Retirement Watch : income taxes

Year-End Tax Planning is Different This Year

Bob Carlson — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:24:00 GMT

Year-end tax planning will be unique and tricky this year. The usual year-end strategies are complicated by the potential for significant tax increases over the next couple of years and the lack of details we have today. In addition, the incentive to convert traditional IRAs into Roth IRAs in 2010 provides a fresh wrinkle, which is discussed in previous posts. Yet, the right moves in the next few months could save you a lot of money. It is worth the time to begin year-end planning now.

The key to year-end tax planning is to try to examine at least two years together. This allows you to reduce total taxes. Otherwise, if you look at one year at a time you are likely to simply shift the tax bill from one year to another, or even to inadvertently raise the bill one year by reducing it in another year. So, consider this year and next year together. That won't be easy, because of the lack of detail about those likely future tax increases. Yet, we can make reasonable assumptions.

Year-end tax planning involves four broad, basic strategies. Income can be accelerated into the current year or deferred into next year. Likewise, deductions can be accelerated into this year or deferred into next year. These are the basic rules:

* If you think your tax rate is likely to rise next year, you want to accelerate income into this year and defer deductions into next year.

* If you think tax rates might decline, defer income to next year and accelerate deductions into this year.

* If you think deductions might be restricted next year, accelerate some deductible expenses into this year.

* If you think deductions might be increased next year, defer until next year some expenses that might be deductible.

There are other situations when you might want to shift income or deductions. A minority of taxpayers itemize deductions these days. The rest use the standard deduction, because their total itemized deductions are less than the standard. Careful shifting of deductions can allow you to itemize deductions every other year and reduce overall taxes. The standard deduction for 2009 is $11,400 for married filing jointly and $5,700 for single taxpayers. It is increased each year for inflation, with the next year's amounts usually announced in December. You can use the 2009 number for planning.

Here are some ways to move deductions to qualify for itemizing.

State and local taxes, whether income taxes or property taxes, generally are itemized deductions. You might be able to mail a Jan. 2010 payment in late Dec. 2009, or hold a Dec. 2009 payment until Jan. 2010. If you have a mortgage, doing the same with monthly payments can shift a month's interest payments from one year to another, giving you 13 months of interest deductions in one year. Charitable gifts generally are flexible payments. You can bunch more of them in one year to increase itemized deductions.

Medical expenses are deductible only to the extent they exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income, and only if deductions are itemized. Few people have enough medical expenses to deduct them. You might be able to make them deductible by incurring elective medical expenses in one year instead of spreading them over two.

Remember, the provision for making charitable contributions from an IRA was extended through the end of 2009. Normally when a charitable contribution is made from an IRA it is treated as a distribution and included in gross income. You receive a charitable contribution deduction if you itemize expenses. But in 2009 those age 70½ or older can have charitable contributions made directly by their IRA custodians to a charity. There is no deduction for the contribution, but it also is not treated as a distribution and not included in gross income. This contribution is limited to $100,000 annually.

In addition to the regular income tax, you need to pay attention to the alternative minimum tax (AMT). More and more middle income Americans, especially retirees, are falling under this second tax system originally intended for the wealthy. You compute taxes under both the regular system and the AMT, and pay the higher tax. High itemized deductions (other than charitable contributions) and personal exemptions can trigger the AMT. Large capital gains also trigger the AMT. New retirees frequently fall under the AMT because their incomes decline while their itemized deductions remain the same.

When estimating your regular income tax for the year, also estimate the AMT. Then, before making any changes in income or deductions to reduce the regular income tax see how they would change the AMT.

Home improvements are a special consideration this year, because Congress enacted additional tax credits for many energy-efficient improvements for 2009 and 2010. The credits can be substantial, but the qualifying improvements also can be expensive. You have to decide if the credits plus potential energy savings are worth the additional cost of the qualifying improvements. Check the IRS web site at www.irs.gov for updates and details about the available credits and how to qualify for them.

Don't forget to check your tax prepayments. They are likely to be off this year for more taxpayers because of the new withholding tables under the Making Work Pay tax credit from the stimulus law. If your estimated tax payments and withholding are not high enough, increase payments. Even better, if you receive wages, IRA distributions, annuity payments, or other payments from which you can ask for withholding, have the additional taxes withheld. You are more likely to avoid penalties by increasing withholding than by increasing your last estimated tax payment or two.

Income can be deferred or accelerated by changing distributions from IRAs and annuities and timing sales of investment assets. Of course, if you still are working you might be able to work with your employer on the timing of bonuses and raises.

Taxpayers age 70½ and over do not have to worry about taking required minimum distributions from IRAs and other qualified retirement plans for 2009. But unless Congress changes the law this fall, RMDs will be restored in 2010. You might consider taking some distribution from the IRA this year to reduce next year's RMD, especially if this year will have a lower tax rate or higher deductions than next year. Taking a distribution in 2009 will reduce 2010’s RMD, because RMDs are based on the IRA’s value of Dec. 31 of the previous year. So reducing the Dec. 31, 2009 IRA balance reduces the 2010 RMD.

Take a look at your investment portfolio. If you were fortunate enough to buy stocks or other risky investments near their lows in March through a taxable account, you have sizeable gains now. Be careful about when to cash in those gains. If you sell them before owning them more than one year, the gains are short-term and taxed as ordinary income, with a top rate of 35%. You can save a lot of money by waiting for the one year period to pass and take them as long-term capital gains, if the gains hold up long enough.

If you still have losses from the bear market, continue pruning them to save taxes. Capital losses offset gains dollar for dollar. Up to $3,000 of any additional losses can be deducted against other income. Unused losses can be carried forward indefinitely to future years until used.

You can sell an investment to take a deductible loss, and then later buy back the investment. With stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other securities you need to wait more than 30 days before re-buying the same or a substantially identical investment. If you don't wait long enough, the loss can’t be deducted for this year but is added to the basis of the new investment.

Consider making charitable contributions with your securities instead of cash, but do it the right way. You deduct the fair market value of long-term capital gains property that is contributed to charity. Give such long-term capital gains property. You won't any owe any taxes on the gain and can deduct the full market value. If your securities are showing a loss, sell them, deduct the loss, and give the cash proceeds.

Bob Carlson is editor of the monthly newsletter Retirement Watch and the web site www.RetirementWatch.com. He also is author of the books The New Rules of Retirement and Invest Like a Fox…Not Like a Hedgehog.

When It Pays to Mix Annuities and IRAs

Bob Carlson — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:25:00 GMT

Most of the time it’s not a good idea to combine an IRA with an annuity. The IRA already has tax deferral, so why take on the costs and limitations of an annuity? But there are a couple of times when it may make sense to mix an annuities with an IRA. We take a look at two such situations.

Managing RMDs

When it is time to take distributions from an IRA, there are two goals of most IRA owners. One goal is to make the income last at least a lifetime, hopefully leaving something for a spouse or younger heirs.

The other goal is compute the required minimum distributions (RMDs) due after age 70½ so penalties are avoided.

The two goals can conflict. RMDs increase the risk of depleting the IRA early. That’s why a goal of many IRA owners is to minimize RMDs.

One way around this conflict is to purchase an immediate annuity about the time RMDs must begin. An immediate annuity begins distributions within a year of purchase and pays the same amount every year for a guaranteed period. Most people purchase an annuity that makes payments for life or for the joint life of the IRA owner and his or her spouse.

The insurer takes care of the RMD compliance, and purchasing an immediate annuity usually is considered to be fulfilling the RMD rules. The IRA owner does not have to worry about computing distributions or consulting the rules.

The annuity comes with the insurer's guarantee that payments will continue for the chosen period. If the insurer has financial difficulties it might not be able to make good on the guarantee. So, it is important to choose an insurer that seems financially secure.

A downside to the annuity is less flexibility. If you have an emergency financial need, your ability to draw additional money from the annuity is limited. With a straight IRA, you can take out as much money as you need above the RMD. Many insurers have loosened distribution rules so that you can take as much as 10% of the annuity balance in a year. The provision increases costs and reduces the annual payouts. It is better to have other assets available outside the IRA to handle unexpected expenses.

Another downside to the annuity is that payments are fixed. They do not increase with inflation, interest rates, or anything else. There are some inflation-indexed annuities available, but they have substantially lower initial payouts. Again, it is good to have assets other than the IRA that can be invested for growth and be available to increase annual spending as costs increase.

The annuity payments can continue to beneficiaries if you select such a payment schedule. That will result in lower payouts during your lifetime, but it ensures something is available to your heirs and the insurer does not profit if you die before life expectancy. The insurer also would manage distributions to beneficiaries. That relieves you of the burden of ensuring they understand how IRA inheritance rules work and can prevent your heirs from spending the entire amount quickly.

Charitable annuity

Taxpayers who are charitably-minded also have a problem with IRAs. The tax advantages of making gifts from the IRA are not great. You can take a distribution from the IRA, include it in gross income, issue a check to the charity, and deduct the contribution. That could result in no taxes, if you itemize deductions on Schedule A and are not in the higher tax brackets for which itemized deductions are reduced.

There is a temporary provision that allows a taxpayer who is at least age 70½ to have up to $100,000 transferred directly from an IRA to a charity. The money is excluded from gross income and no deduction is allowed. But that applies only to a few taxpayers and for a limited time.

One strategy to cope with these problems is the charitable gift annuity. Here is how this strategy works.

The IRA owner takes a distribution from the IRA of any amount, including the entire IRA, which is included in gross income.

The distribution is used to purchase a charitable gift annuity. This is an annuity contract purchased from a public charity. The charity will make regular payments to the owner for life, just as an insurer of a commercial annuity will. The owner can choose from different payment options, such as for life or for the joint life of the owner and a beneficiary.

The amount of the payouts is less than from a commercial annuity. The difference is a gift to the charity, and the owner receives a charitable contribution for the amount of the gift in the year the annuity is purchased.

The amount of the gift is determined from IRS tables that use current interest rates and the owner's age to set the deduction amount. The older the owner is, the greater the deduction. The deduction offsets some of the distribution that was included in gross income. The deduction depends primarily on your age and might offset up to half the distribution.

When payments are received from the annuity, a portion is tax free as a return of your basis or investment in the annuity. The basis is considered to be received pro rata over your life expectancy. Contrast that with when an annuity is purchased directly by the IRA. In that case, all of each distribution is likely to be included in gross income.

The charitable gift annuity strategy should be used only by someone who has charitable intentions. But for such people when the charitable contribution is considered along with the partial tax-free treatment of each payment, the after-tax cash is likely to be comparable to that of simply purchasing an annuity with the IRA.

