January 22, 2018 By

Q&A: Don’t get tripped up by invalid Roth IRA contributions

Dear Liz: A friend told me that when he takes out his required minimum distribution from his traditional IRA and pays the tax, he then puts the money in his Roth IRA. I believe since this was not earned income, this was wrong. Who’s right?

Answer: The money contributed to an IRA doesn’t have to be earnings, necessarily, but your friend or his spouse must have income earned from working to make an eligible contribution. Earned income includes wages, salary, tips, bonuses, professional fees or small business profits. Earned income does not include Social Security benefits, pension or annuity checks and distributions from retirement accounts.

Another restriction is that contributions can’t be greater than the amount of earned income. If your friend or his spouse earned $3,000 last year, that’s all he’d be allowed to contribute — not the $6,500 maximum allowed for people 50 and over.

The ability to contribute to a Roth begins to phase out when someone’s modified adjusted gross income exceeds certain amounts. In 2017, single filers’ ability to contribute phased out between $118,000 and $133,000. For married couples filing jointly, the phase out began at $186,000 and ended at $196,000.

The penalty for ineligible contributions is 6% of the ineligible amount. The penalty is owed each year the taxpayer allows the lapse without correcting the oversight. If your friend has been doing this for several years, the penalty will be pretty painful.

He could cross his fingers and hope the IRS doesn’t notice, but the error isn’t that hard for the agency to catch. The IRS would simply need to compare Form 5498, which IRA custodians issue to report contributions, to your friend’s income and the sources of that income to know whether he was eligible to put money in an IRA.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement, Taxes Tagged With: , , ,
January 15, 2018 By

Q&A: Revocable living trusts don’t help with taxes

Dear Liz: Thanks for your recent column on setting up a living trust. This sounds like something that I should do, but I have a few questions. Would federal and state taxes be due on earnings on assets in the trust? Would these taxes due be paid out of earnings of the trust? Would I continue to pay taxes on my income from sources other than the trust?

Answer: Revocable living trusts are an estate-planning tool used to avoid probate, the court process that otherwise follows death. Unlike many other types of trusts, revocable living trusts don’t trigger special tax treatment. You’re still considered the owner of the assets, so you’ll continue reporting earnings and income on your individual tax return, as you previously did.

Revocable living trusts also don’t get special estate tax treatment. Revocable living trusts are designed to eliminate the potential costs and delays of probate, not of the estate tax system. Living trusts may include provisions meant to reduce estate taxes, such as language creating a bypass trust upon death, but those are the same kinds of provisions that can be included in wills.

Filed Under: Estate planning, Q&A, Taxes Tagged With: , ,
January 8, 2018 By

Q&A: Cash gift to daughter shouldn’t trigger fine

Dear Liz: I gave my daughter $30,000 in 2015. I was fined $5,000. Why? I had not talked with another daughter, who does my taxes, so I was not aware that I could give only $14,000. If I had known, I could have given her the money over two years. Why wouldn’t they advise me as such?

Answer: It’s not clear whom you mean by “they,” but you need to have a chat with the daughter who does your taxes, because it’s extremely unlikely you were fined by the IRS for your gift.

In 2015, you wouldn’t owe gift taxes until you had given away more than $5 million in your lifetime above the $14,000-per-person annual limit. (That lifetime limit, by the way, has been raised to over $11 million, and the annual gift exclusion limit is now $15,000.)

If you had to pay an extra $5,000, it was for something else. Let’s hope the tax-preparing daughter didn’t decide to “fine” you for favoring your other child.

Filed Under: Q&A, Taxes Tagged With: , , ,
January 2, 2018 By

Q&A: Why failing to pay your taxes is a risky form of protest

Dear Liz: I write in earnest hope that you might consider giving advice to those wondering about withholding federal taxes as a form of protest over the enactment of the new tax bill. What are the possible legal ramifications of withholding federal taxes?

If one is willing to accept the possible consequences, how might one go about the nuts and bolts of not paying federal taxes, and are there any measures one might take to mitigate the legal consequences somewhat? For instance, if one spouse withholds taxes but the other pays, does filing separately at year’s end afford any layer of protection to the paying spouse?

Answer: Please find another way to protest.

The Internal Revenue Service has extraordinary powers to collect what it’s owed. The agency can seize your bank accounts, property and a portion of your income. People who willfully fail to pay their taxes can wind up in prison. Filing taxes separately may keep the paying spouse on the other side of iron bars, but it won’t prevent his or her life from being disrupted.

