age 72 would push them into a higher tax bracket. They may have a window after they retire, when their tax bracket dips, to convert money and pay the tax bill at a lower rate.

Roths also don’t have the required minimum distributions that apply to other retirement accounts, so people have more control over their future tax bills.

Converting too much, however, can push people into higher tax brackets. Many financial advisors suggest their clients convert just enough to “fill out” their current bracket.

For example, the 12% bracket for married people filing jointly was $19,401 to $78,950 in 2019. A couple with income in the $50,000 range might convert $28,000 or so, because a larger conversion would push them into the 22% tax bracket.

But there are other considerations, as you discovered.

People with modified adjusted incomes above certain levels pay IRMAA adjustments that can add $144.60 to $491.60 each month to their Medicare Part B premiums for doctor visits and $12.20 to $76.40 to their monthly Part D drug coverage premiums. Higher income could reduce or eliminate tax breaks that are subject to income phaseouts, and conversions can subject more of your Social Security benefits to taxation.

At the very least, you should consult a tax pro before any Roth conversions to make sure you understand the ramifications. Ideally, you’d also be talking with a fee-only, fiduciary financial planner to make sure conversions, and your retirement plan in general, make sense.

Q&A: IRA conversions and taxes

By

Dear Liz: You recently advised a reader that if their income was too high to contribute to a Roth IRA, they could still contribute to an IRA or any after-tax options in their 401(k). You didn’t mention a two-step Roth IRA — first making a nondeductible contribution to an IRA and then immediately converting that amount to a Roth. That way those people whose income is too high to contribute to a direct Roth IRA can still have a Roth IRA using the two-step process.

Answer: This is known as a backdoor Roth contribution, which takes advantage of the fact that the income limits that apply to Roth contributions don’t apply to Roth conversions. Conversions, however, typically incur tax bills and don’t make sense for everyone. If you have a substantial amount of pretax money in IRAs, the tax bill can be considerable. (The tax bill is figured using all your IRAs, by the way. You can’t get around it just by contributing to a separate IRA that you then convert.)

Incurring that tax bill could make sense if you expect to be in the same tax bracket in retirement, or in a higher one. If you’re young and a good saver, it’s a good bet that will be the case. Roth conversions also can be advisable later in life if your tax bracket could jump when you reach age 72 and have to start taking required minimum distributions from your retirement accounts.

If you expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, however, you probably should forgo Roth conversions because you’ll pay more now in taxes than you would later.

Of course, if you have little or no pretax money in your IRA, then backdoor conversions get a lot more attractive because the tax bill would be minimal. Otherwise, you should seek out a Roth conversion calculator to get a better idea of whether a conversion might be the right choice.