The promise to make the payments is backed by the charity. If the charity founders financially, it might default on the annuity payments and you would be an unsecured creditor. We have seen a number of smaller charities suffer financially in the bear market or because they invested with con artists such as Bernard Madoff. Take care when determining the charity with which you do business. Favor a long-established charity with a diverse funding base and years of experience with gift annuities. Some charities purchase annuities from commercial insurers to back up their obligations. But you would not have ownership rights in that annuity or be entitled to take title to it if the charity defaults or runs into financial trouble. One popular option is to purchase the annuity from a donor-advised foundation or community foundation. These charities support a number of causes and sometimes give donors input into how their gifts are used.

There is no need to shop around for the best payout. Almost all charities agree to use the same payout formula.

When the annuity owner has other sources of income to pay living expenses, the annuity payments might be used to purchase life insurance. The life insurance can pay estate taxes or increase the inheritance of the heirs. The inheritance would be tax free, so that would leave the heirs with a better after-tax position than if they had inherited the IRA. Combining the charitable gift annuity with life insurance could leave the heirs and charity with more after-tax money than the alternatives.

Annuities are attracting more people because of their security and steady, guaranteed income. Some IRA owners will find that annuities can make retirement easier and be a powerful complement to their IRAs.

Pay Off Debt or Continue Owing in Retirement?

Bob Carlson — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:13:00 GMT

Paying off the mortgage used to be part of the American dream and a prerequisite to retirement. Then, times changed. Debt management and the use of leverage spread from businesses to personal finance. It was not unusual for people to enter retirement with mortgages and other debt with no plans to become debt free. Some did not hesitate to increase debt during retirement.

Now, the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way. The financial crisis and economic downturn are causing Americans in general to deleverage. They are reducing debt and increasing saving.

What is the best approach? Should you try to pay off the mortgage as soon as possible or use debt as a financial tool?

The first factor to consider is subjective. Some people are not comfortable with debt, especially in retirement when they no longer have steady working income. They want to be debt free as soon as they can and will sleep soundly knowing that they do not owe substantial sums to anyone. If that describes you, paying off the mortgage probably should be a priority even if the numbers we will discuss shortly show it might be better to carry some debt.

Another factor to consider is the level of your cash or liquid asset reserves. Emergencies arise from time to time. Everyone should have cash or liquid assets to be drawn from in case of unplanned expense such as medical expenses or home repairs. It could be risky to use part of your emergency cash reserves to pay off the mortgage. Shortly after the mortgage is paid, there might be an unexpected need for cash. Alternatively, it might be possible to set up a home equity line of credit to be tapped for such emergencies. Before paying off a mortgage, consider how any emergency needs would be covered.

Once those factors are considered, take a hardnosed look at the numbers.

Someone considering paying a mortgage has a source of funds from which to make the payment. The question is: What is the best use of that money?

First, estimate the rate of return you expect to earn from investing that money over the remaining term of the mortgage. A conservative investor might estimate a return of 3% or so from money market funds, certificates of deposit, or conservative bonds. Other investors might estimate a higher return, and aggressive investors might project a return of 7% or more annually. Then, apply your tax rate to the investment return to arrive at the after-tax rate of return.

Next, verify the interest rate on the mortgage. If you itemize deductions, the mortgage interest will be deductible, so determine the after-tax interest rate. The after-tax rate will be less than the stated rate on the mortgage because of the deduction. (Most lenders will provide an estimate of how each future payment will be divided between interest and principal. As a mortgage gets older, more of each payment is applied to principal and less is interest.)

If the after-tax investment return exceeds the after-tax interest rate on the mortgage, you are better off keeping the mortgage and leaving your money invested. You are earning more income on your capital than the mortgage is costing, so it is better to keep the cash invested and pay the mortgage over time.

If the situation is reversed with the mortgage interest rate exceeding the investment return after tax considerations, the best use of the money is to pay the mortgage. You are earning less than the mortgage is costing you, so your wealth is increased over time by paying the mortgage and saving the interest payments.

Example. Suppose your mortgage has an interest rate of 6% and your combined federal and state income tax rate is 40%. The after-tax interest rate is 3.6%. Tax-exempt bonds yield more than that. Investment grade corporate bonds yield around 7%, which is 4.2% after taxes. If you invest the money in either of those vehicles, you are better off doing that and instead of paying down the mortgage. The same would be true if you plan to invest in a diversified portfolio or even primarily in stocks and expect to earn more than 3.6% annually after taxes. Keep in mind, however, that for these investments the rate of return is not guaranteed over the life of the mortgage, and there is a risk of losing principal.

If you invest in money market funds, certificates of deposit, or treasury bonds you probably will be earning less than 3.6% after taxes. Also, if you are bearish about stocks for the duration of the mortgage, you probably are anticipating a return less than 3.6% annually. In those cases, the better use of your capital is to pay the mortgage.

Suppose you already own a home debt free and are considering how to pay for repairs or improvements. Your choices are to take money from the portfolio or borrow against the home. The same analysis should be done. Compare the mortgage interest rate with the portfolio's investment return to decide on the best use of your money.

There are other factors for some people to consider.

If you still are working, the best use of income might be to maximize the contributions to your 401(k), or at least contribute enough to receive the full employer matching contribution. Taxes are deferred on the income contributed to the 401(k), as are taxes on the account's earnings. To the extent the employer makes a matching contribution, the rate of return on the 401(k) contributions is very high.

If the wealth that would be used to pay the mortgage is not in cash or near-cash, transactions might be needed to convert it to cash. Those transactions could trigger taxes. Selling stocks or mutual funds could trigger capital gains taxes, while withdrawals from annuities or IRAs would be taxed at ordinary income rates. The transactions also might push you into a higher tax bracket or even trigger the alternative minimum tax. In effect, you would need a greater amount than the mortgage balance to pay off the mortgage, because of the taxes incurred. The interest rate on the mortgage would have to be substantially higher than your investment return to justify taking the extra money from investments to pay the mortgage and the taxes.

Are the wealthy smarter than other people about using debt? Data from before the crisis show that the percentage of older Americans with mortgages is rising, and wealthy Americans have a disproportionate share of the nation's debt. This could be an indication of what financial advisors call strategic debt—using debt as a tool to increase net worth.

Strategic debt works like this. Suppose you have $500,000 of investments. You want to buy a home for $500,000. You could pay cash for the home and be debt free. Or you could make a down payment of $100,000 and take a mortgage of $400,000. Then, you own a $400,000 investment portfolio and a $500,000 house, controlling $900,000 of assets. The strategy works as long as income is high enough to pay the mortgage and is smart when the portfolio’s return is at least as high as the mortgage interest rate.

But a further probe into the data also shows that a lot of the debt among the wealthy probably is incurred to maintain a lifestyle people really cannot afford. The top 1% by wealth owe much less debt than those just below them on the wealth scale. It appears that a lot of the debt is not so much strategic as it is to stretch a lifestyle to keep up with even wealthier people.

One final factor to consider is prepayment penalties. Some states prohibit them, but in others penalties can be imposed on principal prepayments. This is another cost to factor into the equation.

Deciding whether to keep or eliminate debt is a simple exercise, requiring a few simple calculations. There are web sites that help make the calculations, such as www.mtgprofessor.com.

The Four Goals of Legacy Planning

Bob Carlson — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:29:00 GMT

Perhaps one of the worst effects of high estate taxes is the way tax planning diverts attention from other important estate planning issues. For many years, I have stressed that estate planning is about much more than taxes, but most people believe estate planning and estate tax planning were the same thing. Though wrong, it was understandable when the lifetime estate tax exemption was $600,000. Many "modest millionaires" who considered themselves middle class would be hit by high estate and gift taxes without planning.

Unfortunately, the idea that estate planning is all about tax reduction still is widely held. With the estate tax exemption at $3.5 million and likely to stay there or higher, many people simply are neglecting estate planning. Since estate taxes are not going to be a problem for them, they see no reason to put together a plan.

One way to avoid falling into this trap is to think about legacy planning instead of estate planning. Everyone needs a legacy plan, even those with less than $1 million in assets. With a new estate tax law likely to come down the pike this year and stabilize the tax picture, 2009 is a good time to put together your legacy plan.

Legacy planning has four key goals. Consider these goals and how to accomplish them. Working with an estate planner will be easier and faster when you understand legacy planning this way, and it will make meeting these goals easier and more likely.

Financial security for you and the objects of your affection is a priority of legacy planning.

Though few people realize it, putting yourself first should come be the priority of legacy planning. Establishing a legacy involves giving to or providing things (not necessarily money) for others. Yet, you are best able to give to others when your own standard of living is secure. You won’t be able to give to or provide for others when your own situation is precarious. As the plan is developed, keep returning to the question of whether a strategy would put your standard of living at risk under some circumstances. The sharp decline in asset prices in 2008 brought that home to many people.

Once comfortable with your financial security, establish goals for the ultimate disposition of your wealth. Often, the spouse is the first beneficiary of the wealth. After that, children, grandchildren, and charities are the usual recipients of the wealth. You need to decide who will benefit from your estate, the order in which they will benefit, and the amount or percentage of your wealth they should receive.

After determining who should benefit from the wealth, the next issue is how they will benefit. That issue often is determined by the other goals of legacy planning.

Continuing the management and caretaking of the estate is the next goal. If you are like most people, you have been calling the shots if not doing all the management. Too many estates, regardless of their size, dwindle rapidly after the first owners pass them on. Often the successors did not understand how the assets were to be managed or did not share the values and outlook of the founder.

This issue is particularly important with small businesses. The founding owner must decide who will own the business, who will benefit from its income, and who will manage the business. Those are three separate categories and do not have to consist of the same person or people. A key to successful legacy planning for a business, however, is to have a succession plan in place and to follow it. Succession planning is an issue we have discussed in my newsletter, Retirement Watch from time to time.

Even estates without businesses need to address the issue of the stewardship transition. It could be that the people you want to benefit from the wealth are not likely to manage it well over the long term. In that case, you want to consider trusts and other arrangements that separate management and ownership. It is important to recognize that those who benefit from the assets do not have to be the managers.

Protecting the estate is another key element of the plan. This goal is particularly important to small business owners and professionals. They feel a greater need to protect assets from potential creditors and lawsuits. But others might need asset protection from those sources as well as disgruntled family members, irresponsible family members, and ex-family members in divorces.

There are simple, low-cost vehicles that will protect assets, including different ways to hold title to assets, IRAs, annuities, and umbrella liability insurance. These work for estates of any size. For larger estates, there are vehicles that can be used to protect assets, including trusts and limited partnerships. Your fears, needs, and the various methods can be discussed with your estate planner. The key is to identify the assets you want protected and the potential harms from which you want protection. Surprisingly, the size of the estate often is not a factor. Many estate planners report that the worst fights are over the smaller estates.