Our duty to pay taxes doesn’t rest on our approval of every single aspect of the tax code. If that were the case, few of us would pony up. Fortunately, in a representative democracy you have plenty of legal options to work for change. The same Constitution that gives Congress “the power to lay and collect taxes” also gives you the right to express your opinion, to assemble in peaceable protest and to vote for new lawmakers at the appropriate times.

If you want to work for change, do so in ways that actually have a chance at success, rather than one that will succeed only in making your life worse.

Filed Under: Q&A, Taxes Tagged With: , , ,
November 27, 2017 By

Q&A: How to sort out the taxes when you sell your house

Dear Liz: I am trying to understand the capital gains tax exemption as it applies to the sale of a house. If I have no mortgage and I sell my house before I have lived in it for two of the previous five years that are now required for the exemption, is it based on the total selling price of the house or on the amount over what I paid for it? And what is the tax rate based on?

Answer: The home sale exemption can shelter from taxes up to $250,000 per owner ($500,000 for a couple) of capital gains from a home sale. If you don’t live in the home for at least two of the previous five years, you typically can’t use the exemption unless the sale was because of a change in employment, health problems that require you to move or an unforeseen circumstance that forced the sale.

The rules on these exceptions can get pretty tricky, so you’d need to discuss your situation with a tax pro. If you qualify, the amount of the exemption usually would be proportionate to the percentage of the two years that you actually lived in the home. If you sold after one year, for example, you might exempt up to $125,000 per owner.

Whether you have a mortgage does not affect the capital gains calculation. What matters is the difference between the price you get when you sell the house and the price you paid when you bought it.

From the sale price, you get to subtract any selling costs such as real estate commissions. From the purchase price, you can add in certain costs, such as home improvement expenses. What results after these adjustments is your capital gain for tax purposes.

If you have capital gains in excess of the exemption, you would pay long-term capital gains rates on that profit. Long-term capital gains are typically taxed at a 15% federal rate, although the highest-income taxpayers (those in the 39.6% bracket) may pay 20% and the lowest-income taxpayers (those in the 10% and 15% brackets, including taxable capital gains) pay a 0% rate.

States typically have additional taxes.

Filed Under: Q&A, Real Estate, Taxes Tagged With: , , ,
November 20, 2017 By

Q&A: Government financial help after disaster may come as a loan

Dear Liz: With all the recent hurricanes and other natural disasters, people are being helped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency with money for rentals or home replacements. What repayment does the government expect? Are there taxes owed by the recipients of that money?

Answer: FEMA grants aren’t taxable, but they’re typically not enough to replace a home. FEMA may provide up to $33,000, but the typical grant is much smaller — in the $3,000-to-$8,000 range, according to recent data from the agency.

Most financial assistance after a disaster comes in the form of low-interest loans to renters and homeowners, offered through the Small Business Administration. Recipients are expected to repay those loans.

Filed Under: Q&A, Taxes Tagged With: , , ,
October 23, 2017 By

Q&A: To give or not to give can be a taxing question

Dear Liz: A good friend who is childless wishes to give his property to my daughter before his death. He has been an informal uncle for the whole 50 years of my daughter’s life, and we are, in effect, his family. However, I am concerned that the gift tax may be more than he bargained for. He is not tax-aware, and earns very little, so his tax knowledge is skimpy. He owns his property outright, however.

I know that someone can give as much as $14,000 without having to file a gift tax return and that there is a “’lifetime exemption” of more than $5 million. If his property is worth, say, $500,000, can he be tax free on a gift of that magnitude by, in effect, using his lifetime exemption?

Answer: Essentially, yes, but he may be creating a tax problem for your daughter.

Gift taxes are not something that most people need to worry about. At most, a gift worth more than $14,000 per recipient would require the giver to file a gift tax return. Gift taxes wouldn’t be owed until the amount given away in excess of that annual exemption limit exceeds the lifetime exemption limit of $5.49 million.

Capital gains taxes are another matter and should always be considered before making gifts. Here’s why.

Your friend has what’s known as a “tax basis” in this property. If he sold it, he typically would owe capital gains taxes on the difference between that basis — usually the purchase price plus the cost of any improvements — and the sale price, minus any selling costs. If he has owned the property a long time and it has appreciated significantly, that could be a big tax bill.

