Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Taxes

Q&A: A large foreign bequest could trigger U.S. taxes

By

Dear Liz: I have received an inheritance of $445,000 from a relative who died out of the country. Do I have to pay income tax on this money?

Answer: If you inherited from someone who was a U.S. citizen who lived abroad, then that person’s estate may be subject to U.S. estate taxes. The estate would have to be quite large, though. In 2017, estates worth less than $5.49 million per person were exempt from the tax. In 2018, the amount was raised to $11.18 million.

If you had paid any taxes on your inheritance to a foreign government, you could take a tax credit on your U.S. tax return for that amount.

Otherwise, you probably won’t owe any taxes. The federal government and most states don’t levy inheritance taxes on people who receive bequests. The exceptions are Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which do levy taxes on inheritances. All exempt spouses, and some exempt other immediate relatives.

Q&A: Here are some tips for getting more retirement money into accounts with tax advantages

By

Dear Liz: My wife and I are about 35. I’m self-employed and contribute to a SEP IRA. My wife contributes to a workplace retirement plan. We don’t qualify to contribute to Roth IRAs. In order to get more money into retirement accounts, would you recommend doing back-door Roth contributions? What else is there to do to get retirement money into accounts that will have a tax benefit now or later?

Answer: Roth IRAs don’t provide an upfront deduction, but withdrawals are tax-free in retirement. That makes them especially enticing to people who expect to be in the same or higher tax bracket in retirement — mostly higher-income people and good savers.

People who earn more than certain limits, however, are prohibited from contributing directly to a Roth IRA. For 2018, direct Roth contributions aren’t allowed for people whose modified adjusted gross incomes exceed $199,000 for married couples filing jointly or $135,000 for single filers.

Several years ago, however, Congress eliminated income limits on who was allowed to convert a regular IRA to a Roth IRA. That change created the back-door Roth strategy, in which a high-income taxpayer contributes to a regular IRA and then converts the money to a Roth.

The strategy works best for people who don’t already have a large IRA filled with pre-tax contributions and earnings. When you convert all or some of an IRA to a Roth, you have to pay a proportionate amount of income taxes on the conversion based on all of your IRA holdings. If you don’t have an existing IRA and don’t deduct the IRA contribution, you’ll owe little if any taxes on the conversion.

The IRS hasn’t specifically blessed or banned the back-door Roth strategy, so it remains somewhat controversial. Many investing and brokerage sites promote it. Some proponents, however, recommend letting several months pass between the contribution and the conversion. The idea is to avoid IRS scrutiny by making the transactions appear to be separate decisions rather than one clearly meant to get around the contribution limits.

If you want to stay out of gray areas and potentially contribute more cash to your retirement, consider setting up a solo 401(k). This version of the popular workplace plan is meant for self-employed business owners with no full-time employees other than themselves and their spouses. Plan participants under age 50 can contribute up to $18,500 a year. Those 50 and older can contribute up to $24,500. The plan can have a Roth and an after-tax contribution option in addition to a pre-tax option. In addition, the business can make a 25% annual profit-sharing contribution (or 20% if the business is a sole proprietorship or single member LLC). The combined maximum of participant and business contribution is $55,000 for those under 50 and $61,000 for those 50 and older.

If you’re able to contribute more than these amounts each year, consider a traditional defined-benefit pension. Those involve considerable set-up and ongoing costs, so consult a tax pro to see if it’s a good fit.

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

By

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.

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

By

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.

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

By

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.

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

By

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.