The legacy plan must address the potential tax burden. Once you have established who should benefit from the wealth, you want to transfer the wealth to them in the ways with the lowest possible tax bill that meet your other goals. For many estates, that has become easier each year for about a decade, but easier tax reduction probably won't continue after 2009.

One reason many people do not develop estate plans is they do not realize how valuable the estate is and the potential tax burden. There often are "hidden assets" that are included in the taxable estate such as annuities, life insurance, IRAs, and some trusts. Other people "forget" about some of their assets or do not know their true value.

Even when federal estate taxes are not a problem, state inheritance or estate taxes could be. A number of states have these taxes, and some impose taxes on estates or assets with values as low as $250,000.

Income taxes on beneficiaries also need to be considered in the plan. For example, the beneficiaries of IRAs face an income tax burden many people overlook. That burden is one reason it might benefit you or your heirs to empty an IRA early, pay the taxes, and put the IRA assets in a taxable account to compound over the years. If you do not consider income taxes, your beneficiaries could benefit from far less of your wealth than you expected.

Planning a legacy involves far more than reducing estate taxes. It is time to start determining your goals and putting your plan together. Once the new estate tax law is final, push forward with the final details and implementation.

Your IRA and Your Heirs

Bob Carlson — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:22:00 GMT

The unfortunate fate of many IRAs shows why everyone needs an estate plan, even when the value of the estate is far below the taxable level. Few people are aware of what could happen to their IRAs when the next generation inherits them. Most people, and discussions of IRAs, focus on building the balance through contributions and investments. If your IRA is a meaningful portion of your estate, however, you better consider what will happen to it. Effective estate planning strategies for IRAs tend to be different from the rest of the plan.

An estate plan for IRAs should answer these questions: What will be the bills for estate taxes and income taxes? Who will pay those taxes? Who will receive the IRA? In what form will the IRA be received?

There is a great deal of confusion about how inherited IRAs are taxed. The value of the IRA will be included in the owner's estate. Unlike other assets, ownership of the IRA cannot be given away during life or put into a trust for the benefit of others. If the IRA owner's estate will be large enough to incur estate taxes, the owner has to use other assets to reduce the tax or purchase life insurance to pay the estate tax. Most likely the IRA also will incur any state death or inheritance taxes.

Estate taxes can be avoided when the surviving spouse is the sole primary beneficiary of the IRA. The IRA’s value will be included in the owner’s estate, but there will be an offsetting marital deduction when the spouse inherits.

When estate taxes are incurred on an IRA the next issue is: Who pays the taxes attributable to the IRA?

Most standard wills provide that estate taxes are paid from the residuary estate or from the surviving spouse's share. Other estates apportion the taxes against specific assets or shares of the estate. If the IRA is a large percentage of the estate and taxes are paid from the residuary estate or surviving spouse's share, the taxes attributable to the IRA could really shrink the after-tax value of the shares paying the taxes.

Having the taxes attributable to the IRA paid by the beneficiaries of the IRA could create problems. If the beneficiaries do not have sufficient other assets to pay the taxes, they will have to take a distribution from the IRA to pay the taxes. The distribution will be included in their gross income for income tax purposes, so they will have to take an extra amount to pay the income taxes on the distribution they take to pay the estate taxes.

The best solution depends on the particular estate and the beneficiaries. The IRA owner should take care to consider how much the estate taxes will be and which part of the estate will pay them or whether life insurance should be purchased to pay the taxes.

After the payment of estate taxes isre resolved, or even if estate taxes are not an issue, there are income taxes to consider.

Unlike when other assets are inherited, there also will be income taxes due when the beneficiary takes distributions from the IRA. The beneficiary pays the same income taxes on distributions that the owner would have paid. These taxes cannot be avoided, and the fact of them might influence who is named beneficiary of the IRA or how much is left to different beneficiaries.

A non-IRA asset is more valuable to an heir than an IRA of equal value is, because there will be income taxes due on distributions from the IRA. The heir really inherits only the after-tax value of the IRA. The non-IRA asset, on the other hand, can be sold and no capital gains taxes would be due on the appreciation that occurred during the owner's holding period.

The income taxes due on IRA distributions are a reason to consider making charitable gifts with the IRA instead of other estate assets. The IRA will be included in the estate, but there will be an offsetting charitable contribution deduction, for no net estate tax. In addition, a charity that is named beneficiary of an IRA will not owe income taxes when it takes distributions, so it will benefit from the full value of the IRA. If there is an inclination to make charitable gifts through the estate, it often is better to make the gifts through an IRA and maximize the non-IRA assets left to other heirs.

You do not have to leave the entire IRA to a charity. If the IRA’s value exceeds the amount you want to leave to charity, leave a portion of the IRA to charity and a portion to other heirs. Or split the IRA into two, leaving one entirely to charity and the other to other beneficiaries.

Another issue is the beneficiary selection, if it is not to be a charity. An IRA owner wants to be sure to name one or more beneficiaries. Failure to do so, or naming the estate as beneficiary, removes the tax deferral benefits of the IRA. Distributions will be required from the IRA on an accelerated schedule.

Naming the beneficiary is not as complicated as it used to be. Before 2001 and 2002 regulations, the beneficiary choice greatly influenced the amount of the required minimum distributions during the owner’s lifetime. Now, an IRA owner should consider only which beneficiary he or she really wants to receive the IRA.

In most cases, the surviving spouse is the primary beneficiary and the children are contingent beneficiaries. In larger estates, the owner might name a charity to receive at least some of the IRA as discussed above.

Yet, it makes a lot of sense for an IRA owner to have a back up plan for the beneficiary selection. The regulations allow the estate executor to name the Designated Beneficiary by September 30 of the year after the year of the IRA owner's death. In most cases, there won't be any reason to change from the standard practice of naming the surviving spouse as beneficiary. But circumstances can change, and the regulations allow the executor to adapt to changing circumstances.

For the executor to take advantage of the flexibility, the IRA owner must name contingent beneficiaries on the beneficiary designation form. The Designated Beneficiary named by the executor must be on the list of primary and contingent beneficiaries named by the owner.

When more than one person is beneficiary of an IRA, the beneficiaries can split the IRA into separate ones, but they might not realize this or the IRA custodian might be resistant to it. If the beneficiaries do not split the IRA, the age of the oldest determines the required minimum distributions from the IRA. In addition, the beneficiaries have to agree on management of the IRA and on the policy for taking distributions that exceed the required minimum.

The IRA owner should ensure that the beneficiaries know they can split the IRA. The owner also should check the IRA custodian’s policy for splitting inherited IRAs. Some discourage it or charge fees. Some IRA owners decide to split their IRAs themselves, naming one primary beneficiary for each.

Instead of leaving the IRA directly to individual beneficiaries, the owner might want to name a trust as beneficiary. The trust can control when distributions are made to the beneficiary. This arrangement might increase income taxes, however, and tricky rules must be followed when drafting the trust. Do not name a trust as IRA beneficiary without working with an estate planning attorney who is experienced in this area. The wrong language in the trust can terminate the tax deferral benefits of the IRA and require distributions on an accelerated schedule.

Because of the income and estate taxes and the nuances of naming beneficiaries, some IRA owners choose to empty their IRAs early, pay the taxes, and invest the after-tax assets in taxable accounts. Once out of the IRA, the assets can be given away as part of the estate plan or can be invested for long-term gains.

Emptying the IRA early generally is a strategy for those who have sufficient assets outside the IRA to support their standard of living or have such large IRAs that they consider the IRA primarily a savings account or something to be left to the next generation. If the strategy is used, it is best to empty the IRA as early as possible, because time is needed to make up for paying the income taxes early. I discuss the strategy in detail in my book, The New Rules of Retirement and have discussed it in past issues of Retirement Watch.

For similar reasons, people convert traditional IRAs into Roth IRAs, which also is discussed in those sources.

IRA owners need to know that wills and living trusts have no effect on an IRA. Only the beneficiary designation form on file with the custodian determines who inherits an IRA. IRA owners need to keep copies of the form and review it regularly. They also should check with the IRA custodian to be sure it has the current form on file.

The ABCs and XYZs of Trusts

Bob Carlson — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:17:00 GMT

Trusts are fairly simple. Lawyers and estate planners make them seem more complicated than they are. That’s too bad, because to ensure they have effective estate plans nonlawyers need to understand the different types of trusts and how they work.

Trusts used to be for only the very wealthy or for special situations. But now trusts are included in many estate plans, because they can help achieve so many goals. Almost everyone needs a working knowledge of trusts, and you should brush up on them before the estate tax is changed later in 2009.

A trust is simply a contract with three parties. The parties can be groups, because more than one person can share any of the roles. A person can have more than one role, even all three.

One party to the contract is the grantor or creator. This is the person who wrote the trust agreement and usually puts all the assets in the trust. Another party is the trustee. The trustee agrees to manage the assets according to the terms of the trust agreement and the law. Legally the trustee acts as owner of the assets, but the actions the trustee can take are limited by the trust agreement. In addition, the assets cannot be reached by personal creditors of the trustee.

The third party is the beneficiary. Beneficiaries have rights to receive income or principal or both according to the terms of the trust agreement, and the trust assets are managed for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Sometimes beneficiaries have other rights, such as the ability to change trustees or name who receives their interests after they pass away. Either the beneficiaries or grantor normally can sue the trustee for violating the trust agreement or mismanaging the assets.

Trusts are very flexible. There are few limits to the terms that can be put in the trust agreement. To make their work easier, lawyers have shorthand names for trusts that are designed to achieve specific goals. The tax law also gives names to trusts with certain provisions. The flexibility and different names can make trusts seem confusing.

In general, it is easiest to think of trusts in four categories. In each category there are two possible labels. Most trusts have a label from more than one category and some from each category.

Living vs. post mortem. A living trust simply is a trust created during the grantor's lifetime. A post mortem trust is one created in or as part of the will. A living trust often is given the Latin name inter vivos trust.

Keep in mind a trust can be created but not funded. For example, a grantor and trustee can sign the trust agreement. That creates the trust. But the trust has no effect and there is no business for it to do unless property is transferred to it. It is not unusual for grantors to create trusts then fail to transfer title to any assets to them. Also a trust can be created during life but funded under the will.

When most people hear the phrase "living trust" they actually are thinking of a revocable living trust, which we will discuss next.

Revocable vs. irrevocable. A living trust can be revocable or irrevocable. In a revocable trust, the grantor reserves the right to revoke the trust or change its terms. The right to change might apply to some terms or to all the trust terms. For example, the grantor might reserve only the right to change the beneficiaries but not the rest of the terms. An irrevocable trust is what the name says. Its terms cannot be changed by the grantor after the trust agreement is signed.