If he gives the property to your daughter while he’s alive, she would receive his tax basis as well. If she inherited the property instead, the tax basis would be updated to the property’s value at the time of your friend’s death. No capital gains taxes would be owed on the appreciation that took place during his lifetime.

There’s something else to consider. If your friend doesn’t make much money, he may not have the savings or insurance he would need to pay for long-term care. The property could be something he could sell or mortgage to cover those costs.

If he gives the property away, he could create problems for himself if he has no other resources. Medicaid is a government program that typically pays such costs for the indigent, but there’s a “look back” period that could delay his eligibility for coverage. The look-back rules impose a penalty for gifts or asset transfers made in the previous five years. He should consult an elder-law attorney before making such a move.

Filed Under: Estate planning, Q&A, Taxes Tagged With: , , ,
October 16, 2017 By

Q&A: Obsessing over taxes is foolish

Dear Liz: Most of your articles are from people who have not yet retired. I am retired and always expected to be making less money now than when I was working. But the opposite has happened. I am making almost twice as much and I have a lot of money in stocks, which have increased dramatically. I want to travel and use that money but anything I sell will be taxed at the 25% rate. Any ideas how to get my money out and be able to use it?

Answer: Sure. Place a sell order, set aside 25% for taxes and enjoy your life while you still have a life to enjoy. If you’d like to reduce your yearly tax bill, consider bumping up your charitable contributions to help those who aren’t so fortunate.

Paying taxes is not fun, but obsessing about ways to avoid them or letting them dictate your decisions is foolish. You’ll still be far better off than you expected to be after you pay Uncle Sam, and you’ll have the cash to do what you want. So do it.

Filed Under: Q&A, Taxes Tagged With: ,
October 16, 2017 By

Q&A: Hard to predict tax rates

Dear Liz: I read your column answer to the 40-year-old who asked about regular 401(k) versus Roth 401(k) contributions. Obviously, the answer has more moving parts than you have space for. However, using before-tax dollars for the 401(k) gives him a small break now, but when he hits 70 1/2, those dollars will impact the taxability of his Social Security benefits. He could contribute to the 401(k) with after-tax dollars, get the company match and avoid that impact 30 years in the future, right?

Answer: The “right” answer requires knowing what tax rates will be 30 years in the future, at a time when no one is entirely sure what tax rates will be next year. Which means the smart approach is to hedge one’s bets. Given the original reader’s current financial situation, that translates into focusing most contributions into the pretax 401(k) but also making contributions to the Roth. That will give him some flexibility to control his tax bill in retirement without going “all in” on the bet that his tax rate then will be higher than it is now.

Filed Under: Q&A, Taxes Tagged With: , , ,
September 25, 2017 By

Q&A: Saving for retirement also means planning for the tax hit

Dear Liz: I’m 40. We own our house and have a young daughter. Through my current employer, I’m able to contribute to a regular 401(k) and also a Roth 401(k) retirement account. My company matches 3% if we contribute a total of 6% or more of our salaries. Are there any reasons I should contribute to both my 401(k) and Roth, or should I contribute only to my Roth? My salary and bonus is around $80,000 and I have about $150,000 in my 401(k) and about $30,000 in my Roth. Thanks very much for your time.

Answer: A Roth contribution is essentially a bet that your tax rate in retirement will be the same or higher than it is currently. You’re giving up a tax break now, because Roth contributions aren’t deductible, to get one later, because Roth withdrawals in retirement are tax free.

Most retirees see their tax rates drop in retirement, so they’re better off contributing to a regular 401(k) and getting the tax deduction sooner rather than later. The exceptions tend to be wealthier people and those who are good savers. The latter can find themselves with so much in their retirement accounts that their required minimum distributions — the withdrawals people must take from most retirement accounts after they’re 70½ — push them into higher tax brackets.

That’s why many financial planners suggest their clients put money in different tax “buckets” so they’re better able to control their tax bills in retirement. Those buckets might include regular retirement savings, Roth accounts and perhaps taxable accounts as well. Roths have the added advantage of not having required minimum distributions, so unneeded money can be passed along to your daughter.

Given that you’re slightly behind on retirement savings — Fidelity Investments recommends you have three times your salary saved by age 40 — you might want to put most of your contributions into the regular 401(k) because the tax break will make it easier to save. You can hedge your bets by putting some money into the Roth 401(k), but not the majority of your contributions.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement, Taxes Tagged With: , , , ,