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.
Taxes
Q&A: He’s held stocks for decades. Should he sell before he dies?
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: When landlords move in to an old rental, are tax breaks part of the deal?
Dear Liz: My husband and I bought a single-family home as a rental property in 1988. We paid $135,000. The tenants moved out in February and we are doing major upgrades now. If we moved into the property and sold it after two years, would the first $500,000 of gain be excluded from income tax? The property is under our family trust and our two daughters are successor co-trustees.
Answer: Generally speaking, a former rental property can qualify for the home sale exclusion as long as the owners claim it as their primary residence for at least two of the five years before the sale.
The home could still be subject to depreciation recapture, however, says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. You probably deducted depreciation on the rental over the years — basically reflecting the wear and tear on the property. The IRS typically requires that tax break to be paid back when the property is sold. You won’t be able to exclude the part of the gain that’s equal to any depreciation deduction allowed or taken after May 6, 1997, Luscombe says.
If your trust is a revocable living trust, which is designed to avoid probate, your ability to take the home sale exclusion won’t be affected. Other types of revocable trusts may require the home to be taken out of the trust before it’s sold, Luscombe says. If it’s an irrevocable trust, the sale of the home generally would not qualify for the home sale exclusion, he says.
You should discuss this with a tax expert before proceeding, and consider reviewing other options for reducing taxes. For example, if you kept this home until death and bequeathed it to your heirs, there probably wouldn’t be any tax on the appreciation that occurred during your lifetimes.
Q&A: Minimizing your taxes is fine — to a point
Dear Liz: In reading your columns, one can get the impression that reducing tax liability is the primary objective for many financial advisors. I disagree with this. Paying a fair share of taxes is a responsibility to society and the less fortunate, especially for wealthy people. Why are so many financial “professionals” so obsessed with paying less in taxes?
Answer: Tax planning is an essential part of comprehensive financial planning. No one is under an obligation to pay the maximum tax possible. Those who specialize in tax avoidance love to quote a judge named Learned Hand, who wrote in 1934: “Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.”
Where advisors — and taxpayers — get into trouble is when they prioritize tax avoidance over all other concerns. That’s how you get advisors doing tax loss harvesting on a financial account to reduce capital gains for an older couple in the 0% capital gains bracket (an example of this behavior from a recent column).
Q&A: A greedy friend eyes a suitcase of (suspected) drug money
Dear Liz: A person I know who is in his 80s and very wealthy recently described having a suitcase of old cash. The bills date from the time before the electronic strip was introduced. He said, “I don’t know what to do with this.” Long ago he sold marijuana. I immediately thought that this should pass into the hands of those who are struggling (which includes me). How could this be done legally?
Answer: Your acquaintance should talk to his tax pro. Money is supposed to be declared to the IRS as it’s earned, and that includes proceeds from illegal activities.
There are statutory limits to how long a person can be prosecuted for dealing drugs. There’s no statute of limitations, however, if a taxpayer files a fraudulent return or fails to file a return at all. That’s how the feds ultimately got gangster Al Capone: He was convicted of tax evasion for failing to file tax returns declaring his illegal income.
What your acquaintance should not be doing is talking to anyone else about this cash — particularly someone whose immediate thought is how to get their hands on it. He should consider getting evaluated for cognitive decline, and putting measures in place to protect himself from fraud and elder abuse.
Q&A: What to do when your financial advisor isn’t doing right by you
Dear Liz: My husband and I are in our 80s, living in a retirement community. Our investment account is valued at $550,000. This has to see us through till we die. We have no pension, no other assets. Social Security provides $2,760 a month and we are in the lowest tax bracket. Our financial advisor is using tax loss harvesting “to save us from capital gains tax.” We are both uncomfortable with this. Taking a loss on purpose doesn’t feel like a secure path and should be for people with a long-term future. Should we ask him to stop using this method of trading?
Answer: Tax loss harvesting involves selling investments that have gone down in value to offset some or all of the gains from investments that have gained in value. The point is to reduce capital gains taxes. Since you’re in the lowest tax bracket, however, your federal tax rate on long-term capital gains is effectively zero. It’s hard to imagine how your advisor would justify tax loss harvesting, given your situation.
Go ahead and ask them. The answer should give you some insight into how much your advisor knows, or cares, about your individual circumstances. Obviously, you should halt the tax loss harvesting if there’s no good reason to do it, but you might also want to start looking for a new advisor.
Keep in mind that most financial advisors don’t have to put your best interests first. They can recommend investments or pursue strategies that make them money, regardless of whether the recommendations are the best fit for your financial situation.
If you want an advisor committed to putting you first, you’ll need to seek out one who is willing to be held to a fiduciary standard. Such advisors include certified financial planners, certified public accountants (including those who are personal financial specialists) and accredited financial counselors. A fiduciary would have taken the time to understand your financial situation and then crafted a strategy to best fit your circumstances.