A very common trust is the revocable living trust. It is used to avoid probate in states with high probate costs or long probate procedures, especially California and Florida.

Under the revocable living trust the grantor transfers title to almost all his or her property to the trust, including homes, cars, checking accounts, investment accounts, and household furnishings. The grantor and grantor's spouse usually are both the initial trustees and beneficiaries. They generally treat the property the same as they did before the trust was formed, except everything must be in the trust's name, and they manage it as trustees. The trust agreement spells out who succeeds them as trustees and beneficiaries.

Property owned by a trust is transferred to the next generation of beneficiaries under the terms of the trust agreement. A will has no effect, and property owned by a trust avoids the probate process. There is no public recording of the trust, and the trustees do not have to ask a court to transfer title to heirs. Instead, the trust agreement controls. That is why a revocable living trust also is called a will substitute.

There are serious tax differences between revocable and irrevocable trusts. When a grantor creates a revocable trust, the grantor is treated as the owner of the property for tax purposes, and the trust assets are included in the grantor's taxable estate. Income and gains of the revocable trust generally are taxed to the grantor as earned, whether or not money is paid from the trust to the grantor.

Irrevocable trusts can reduce income and estate taxes. When properly structured, irrevocable trust property is not included in the grantor's estate, and trust income and gains are taxed to either the trust or the beneficiary instead of the grantor. While irrevocable trusts can reduce taxes, they really must be irrevocable and the grantor cannot have the right to retrieve the property or be paid the income.

Income vs. total return. The next category refers to how annual payouts to the beneficiary are determined. Traditionally, the income beneficiaries of a trust receive only income earned by the trust's assets. Income generally is defined as interest, dividends, royalties, and rents. Capital gains are not income. They are added to trust principal. A standard trust term is to pay all income to the grantor’s spouse for life. After the spouse's demise, the children receive the remaining trust principal.

The income trust has become less feasible as interest rates declined and the cost of living increased. Income stays the same or declines as the income beneficiary's cost of living rises. The trustee could try to increase income by investing in riskier income vehicles, but that puts the principal at risk. Another tension is the remainder beneficiaries want some of the trust invested for growth. Otherwise, the purchasing power of their remainder interest declines because of inflation. But the needs of the income beneficiary discourage growth investing.

A total return trust solves these problems. The “income beneficiary” is paid either a percentage of the trust assets or a fixed amount. The trustee does not worry about restricting payouts only to income. Instead, the trustee invests for long-term growth with a diversified portfolio. The income beneficiaries can be paid from income, capital gains, or principal. The total return trust is the better way to structure trust payouts today.

Discretionary vs. nondiscretionary. This category refers to the trustee's ability to vary distributions or payouts. In a nondiscretionary trust, the trustee is told in the trust agreement how much to distribute to income beneficiaries each year or how to calculate the distributions. The trustee also is told when to distribute principal and how much to distribute. For example, one third of the principal might be distributed to a beneficiary upon turning age 21, another third at 25, and the remainder at 30.

A discretionary trust allows the trustee to exercise judgment at least part of the time. The trustee might distribute to the surviving spouse all income earned by the trust plus whatever principal or capital gains are needed to maintain the spouse's standard of living in the trustee’s judgment. Or the trustee might be able to withhold any distribution when the trustee believes it is in a beneficiary's best interest, such as when the beneficiary has a substance abuse or gambling problem.

These are the broad ways of categorizing trusts. There are many specialized trusts. There are charitable trusts (several types of them), dynasty trusts, grantor retained annuity trusts, grantor retained income trusts, and many more. These specialized trusts usually are used to accomplish certain goals at a minimum tax cost, and the tax law dictates the details of the trusts. But each of these specialized trusts also can be defined by the categories we discussed. They are specialized trusts within the categories.

Now, you know the basics of trusts. You can intelligently review and discuss estate plan options, know the key questions to ask about a trust and the consequences of the answers. You are ready to put together a more effective estate plan and to avoid having a trust you don't need or that does not meet your goals.

A Dangerous Retirement Myth

Bob Carlson — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:15:00 GMT

Many retirement plans fall short of their goals because they were built on myths and misunderstandings. Most of my work at Retirement Watch falls into two categories. The first category is determining changes that should affect retirement plans. The second category is correcting the myths that have built up around retirement planning. One of the great myths of retirement planning is: Taxes will be lower in retirement. Last week we had tax return deadlines and tea parties, so this is a good time to discuss the issue of taxes in retirement, and a new survey proves a point I have made for years about retirees and taxes.

There was a time when taxes really did decline in retirement. When income tax rates were higher and there was a heavily graduated tax system, there were 13 tax brackets. Many people received less income in retirement than during their working years, and it did not take much of a drop in income to push a new retiree into a lower tax bracket. In addition, there were numerous tax breaks for seniors.

Things are different now.

We have only a few tax brackets. One needs to have a significant drop in income after retiring to drop into a lower bracket.

More importantly, retirees are making up a larger share of the taxpaying public as the Baby Boomers age. Governments cannot afford to let them pay less in taxes, and they do not.

Social Security benefits once were exempt from income taxes. For a while now, the benefits have been taxable to “upper income” recipients. The number who pay taxes on the benefits rises each year, because the income levels at which the benefits are taxed are not indexed for inflation.

Many retirees also are likely to be caught in the alternative minimum tax. Each year, more middle income retirees pay higher taxes under the AMT than under the regular income tax. That is usually because income declines after retirement but tax deductions remain the same. The combination can trigger the AMT.

In fact, unknown to many pre-retirees, taxes are likely to be your largest expense in retirement. While most people worry about medical expenses and long-term care, the biggest drain of your retirement income will be taxes. Income taxes are likely to take the largest share. There also will be sales taxes, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, and taxes on capital gains.

The new survey of retirees between ages 70½ and 75 with a net worth of at least $1 million, by Securian Financial Group, found taxes were the largest expense by a wide margin. Taxes, in fact, took about 4% of net worth every year. That is 4% of net worth, not of income. The percentage of income taken by taxes is much higher. It is tough to have net worth increase or remain stable when one expense is taking such a large portion.

Tax planning needs to be an integral part of your retirement money management. Strategies that effectively reduce taxes for many retirees include:

Tax-exempt bonds instead of taxable bonds. These won’t help reduce taxes on Social Security benefits, but they will reduce income taxes. Tax-exempt bonds carry attractive yields relative to treasury bonds now, but they also carry extra risks because of the economic distress of many state and local governments. Don’t take high risks to reduce income taxes.

Monitor the stealth taxes each year. Relatively small adjustments in income or expenses in the last part of the year might avoid higher taxes due to the itemized expense reduction, the personal and dependent exemption phaseout, and the alternative minimum tax.

Investments. Simple strategies such as minimizing trading, holding investments more than one year so the capital gains are long-term and not short-term, and buying mutual funds that traditionally make low annual distributions are easy ways to boost after-tax investment returns.

IRA management. Once distributions begin, managing the IRA is more complicated than many people realize. Taxes can be reduced and the life of a portfolio extended by withdrawing money from your different accounts in the right order and carefully calculating which assets are held in which accounts. Some retirees reduce lifetime taxes by taking money out of their IRAs faster than required under the law or converting a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA.

Maximizing deductions, such as those for charitable contributions and medical expenses, also are key to reducing taxes for many retirees.

Many retirees are surprised by the amount of taxes they pay. They believed the myth that taxes decline in retirement. The truth is without some planning taxes will stay the same or even increase during retirement. Tax breaks specifically for seniors are rare these days. Tax traps and a retirement tax ambush are more likely. You need to continue tax planning through retirement to ensure your retirement fund lasts a lifetime.

Bob Carlson is editor of the monthly newsletter Retirement Watch and the web site www.RetirementWatch.com. He also is author of numerous books and reports, including The New Rules of Retirement and Invest Like a Fox…Not Like a Hedgehog.

Dos and Don'ts of IRA Investing

Bob Carlson — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:18:00 GMT

Many people own substantial IRAs and have the bulk of their investment portfolios in IRAs. Some of these investors might not realize there are investments that are prohibited from IRAs and others are allowed but incur tax penalties. The issue of how to invest an IRA is more important in today's climate, because "hard assets" and other nontraditional assets—those that investors prefer today—are primarily those prohibited or discouraged in IRAs.

IRA investment disincentives fall into three categories. There are prohibited investments, taxable investments or transactions, and prohibited transactions.

The prohibited IRA investments are labeled “collectibles.” When an IRA purchases a collectible, the amount used to make the purchase is treated as distribution to the owner. It is included in the owner's gross income, and if the owner is under age 59½ and does not qualify for one of the exceptions, a 10% early distribution penalty is imposed on top of the income taxes. In addition, there is a penalty each year the IRA continues to own the prohibited investment.

Collectibles are defined in the tax code as works of art, antiques, rugs, stamps, coins, metals, gems, and alcoholic beverages. The IRS is allowed to define other items as collectibles but has not done so.

Note that an IRA may purchase securities of firms that produce collectibles, such as mining companies and alcohol producers or distributors. But the IRA may not purchase the collectibles themselves.

There are other investments an IRA may own, but those investments could cause the IRA to owe income taxes on income from the investments or the owner might be taxed as though distributions were made.

An IRA is most likely to be taxed when it earns unrelated business taxable income (UBTI). The UBTI rules apply to all qualified retirement plans, not just traditional IRAs. If an IRA earns UBTI exceeding $1,000 it must pay income taxes on that income. The IRA might have to file Forms 990-T or 990-W. It also must pay estimated income taxes during the year if the UBTI exceeds $500.

The IRA owner essentially will be taxed twice on UBTI. The IRA will be taxed on the income. Subsequently, the owner or beneficiary will be taxed on distributions of that income. There is no deduction or credit available to the owner for UBTI paid by the IRA, and the tax on the IRA does not increase the tax basis of the IRA.

The UBTI rules are supposed to prevent a tax-exempt entity such as an IRA from unfairly competing with tax-paying businesses. The rules are fairly broad, however, and apply to situations in which the IRA is not operating a business. An IRA potentially has UBTI if it does any of the following:

operates a trade or business,

receives certain types of rental income,

receives certain types of passive income from a business entity it controls,

invests in a pass-through entity, such as a partnership, that conducts a business, or

uses debt to finance investments.

A "trade or business" is any activity carried on for the production of income from the sale of goods or performance of service. Any business is considered unrelated to the exempt purposes of an IRA or other retirement plan. Fortunately, the tax code specifically excludes certain types of income from the definition of trade or business income for UBTI purposes. The exempt types of income include interest, dividends, capital gains, and profits from options transactions. Royalties also are generally exempt.

Even exempt income, however, can be converted into UBTI.

