Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Taxes

Q&A: Adding daughter to home could create a tax burden

By

Dear Liz: My wife and I are both 80 and we are contemplating adding our 56-year-old daughter as a co-owner and borrower to our home. The house is now valued at $600,000 and our mortgage balance is $196,000.

If it is advisable, and I am able to do this, will it prevent the house going into probate when my wife and I have passed on? Because my daughter will be the sole beneficiary of our assets, is a will or living trust required?

Answer: Please don’t do this without consulting an estate planning attorney — who will most likely tell you not to do this.

You can’t add your daughter to the mortgage without refinancing the loan. Adding your daughter to the deed means she would lose the valuable “step up” in tax basis that would otherwise happen after your deaths.

If she’s made a co-owner, she could be subject to capital gains taxes on all the appreciation that happened on her share. That tax burden essentially would disappear if she were to inherit the home instead.

How you should bequeath the home to her depends on where you live. In most states, probate — the court process that typically follows a death — isn’t that bad.

However, in some states, such as California or Florida, probate can be lengthy, expensive and worth avoiding. It can be worth investing in an attorney to draw up a living trust.

Another option in many states, including California, is a “transfer-on-death” or beneficiary deed, which allows you to sign and record a deed now that doesn’t transfer until your death. You can revoke the deed or sell the property at any time.

Florida doesn’t have transfer-on-death deeds, according to self-help site Nolo.com, but the state offers something similar called an “enhanced life estate” or “Lady Bird” deed.

But again, discuss this with a qualified estate planning attorney before proceeding.

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

By

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.

Q&A: Obsessing over taxes is foolish

By

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.

Q&A: Hard to predict tax rates

By

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.

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

By

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.

Q&A: Tax implications of parents paying off a child’s loans?

By

Dear Liz: My wife and I co-signed for student loans for our daughter. My daughter made payments on these loans since she graduated from college four years ago. My wife and I just paid off the loan balance, which was $22,000. Is our payment considered a gift to our daughter?

Answer: Yes, but your gift is within the annual exemption limit, so you won’t have to file a gift tax return. You and your wife can each give your daughter $14,000, or a total $28,000, without having to file a return. Gift taxes aren’t owed until the amounts someone gives away above those annual limits exceeds $5.49 million.