Real estate rental income generally is exempt from UBTI, but becomes UBTI if the amount of rent is computed as a percentage of the tenant's profits.

Controlling a business entity also can convert exempt income into UBTI. When an IRA has greater than 50 percent control of a business entity, any rent, interest, or royalties paid by the entity to the IRA is UBTI if the payments have the effect of reducing the business income of the entity. Another way to look at this rule is that if the business entity deducts the payments to the IRA, they are UBTI to the IRA.

When an IRA owns an interest in a pass-through business entity (partnership or limited liability company), the IRA's share of the entity's income is UBTI. Pass-through entities generally do not pay federal income taxes. Instead, their income and expenses are passed through to their owners' income tax returns.

This rule most often trips up individuals who invest in master limited partnerships (MLPs) or real estate partnerships in their IRAs. MLPs are traded on major stock exchanges, and many people think of them as being the same as corporate stock. In fact, these are partnership units, and the income and expenses of the partnerships pass through to the owners at tax time. Individuals generally are urged not to purchase MLPs through IRAs.

It is not illegal to own an MLP through an IRA. The ownership, however, triggers the UBTI rules and the requirement to possibly file a version of Form 990 and pay estimated taxes. There is no tax advantage to owning MLPs through an IRA. Some tax advisors recommend taking the easier and cheaper route of reporting any IRA-owned pass through items on the individual tax return instead of filing a separate Form 990 for the IRA.

An IRA also has UBTI when debt is used to finance investments. Any type of income can become UBTI when debt is used to finance the property that generates the income. For example, if an IRA receives a margin loan from the custodian or broker, income generated by the securities purchased with the loan proceeds would be UBTI. Real estate mortgages also are debts that convert exempt income into UBTI. An IRA can own real estate and earn rental income, and that rental income will be tax deferred. If the real estate is financed with a mortgage, however, the rental income becomes UBTI.

The prohibited transaction rules are the final category of taboo investments. The rules are fairly detailed and can get complicated. Generally they prohibit transactions between the IRA and its owner or a person related to the owner (including businesses).

The penalty for violating the prohibited transaction rule is severe. The entire IRA will be considered fully distributed when the prohibited transaction was made. The IRA owner must include its full value in gross income, regardless of the amount of the prohibited transaction. If the owner has multiple IRAs, only the IRA that engaged in the prohibited transaction is penalized. Other IRAs escape the penalty unless they also engaged in prohibited transactions.

It is easy to state the prohibitions in clear, plain English: No deals are allowed involving the IRA and the owner or a person related to the IRA or its owner. Yet, there are some "prohibited transactions" allowed by IRS regulations or rulings, and IRA owners can receive waivers from the Department of Labor for specific transactions.

A detailed discussion of the prohibited transaction rules would be too much for this posting. While it is possible for an IRA to engage in transactions with the owner’s small business, real estate, or other interests, such transactions should not be considered without good tax or legal advice.

IRAs do not have complete investment freedom. IRA owners who prefer investments other than publicly-traded stocks and bonds and mutual funds need to be wary of the potential pitfalls.

Time to Stop Deferring Taxes?

Bob Carlson — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:34:00 GMT

Conventional investment advice has been turned on its head by changes in the fundamentals of the economy and markets. Now, fundamental changes in the government, demographics, and the economy are forcing changes in tax policy and tax planning advice.

The age-old advice is to defer taxes whenever possible and for as long as possible. Over the years, I have pointed my subscribers to a few exceptions to this strategy discovered in our research. Soon, the classic rule might become a relic. For many people, the best tax planning advice in coming years could be to pay income taxes as early as possible, because rates will be higher later.

The structural changes leading to this conclusion are significant:

We have a new President and Congress. They explicitly campaigned on promises to raise taxes, at least on the wealthiest Americans. "Wealthy" tends to be defined downward after an election, and that is likely to be the case now.

Social Security and Medicare cannot be sustained under current tax and spending policies. Either benefits must be reduced or taxes raised or both.

The policy response to the financial crisis was for the federal government to bailout, subsidize, insure, and otherwise commit to spending a lot of money. There is a chance some money will be recovered from the government's "investments," but most likely the government will have net negative cash flow.

The new government leaders plan to spend a lot more money, especially on medical care, energy, and the environment. The details are not clear at this point, but higher spending by the government clearly is part of the plan.

Environmental policy is likely to include significant tax increases.

A result of the current crisis likely will be less leverage in the economy, leading to lower economic growth. Lower growth means less tax revenue from the current tax structure and a need for higher taxes.

The President proposed a few specific tax increases in his budget plan, but others won't be known for a while. We do have a lot of clues, however, and can begin to plan.

Higher income individuals are likely to face higher income taxes. During the campaign the income cut-off for higher taxes initially was $250,000. But at times lower numbers were used, and Congress traditionally defines “high income” much lower than $250,000. The current plan is to let the 2003 tax cuts expire after 2010, which will affect many taxpayers.

All Americans are likely to be hit with indirect and non-income taxes. These include gasoline taxes, other carbon and energy taxes, and various fees and charges.

Means-testing is another likely form of tax increase. Already upper income people receive a lower return on their Social Security taxes and pay higher Medicare premiums. Benefits from Social Security and Medicare likely will be reduced above some income level. Expect similar actions in other government programs.

Tax benefit reductions also are likely in lieu of tax rate increases. Itemized deductions and personal and dependency exemptions now are reduced at higher incomes, effectively increasing tax rates. Congress likely will search for other tax breaks to phase out as income rises. Many phase outs were included in the economic stimulus law that recently was enacted. Related changes will be "closing loopholes" by eliminating deductions and income exemptions.

A long shot in the short term is imposition of a value added tax or some kind of a national sales tax. This tax can be hidden in the cost of goods and services, raised easily, and will generate a lot of money for the government.

Taxes on long-term capital gains are likely to rise above their current 15% level. A rise to 20% seems almost certain after 2010, and an increase to 28% is possible. Taxes on dividends also will rise. The question is whether they will be taxed the same as long-term capital gains or will return to being taxed as ordinary income.

The bottom line is reduced benefits, higher taxes, and fewer opportunities to reduce taxes. Most people should plan to spend less, save more, and work longer.

A good guess is that most over age 55 won't have to deal with lower benefits from Social Security and Medicare, except those with higher incomes. Those farther from retirement likely will face changes.

What should you do?

The good news is the economic crisis prevents the imposition of higher taxes for a year or more. That gives you time to plan.

IRAs and retirement accounts likely will be hurt by future tax increases. All distributions are ordinary income, and you cannot spend the money without taking a distribution.

In the past I showed subscribers when it makes sense to pay taxes early on an IRA by either emptying it or converting to a Roth IRA (if adjusted gross income is $100,000 or less). These strategies will be profitable now for more people if income tax rates rise. In 2010 and later years under current law anyone will be able to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA.

More people should give serious thought to emptying their IRAs early or converting to Roth IRAs. Details are in the members section of my web site and in my book The New Rules of Retirement.

It is too soon to sell appreciated capital assets to avoid higher taxes. A retroactive capital gains tax increase is unlikely. The government wants to tell investors in advance that the tax will increase, because the announcement will trigger asset sales by people seeking to lock in the lower rate, boosting government revenue. Be ready to sell appreciated assets in a year or two to avoid higher capital gains taxes, and expect lower after-tax returns from capital assets after that.

The same advice applies to dividends. There won't be much you can do to avoid the eventual increase. Factor lower after-tax income from dividends in your plans. As the tax rate on dividends increases higher after-tax income might be available from bonds or other income investments.

Reconsider plans to defer future income. Your income tax rate in the future is likely to be higher than today. You could have more money in the long-term by paying taxes today and investing the after-tax amount.

That means you should review IRA and 401(k) contributions and deferred compensation arrangements. Those earning $50,000 or less probably won't be hit with higher income tax rates and can safely continue tax deferrals. But the higher your income is above $50,000, the greater your risk of paying higher rates in the future. Income tax rate increases might very well be retroactive at some point. In a rising income tax regime, it is better to pay taxes today than in the future.

Forget the notion you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement. Many of us will be in higher tax brackets, especially when all types of taxes are included. This is another reason to reduce tax deferral.

Retirement spending plans should be revised to reflect higher costs. If you are not already retired, consider working longer and saving more. You might have to pay more for medical care, utilities and other energy-using services, and more. Your Social Security benefits might be reduced because of means-testing. As the tax proposals become more specific and are closer to enactment, investment plans will need to be revised or you will have to accept lower after-tax returns.

Bob Carlson is editor of the monthly newsletter and web site Retirement Watch (www.RetirementWatch.com). He also is the author of The New Rules of Retirement and Invest Like a Fox…Not Like a Hedgehog.

Asset Declines=A Planning Opportunity - Part 2

Bob Carlson — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:46:00 GMT

Last week we discussed how today’s economic distress creates estate planning opportunities. Because of today’s reduced asset values, estate owners can shift assets out of their estates tax at much lower tax cost than they could have a year or two ago. We went over basic strategies for taking advantage of the situation. This week, let’s look at ways to leverage these strategies.

Family loans. Many families like the concept of loans to family members. If you might need the money in the future, a loan lets you provide benefits to family members now while retaining future access to the wealth. The IRS requires you to charge a minimum interest rate on a family loan to avoid income and gift taxes. The minimum rates are based on treasury debt rates. Because the Federal Reserve has been pushing down short-term rates and investors have been reducing intermediate and long-term rates in the flight to safety, the required minimum rates are low. The rates are changed monthly, and depend on the loan's maturity or term. They are known as “federal applicable interest rates” and are published monthly by the IRS in its Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Family loans are very flexible, but here is how one common strategy works. You lend $100,000 to a child for five years. Let's say the law requires you to charge 2% interest. Your child can invest that money for five years. If the investments earn more than 2% annually, the child keeps that excess return. You receive the $100,000 plus 2% annual interest after five years.

Alternatively, you could lend the money to allow a child to buy a home in today's depressed market. You might set the term of the loan at 10 years. There are several actions the child could take by the end of 10 years. The home could be sold at a profit, with the child keeping the return above the interest rate you charge. Or once the credit markets loosen, the child could refinance the home with a traditional mortgage and return the borrowed money plus interest to you.

The benefits of the family loan can be increased with a variation. If you do not need the money to maintain your standard of living, each year you can use the annual gift tax exclusion to forgive the interest and part of the principal. This shifts the money and future appreciation out of your estate tax free over time while enabling your children to benefit from having the cash now.

In some circumstances a minimum interest rate need not be charged on a family loan if the principal is low enough. I won’t go into the details here. They are available in the members’ section of my web site at www.RetirementWatch.com and also from www.irs.gov.

Grantor retained annuity trusts. Today's low interest rates make these trusts a potentially great opportunity.

The grantor creates a trust that pays a fixed income to him for life or a period of years. After that the remainder of the trust goes to the beneficiaries. The present value of the remainder is a gift. The present value is determined by IRS tables, and current interest rates are a factor in determining the amount of the gift. The lower the interest rates, the smaller the value of the gift. If the return actually earned on the asset exceeds the IRS interest rate, the excess becomes a tax-free gift to the heirs.

A GRAT should be created with assets that are expected to appreciate rapidly within a few years or earn high income. Studies show value is maximized by creating a GRAT to last two years. After the trust expires, consider creating a new trust with different assets.

Charitable trusts. If you are inclined to make significant charitable gifts, consider making them now through a charitable trust. In particular, charitable lead annuity trusts are most advantageous when rates are low.

The CLAT pays income to a charity for a period of years. The payments are either a percentage of the trust’s value or a fixed annual amount. After the income period expires, the remainder in the trust goes to the other beneficiaries, usually the children of the trust creator.

The present value of the remainder for the children is a taxable gift when the trust is created. Again, because of today's low interest rates the taxable gift will be less than at other times. In addition, the combination of low interest rates and low asset values create the potential that the appreciation of trust assets will significantly exceed the income paid to the charity and the amount on which gift taxes were paid. The result could mean a significant amount of wealth is transferred tax free to heirs.

The creator of a CLAT can take a tax deduction for the present value of the gift to the charity. Doing so, however, obligates him to pay taxes on the income and gains of the trust. Foregoing the deduction avoids the taxes on the income and gains. The CLAT is irrevocable. Once created, you cannot get the money back or change the terms of the trust.

Today's low interest rates and decline in asset values present estate planning opportunities. Some of these are straightforward and easy to implement. Others, such as trusts and family loans, should be done only with the help of a tax or estate planning expert. Once the current crises end, the benefits from making the moves now could be significant.

Bob Carlson is editor of the monthly newsletter and web site Retirement Watch at www.RetirementWatch.com. He also is the author of The New Rules of Retirement and Invest Like a Fox…Not Like a Hedgehog.

Taking Advantage of the 0% Capital Gains Tax Rate

Bob Carlson — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:21:00 GMT

For the two lowest tax brackets, the tax rate in 2008 through 2010 is 0% for qualified dividends and long-term capital gains. This compares to the 15% top rate others will pay on those types of income. Single taxpayers with taxable income up to around $33,000 and married couples filing jointly with taxable incomes up to about $65,100 qualify for the 0% rate. The 0% rate applies to any long-term capital gains that qualify for the 15% rate for other taxpayers, not to just to gains on publicly-traded stock.

But there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about the 0% tax rate.

It is not an all-or-nothing situation. Because the tax rates are graduated, even some taxpayers with incomes above the threshold could have some income taxed at the 0% rate.

Many retired couples have taxable income below $65,100. Suppose a couple normally has taxable income of $30,000. In 2009 they realize a long-term capital gain of $70,000, bringing their taxable income to $100,000. The first $35,100 or so of that capital gain is taxed at the 0% rate. The rest of the gain is taxed at the 15% rate.

Keep in mind that interest from tax-exempt bonds is not counted in determining the threshold, so well-off taxpayers can qualify some or all of their qualified income for the 0% rate.

This situation provides opportunities for low-bracket retirees to realize some long-term capital gains on asset they otherwise might not held and pay a 0% rate on at least part of the gains. There also is an incentive to switch some investments to dividend-paying stocks that qualify for the 15% rate for other taxpayers.

Another opportunity presents itself for taxpayers who are supporting parents in a low tax bracket. The taxpayers could give some appreciated securities to the parents, who sell them and pay 0% tax. The amount given should stay within the annual gift tax exclusion amount of $13,000 to avoid owing gift taxes or using part of the lifetime gift tax exemption.

Gifts of appreciated securities also could be made to children in low tax brackets, but the gifts would have to be made to adult children. Congress changed the law on the Kiddie Tax to prevent high income parents from giving securities to their minor children to sell and pay 0% capital gains taxes. To avoid the restrictions, the children must be over 21, or over 23 if they are full-time students. The restrictions also can be avoided if the children do not qualify as dependents on their parents’ tax return by providing more than 50% of their own support and earning income. Youngsters who do not meet those exceptions must have incomes less than $1,800 to qualify for the 0% rate.

Couples receiving Social Security benefits will have to be careful when executing these strategies. Increasing taxable income through the recognition of long-term capital gains also could make more Social Security benefits subject to income taxes.

In most cases, the additional tax on the Social Security benefits will be quite low and will make the effective tax rate on taking the capital gains just a few percentage points. Even so, one should run the numbers to determine the effect such a transaction would have on the full tax picture.

A taxpayer needs to consider the non-tax picture before plunging ahead to take advantage of the 0% tax rate. There must a reason for selling the asset other than to cash in the gains at a low rate. The difference between the 0% rate and 15% rate is going to be small in actual dollars, especially considering that only the gains below the taxable income thresholds for the lowest brackets qualify for the 0% rate.

Yet, if someone planned to sell the asset in the next few years, needs to reposition a portfolio, or has a new opportunity, taking a look at how to qualify at least part of the gain for the 0% rate is worth doing.

When deciding which assets to sell, one strategy is to sell stocks or other assets with the least amount of capital gains. Normally, with a tax-advantaged strategy one wants to maximize the gains taxed at the low rate. But there is a ceiling on the amount of gain that qualifies for the 0% rate each year. The goal should be to generate the maximum amount of cash at the lowest tax cost. By selling assets with the least appreciation, it is possible to free up more after-tax cash than if assets with higher appreciation were sold. This is a good strategy for retirees who are deciding which assets to sell to pay for their expenses the next few years.

The main problem now for most people will be to find assets that have capital gains in them. But those who have held assets for a long time likely have gains they have not recognized.

The 0% tax rate is tricky. But there are many retirees who qualify for it, and they should review asset sale strategies.

Bob Carlson is editor of the monthly newsletter Retirement Watch and the web site www.RetirementWatch.com.

2009 a Key Year for Roth IRA Conversions

Bob Carlson — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:05:00 GMT

Converting a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA has been a valuable tool to consider since the Roth was created in 1997. There are two reasons why a conversion is worth far more consideration now than in the past.

First, a brief review of the basics. A Roth IRA has "back-ended tax benefits." There are no deductions for contributions. Like a traditional IRA, earnings are not taxed while they remain in the account. The big benefit is that qualified distributions from the Roth IRA are tax free. A qualified distribution is one that occurs on the later of when the owner turned age 59½ and five years after the owner opened any Roth IRA. The distributions are tax free whether made to the original owner or to a beneficiary who inherits the Roth IRA.

Another benefit of the Roth IRA is there are no required minimum distributions imposed on the owner. The owner does not have to take money out of the IRA unless he needs it. The Roth can compound undisturbed and be left to the next generation if desired. Beneficiaries are required to take minimum distributions based on their life expectancies.

There are a few other benefits of the Roth IRA. Distributions are not included in gross income when determining the amount of Social Security benefits to be taxed. In addition, when nonqualified distributions are taken, contributions are considered to be withdrawn before accumulated income and gains. That means money can be withdrawn tax free if needed, and no taxes are due until all the contributions have been withdrawn.

A Roth IRA can provide higher retirement benefits than a traditional IRA if the tax-free compounding is allowed to work for years. With the traditional IRA, the price of deducting contributions ("front loaded tax benefits") is distributions are taxed as ordinary income. That means long-term capital gains are converted into ordinary income.

Investors with traditional IRAs may convert them to Roth IRAs if adjusted gross income is no more than $100,000. The AGI limit applies regardless of filing status. A married couple filing jointly with a joint AGI above $100,000 cannot convert, even if each would be eligible separately to convert. The AGI limit for marrieds filing separately is $0, so couples cannot become eligible by filing separate returns. Any required minimum distribution for the year does not count toward the $100,000 limit.

The price for converting a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA is to treat the converted amount as though it had been distributed. The amount is included in gross income.

We discussed conversions in some detail in past visits, and those discussions are in the Archive on the web site. Our research points to several conclusions about converting a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA:

A conversion can make sense if the Roth IRA will be allowed to compound for years before distributions begin. If a 6% rate of return is expected, it takes about 10 years of compounding to make up for paying the taxes.

The income taxes should be paid from separate assets instead of from the IRA. You want the full IRA balance to benefit from the tax-deferred compounding and eventual tax-free distributions. Otherwise it takes learn for the conversion to pay off.

The higher the rate of return of Roth IRA, the faster you reach the pay-off from the conversion. You don't want to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA and invest the Roth IRA in certificates of deposit or short-term bonds.

All or part of an IRA can be converted, and there is no limit to the dollar amount that can be converted in a year. If you own more than one IRA, they can be converted in any combination you want: all of one, portions of more than one, or even all of each of them.

A nice feature of the Roth IRA conversion is that you get to reverse it if it turned out to be a bad idea. We will discuss that shortly.

One of the factors that should make a conversion to Roth IRA worth serious consideration is the bear market in investment assets across the board.

Remember the conversion tax is imposed by including the converted amount in gross income. The lower the value of the IRA on the date of conversion, the lower the tax will be. The bear market has decreased the value of many IRAs to their lowest levels in years. You can convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA at a much lower cost than in the past.

The benefit of converting a Roth IRA at a low level is that the future appreciation and income will be tax free. As the IRA recovers from the bear market, the value that would have been taxed as ordinary income before the bear market will be tax free after the conversion and recovery.

Converting to a Roth IRA can be an important move in restoring your retirement fund. Take the example of Max Profits, who had a balance of $500,000 in his IRA at its peak. Recently it was worth $250,000. At the peak, Max's IRA had an after-tax value of only $325,000 in the 35% tax bracket. Converting to a Roth now would cost $87,500 in taxes (compared to $175,000 at the peak). After the Roth IRA is converted and returns to its future value, the after-tax value is $500,000.

The trade off in a conversion is that you lose the money used to pay the taxes and future after-tax earnings on that money. As I said, my analysis over the years has shown that someone who expects to earn a return of 6% needs about 10 years of compounding to break even. But the forecast changes based on a number of key assumptions, including your current and future tax rates, the rates of return on the IRA and non-IRA assets, and the amount of time before distributions begin.

The calculations can be complex, and there are a number of web sites with calculators to help you. The quality of the calculators differs, because not all allow you to vary each of the assumptions. Most mutual funds and brokers have calculators on their sites. A good calculator also can be found at www.rothira.com. A few other calculators with no ties to financial products or services are at www.datachimp.com, www.voli-tion.com, www.dinkytown.com, and www.cust-omcalculators.com. (Ignore the hyphens.) Financial planners of course can do calculations for you.

Another reason to consider converting now is that income taxes are likely to rise in the future. Most political observers expect taxes to increase, and the President-elect and the majority in Congress advocated higher taxes on at least some taxpayers. If you have enough time to compound returns to make up for paying taxes early, why not pay taxes at today's lower rates? Doing so shortens the pay off period.

The conversion to a Roth IRA essentially is risk free, because if circumstances change or there is a mistake in your assumptions, you can reverse the conversion, known as a recharacterization.

The two most common reasons to reverse a conversion are that the portfolio continued to decline in value and that AGI income exceeded the $100,000 limit. Some people also recharac-terize when the conversion pushes them into a higher tax bracket or when they no longer have cash to pay the conversion taxes.

A recharacterization can be done any time before the due date of the tax return for the year of the conversion, including extensions. The extension date can be used for the recharacterization even if the taxpayer filed the return by April 15. For example, if an IRA is converted in 2009, the recharacterization can occur any time up to Oct. 15, 2010, regardless of when the 2009 return is filed.

After a recharacterization, it is possible to convert to a Roth IRA again. The second conversion cannot occur in the same calendar year as the first. The second conversion also cannot occur within 30 days after the recharacterization.

Higher income individuals will have a chance to convert their traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs in 2010 and later years, unless the law changes. All taxpayers who convert in 2010 will have the opportunity to defer taxes on the conversion, again unless the law changes. Details about the opportunities in 2010 were in our March 2008 visit, which is available in the web site Archive.

IRA owners with AGI of $100,000 or less must consider whether to convert their IRAs in 2009 or 2010. The benefit of a conversion in 2010 would be the ability to defer taxes on the conversion interest free. The larger benefit, however, is likely to come from converting the IRA at a low value. Watch your portfolio. If it remains stagnant or in a trading range through 2009 as I expect, waiting until 2010 to convert is worthwhile. But if a new bull market seems underway, convert before it goes too far. The tax savings from a low conversion value are more valuable than deferral in 2010 at a higher value.

More details about conversions to Roth IRAs are in my book, The New Rules of Retirement, and are in the member’s-only section of my web site Archive at www.RetirementWatch.com.

A Tricky Year-End for IRA Owners

Bob Carlson — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:15:00 GMT

Update Dec. 19: On Dec. 11 Congress passed legislation that suspended the required minimum distribution requirement for 2009. But it did not change the requirement for 2008. the IRS was asked by members of Congress to suspend the requirement for 2008. But on Dec. 17 it sent a letter to key members of Congress saying it would not do so. An IRS official told the Washington Post that it did not have authority to change the rules. Only Congress could do that. In addition, the IRS could not devise a solution that would be fair to those who took their 2008 RMDs before December.

The financial crisis continues to have secondary effects few people anticipated. Decisions are required now, especially with regard to IRAs. Let's take a look at the key issues in question-and-answer format.

Is there relief for IRA owners over age 70½ who have not yet taken their required minimum distributions for the year?

IRA owners must take required minimum distributions by April 1 off the year after they turn age 70½ and by Dec. 31 of each year after they turn age 70½. The RMD is computed based on the IRA balance as of Dec. 31 of the preceding year. The Dec. 31, 2007, balance is used to determine the 2008 RMD. We discussed details of computing the RMD in the April 2008 visit, and that discussion is available on the web site Archive.

The problem for 2008 is that many IRA balances are far below their 2007 levels. Major stock market indexes are down around 35% to 40% from that date. Some investments declined even more. IRA owners who have not already taken their RMDs for the year are required to take RMDs on wealth that no longer exists.

There is only one limited provision in the tax law to reduce the RMD in this circumstance. The RMD is fulfilled when the amount taken from the IRA brings the balance to zero. That does not help many IRA owners. If taking the RMD does not wipe out all your IRAs, you are required to take the full RMD as calculated using the 2007 balance.

Several proposals were put forth in Congress in 2008 to provide some way of altering the requirement for those whose IRAs declined. None was enacted, but there is a possibility of some action in a special session now taking place. If there is a bailout bill for the auto companies there is a chance a waiver for RMDs will be included. But that is not very helpful, since you have to take your distribution by Dec. 31, and IRA sponsors often get backed up this time of year. If you wait to put your RMD order in, it might not be processed by Dec. 31. IRA owners are in a tough spot on this issue, because waiting to see if Congress acts could mean a distribution won’t be made by the Dec. 31 deadline if Congress does not act.

Can the RMD be avoided by converting the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA?

The original owner of a Roth IRA does not have to take RMDs (though beneficiaries who inherit Roth IRAs do). A traditional IRA can be converted to a Roth IRA when the owner's adjusted gross income is no more than $100,000. There are taxes due on the conversion. The converted amount must be included in gross income as though it were distributed. The converted amount and any RMD for the year do not count in determining the $100,000 limit.

This is a good time to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, because asset values have declined. You can make the conversion at a much lower cost than a year ago, and the future income and gains will be distributed tax free to you and the IRA beneficiary.

A conversion, however, cannot be used to avoid a current required minimum distribution. If the IRA owner is required to take an RMD for the year, the RMD still must be taken even if there is a conversion and regardless of the date during the year the conversion occurred. The conversion, however, will avoid future RMDs.

If I have to take an RMD this year, which assets should I sell to take it?

A common misconception about RMDs is that an asset has to be sold and then the cash distributed from the IRA. In fact, a distribution of either cash or property meets the requirement, as long as the value of the property on the day of the distribution equals the RMD for the year. Or if several distributions are taken over the year to fulfill the RMD, the aggregate of the property values on the dates of their distributions must at least equal the RMD. You don’t have to sell any assets to take an RMD.

Most IRA custodians also offer taxable accounts. It is a simple procedure to set up a taxable account at the custodian. Then, direct the custodian to transfer property from the IRA at least equal in value to the RMD to the taxable account. The transferred property can be bonds, shares of stock or mutual funds, other securities, or any other property in the IRA. The custodian will determine if some of the property is not transferable.

If the custodian does not offer taxable accounts, set up a taxable account at another financial institution that will accept the assets. Then, have the securities or other assets transferred from the IRA to the new taxable account. This transfer might take more time, so the paperwork has to be started earlier in order to meet the Dec. 31 requirement.

If you do not want to sell assets to fulfill the RMD, you do not have to. Instead, distribute property from the IRA to a taxable account. The value of the property at the time of the distribution will be included in gross income and count as the RMD. The tax basis of the assets will be their value on the date of distribution, the same amount included in gross income. Because of the tax treatment, it makes sense to distribute those assets that have declined the most and are likely to appreciate the most in the future. Once those assets are in a taxable account, future appreciation is likely to be taxed as long-term capital gains. If the assets remained in the IRA, future appreciation would be taxed as ordinary income when distributed. Also, if the assets continue to decline in value after being distributed, the assets can be sold and the loss deducted on the tax return. Losses in an IRA cannot be deducted in most cases.

I need at least part of the RMD in cash to pay expenses. How should I determine which assets to sell and distribute? Those that have declined the most, the least, or some other measure?

One step investors fail to take on a regular basis is to rebalance their portfolios. A portfolio should have a target asset allocation that meets your return goals and risk tolerance. Over time the markets move the portfolio out of balance because the investments will have different rates of return. The portfolio should be rebalanced to bring it back to its original allocation target.

RMDs can be used to rebalance the portfolio. Sell or take distributions of assets in ratios that bring the portfolio to its target allocation. Sell assets that are above or closest to their targets. That is the fastest way to bring the portfolio back to target. Other changes can be made within the IRA to bring it back to your target allocation, such as selling those that have declined the least to buy more of those that are farthest from their targets. You can choose to make sales and distributions in other ways, but recognize that those would be a change in your portfolio strategy.

Another approach is to use tactical asset allocation to choose the RMD assets. For example, you might choose to hold the assets that have held their value best. Or you might hold those that have declined the most, believing they are likely to appreciate the most when things turn around. Either move would be a bet on coming market trends. The first strategy would be an assumption that recent trends will continue. The second move would be based on a belief that we are near a bottom and you want to capture the following rally. There is nothing wrong with either move. Be aware that you would be straying from your initial strategy and effectively making a forecast about the market.

I sold an asset in my IRA to take a distribution. Can I buy that same asset in my taxable account?

This question is a reference to the "wash sale" rules which prevent a taxpayer from selling an asset to deduct a loss but immediately buying the same asset so that the portfolio position has not changed. The wash sale rules say that a loss deduction is deferred if a substantially identical asset is purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash sale rules apply whether the substantially identical asset is purchased in an IRA or taxable account.

Since a loss incurred in an IRA is not deductible, however, the wash sale rules do not discourage or prohibit you from purchasing a substantially identical asset in a taxable account after selling it in an IRA.

What are the rules for making charitable donations directly from an IRA?

For most people, there is no good reason to make a charitable contribution from an IRA. If you do, the amount is treated as a distribution and included in gross income. You can take a charitable contribution deduction for the identical amount. But you must itemize deductions on Schedule A to benefit. In addition, if your income is high enough, the itemized deduction reduction reduces the amount of your charitable contribution. So, you might not have a full offset of the amount included in gross income.

Those who are over age 70½ receive special treatment. This provision was in effect for 2007 only but recently was extended to the end of 2009.

The special treatment is that a charitable contribution can be made directly from the IRA without including it in gross income. There is no offsetting deduction, but there is no gross income either. Only the first $100,000 of charitable contributions from IRAs each year receives this treatment. In addition, the contribution must be made directly from the IRA to the charity. You must direct the IRA custodian to make the transfer or issue a check.

Another bonus is that the donation can count as part of your RMD for the year. You still are required to take the full amount of the RMD based on the 2007 balance. But by giving all or part of the RMD to charity, the amount does not have to be included in gross income.

Your Retirement Plan and the New Washington

Bob Carlson — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:44:00 GMT

Come January, Democrats will be in charge all over Washington. They campaigned on a theme of change, and we should expect major changes. The questions are which changes and how will they affect your retirement finances?

I will focus on the changes I think are most likely to occur. When evaluating the prospects for change, it is important to keep in mind the tension that will exist in the New Washington. Congress will be run by very liberal politicians who have a long list of legislation they wanted to pass for many years. These wish lists generally involve higher spending, more government control and regulation, rewarding favored activities and punishing others, and of course higher taxes. The new President, on the other hand, wants to be re-elected and probably recognizes that the country is center-right, not liberal, on most issues. There will be tension between the President and Congress, and the great unknown is which one will prevail. I assume that for at least the first couple of years the President will have the upper hand and will be able to move the more extreme liberal measures to the back burner.

Here are things you should prepare for over the next year or two. Other changes might be coming after that.

Medicare: This health program for those over 65 is approaching bankruptcy. Social Security will begin spending more than it receives in a few years. Medicare passed that point long ago. It soon will have exhausted the “trust fund” set up for it and rapidly is taking a larger share of the federal budget.

A few years ago “means-tested” premiums began as we discussed in Retirement Watch. Premiums increase as a beneficiary’s income rises. Similar changes are likely to occur. Premiums for higher income beneficiaries could rise even more and some types of care might not be covered for higher income beneficiaries. Or deductibles and co-payments also might be means-tested. Higher income beneficiaries might be required to cover the first $5,000 to $10,000 of their medical expenses in addition to paying higher premiums.

The government might have a stronger role in “negotiating” drug prices. Medicare prices are a basis for prices providers charge to private insurers. If the government negotiates very low prices, manufacturers might conclude that some drugs are unprofitable to produce or reduce research spending on new drugs.

The government also might take over the Part D prescription drug program instead of allowing private insurers to compete for beneficiaries.

Medicare Advantage plans also might take a hit. Democrats in Congress have targeted these since returning to the majority after the 2006 election. These plans run by private insurers receive higher reimbursements than other Medicare plans but usually offer greater benefits. Democrats want to eliminate them and bring everyone back into traditional Medicare.

Greater use of technology is likely to be mandated across the medical profession, and the government will assume cost savings from this move. It also is a way of pushing costs from the government to the private sector. That could affect the quality or availability of care for a while and increase costs on care not covered by Medicare.

Estate tax: Congress has to address the estate tax soon. The current law eliminates the estate tax for 2010 and returns to the 2001 law beginning in 2011. Congress is unlikely to let either the expiration or return to 2001 law occur.

The most likely outcome is, after a great deal of debate, something similar to current law will be enacted. That means the estate tax exemption will be fixed at $3.5 million and might be indexed for inflation. The top estate and gift tax rate will be 45% or 46%, though it could go up to 50%. It will be interesting to see if the lifetime gift tax exemption remains capped at $1 million or is allowed to rise. Also unclear is whether the current step-up in basis that is allowed for inherited assets will continue or whether heirs will have to take the deceased’s basis and pay capital gains taxes on appreciated that occurred during the deceased’s ownership.

Retirement plans: Here is a sleeper issue that came up only in the last month. Many in Congress do not like President Bush’s “ownership society” concept, and they view 401(k) plans as part of that. They are looking at ways to change qualified retirement plans.

A longstanding goal was to require private employers to provide minimum pensions. That might be replaced by a plan to have the government take over private pensions. Recent committee hearings highlighted a plan that eventually would eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) plans and give individuals a window during which they would receive some benefits for converting their private 401(k) plans into government retirement plans. This approach clearly has support from congressional leaders, but its support beyond that is unclear.

Investing: Anticipate some surprises here. Presidents are not able to implement all their campaign proposals. Congress and circumstances can change the plans. Don’t invest based on campaign rhetoric. Wait until proposals are closer to becoming laws.

There could be a positive surprise in the change of power. The financial problems largely have developed into a confidence problem. People do not trust current leadership or the information it puts out. Financial companies do not know what to expect from the government, so they are hoarding cash to protect themselves. Investors simply are not buying anything with risk, and financial firms are not doing business.

Some shrewd moves by the new President in the next few weeks could start to restore confidence at least temporarily. Appointment of a popular choice for Treasury Secretary and announcement of an effective tax cut and regulatory reform plan could spur optimism among investors.

Of course, stumbles on any or all of these issues could extend the crisis. Further down the road, higher taxes, spending, and regulation could reverse any positive trends. But there is an opportunity now to restore optimism even as the economic slump deepens for the next quarter or so.

Congress also could squander the opportunity. There is a movement to expand the government rescue plan to include a range of industries and to impose very tight regulations on financial and other firms taking government money that effectively nationalizes them. A move in that direction would further diminish investor confidence.

Don’t believe simple analyses of how the new administration will affect investments. It is normal for analysts to look at campaign proposals and target companies they believe will benefit from the proposals. Those forecasts almost never work out. Ignore analysts who recommend that you buy “green companies” and short defense contractors and health care companies. Wait for detailed plans to be proposed and make their way through Congress.

Taking action simply on the new election of politicians can be a risky business. I have outlined what I think are the most likely changes over the next few years. But be prepared for surprises. You need to build a cash cushion in your retirement plan for the possibility of paying a higher share of medical expenses. Be ready to revise your estate plan sometime next year or early in 2010. Keep an eye out for early signs of changes in retirement plans and be ready to move your assets into other types of accounts in case a major change is in the works. With your portfolio, don’t fall for obvious analysis. There is the potential for surprise in the next few weeks.

Maximizing the New Roth IRA Opportunity

Bob Carlson — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:05:00 GMT

The markets created an opportunity for investors to convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. The opportunity will last only as long as the financial crisis lasts and markets are bearish. Investors who converted their IRAs into Roths earlier this year probably should reverse them and consider converting again next year.

The benefits of a Roth IRA are well known. There are no front-end benefits such as a deduction for contributions. Only after-tax money can be contributed to a Roth IRA. But earnings compound tax-free within the Roth IRA. In addition, qualified distributions from the Roth are tax free. A qualified distribution is one that is taken the later of five years after the Roth is opened and after age 59½. In addition, the original owner of a Roth IRA is not required to take required minimum distributions after age 70½, though beneficiaries who inherit Roth IRAs are required to take RMDs after inheriting them.

A traditional IRA can be converted into a Roth IRA. In 2008 and 2009, the IRA owner must have adjusted gross income under $100,000. (Those with higher AGIs will be able to convert in 2010 and later years.) In addition, the owner must pay a conversion tax on the converted amount. The amount converted is included in gross income as though it were distributed. There is no 10% early distribution penalty on the converted amount if the owner is under age 59½.

This is a good time to consider converting, because the bear markets in 2008 drove down the value of most IRAs. A traditional IRA can be converted into a Roth IRA at a much lower cost than a few months ago and probably at a lower cost than sometime in 2009 after the markets recover.

Converting a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA is not for everyone. When does it make sense to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA? There are several factors to consider.

§ How will taxes on the conversion be paid? The conversion is more valuable and passes the break-even point faster if the taxes are paid from non-IRA accounts so that the entire IRA is converted and begins compounding. If part of the IRA must be distributed and used to pay taxes, it takes longer for the conversion to pay off. In addition, if the owner is under age 59½ and uses a distribution from the IRA to pay the conversion taxes.

Because assets outside the IRA should be used to pay the taxes, it might make sense to convert an IRA over a period of years. Determine how much cash is available outside the IRA to pay income taxes this year, and convert the appropriate amount of the IRA for that level of taxes. More of the IRA can be converted in later years as cash is available to pay the taxes.

§ How long will the Roth IRA be left to compound before distributions begin? The goal in making the conversion is to have more after-tax wealth in the long-term. To accomplish that the converted amount must be allowed to compound its income and gains to make up for the taxes that were paid. If conversion taxes are paid from a taxable account and the IRA earns at least 8% annually, it takes at least seven years of compounding to reach the break even point. A longer compounding period generates more after-tax wealth for the owner than keeping the traditional IRA would have. A lower rate of return means a longer compounding period is needed to break even.

§ Will the tax rate be different when distributions begin? If the tax rate will be lower than in retirement than it is today, it might not make sense to pay taxes at today's rate unless there is a substantial compounding period. But if you anticipate higher tax rates in retirement, converting at today’s tax rate is profitable.

§ Will future Social Security benefits be taxable? If the taxpayer estimates having a high enough retirement income for benefits to be taxed, a conversion could reduce those future taxes. The Roth distributions are not included in gross income under current law while traditional IRA distributions are. If IRA distributions will be a big part of retirement income, shifting them to a Roth could save the Social Security benefits from taxes.

§ Will required minimum distributions from the traditional IRA exceed spending needs? When an owner has a large IRA and enough assets outside the IRA to meet living expenses, it might make sense to empty the IRA early. This is discussed in more detail in my book, The New Rules of Retirement. The RMDs force unneeded distributions and increase income taxes for both you and eventually your heirs.

An alternative to emptying the IRA early is to convert the IRA to a Roth IRA. This is not possible for many owners of large IRAs because of the $100,000 income limit, but it will be possible in 2010 when the income limit is removed.

§ What will state income taxes be? Not all states exempt Roth IRA distributions from income taxes. This should be checked before a conversion is undertaken.

Many mutual funds and other financial services firms have calculators on their web sites to help determine if converting to a Roth IRA will increase after-tax wealth. A good calculator also can be found at www.rothira.com. A few other calculators with no ties to financial products or services are at www.datachimp.com, www.volition.com, www.dinkytown.com, and www.customcalculators.com. Financial planners of course can provide calculations.

IRA owners should consider each year whether a conversion would be profitable. After a conversion is done, the IRA and tax situation should be monitored. The owner might want to reverse the conversion. Those who converted traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs earlier this year should consider reversing the conversion, known as a recharacterization. You would want to recharacterize the IRA because the conversion taxes are paid on the value of the IRA at the date of conversion. You will be paying taxes in April on a value that no longer exists.

The conversion can be reversed any time before the due date for the tax return for the year of the conversion, including extensions. The extension date can be used even if the taxpayer files the return by April 15. This means if you converted an IRA in 2008, the recharacterization can occur any time up to Oct. 15, 2009, regardless of when the 2008 return is filed. If the return was filed and taxes on the conversion paid, an amended return can be filed to get a refund of the conversion taxes.

Once recharacterized, the IRA can be left as a traditional IRA, or in the future it again can be converted to a Roth. The second conversion cannot be made in the same year as the original conversion. A second conversion also cannot occur until more than 30 days have passed since the recharacterization.

There are a couple of times when a taxpayer might want to reverse a conversion.

One reason to recharacterize is that income for the year (excluding the converted amount) unexpectedly exceeds $100,000. A conversion is not allowed when modified adjusted gross income is more than $100,000. When income exceeds $100,000 a taxpayer who wants the benefits of a Roth IRA has to recharacterize and wait for another year when the $100,000 threshold isn’t breached.

The other reason to recharacterize as we said is that the value of the IRA declined after the conversion.

Before beginning a conversion plan, check the fees charged by your IRA custodian. Some will charge for each conversion and recharacterization. Also, be sure the custodian does not impose restrictions in addition to those of the IRS. If your custodian could impede your plan, switch custodians. Another point: IRA custodians often are backed up with requests near the end of the year and cannot process them all promptly. Some transactions IRA owners want done by Dec. 31 are not completed because of the back log. Make your decision and process your paperwork early.