King & Wood, P.A.

Mega-IRAs Could Be a Source for New Public Policies

“Congressional Democrats are weighing a new type of required distribution from individual retirement accounts, based on the account value instead of age, according to a discussion list of policy ideas obtained by CNBC.”

There are few specifics but owners of “mega” IRA accounts worth more than $5 million might be presented with new withdrawal requirements, if legislation for a new national safety net becomes law. For a very small slice of the American population, IRAs have become million and even billion dollar tax deferred accounts, according to a recent article from CNBC titled “Democrats may change the rules for ‘mega’ IRAs over $5 million."

There are roughly two dozen tax categories being considered by Congress to help raise money for the expansion of the nation’s safety net, which for now is anticipated to have a $3.5 trillion price tag.

The policy concept was spotted on a draft of ideas lawmakers assemble before formally pitching the ideas before their colleagues. Floating game-changing ideas to gauge response is part of today’s legislative process.

The list didn’t include a specific amount but suggests a limit of $5 million. It also included information regarding the number of mega IRA accounts. Apparently, the number of IRA accounts worth more than $5 million has tripled in the past ten years.

In contrast, the average American’s IRA is valued around $39,000.

The idea is part of a broader theme of raising revenue from the wealthy to pay for social needs, like education, address climate change, assist working families with paid leave, childcare and other basic human needs.

It may have been sparked by a recent report that one of the founders of PayPal owns a Roth IRA valued at $5 billion. IRAs were created as a means of encouraging working Americans to save for retirement. However, they have become huge tax shelters for the wealthy.

More than 28,600 taxpayers owned IRAs worth more than $5 million in 2019, but they account for less than a tenth of 1% of the 70 million Americans who have a traditional or Roth IRA. The mega accounts add up to $280 billion, or about 3% of the total $8.6 trillion owed in IRAs.

Limiting the size of tax-deferred retirement accounts isn’t new. Several attempts have been made to cap the amount in IRAs or change distribution rules.

The final legislation may not be known for some time, but one response to this proposal would be to convert traditional IRAs to a Roth. Paying taxes at the time of the conversion, even if done over time, could be useful to eliminate having to pay taxes on the funds, if withdrawal rules change. In addition, there are no Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) on Roth IRAs, so funds can grow tax free for the life of the owner.

Reference: CNBC (Sep. 8, 2021) “Democrats may change the rules for ‘mega’ IRAs over $5 million”

Michael Jackson Estate’s Big Win against IRS in Tax Court

“A ruling that Michael Jackson’s image and likeness at the time of his death were worth about $157 million less than the IRS estimated warns the agency not to look too far down the road, when assessing the value of a celebrity’s estate.”

Estate planning lawyers agree: the recent victory of Michael Jackson’s estate in U.S. Tax Court is a clear signal that the IRS should be more cautious when assessing the value of an estate’s assets. In the article from Bloomberg Tax, “Michael Jackson Estate’s Tax Win a Warning to Aggressive IRS,” one attorney says it is reasonable to think that the court reacted negatively to the IRS’ being overly aggressive.

It’s also possible that the IRS’ memory of the pop star’s pre-death fame was based on Jackson’s post-death popularity.

The dispute, which began in 2013, attracted wide attention and exposed a big disparity in how the IRS and the Jackson estate valued the pop star’s image and likeness, which was only one part of his estate. While the estate looked at current income and revenue, the IRS took a far more opportunistic approach, eyeing the income from future shows and merchandise.

The $157 million difference came down to the IRS’s inclusion of revenue streams that the Tax Court concluded were not foreseeable at the time of the entertainer’s death. Revenues from the Cirque du Soleil show, a movie and branded merchandise were created only after Michael Jackson died.

When Jackson died in 2009, there had been severe damage to his image, including allegations of sexual abuse of children and eccentric behavior. He was cleared of charges, but the damage to his image took a toll on his popularity. His notoriety undercut the value of his name and likeness while he was alive.

The sole expert witness offered by the IRS was problematic as well. He was found to have lied multiple times and refused to answer questions directly through his testimony, which the Tax Court did not like.

The case may increase interest in changing estate tax laws, given the difficulty of valuing speculative assets based on what was reasonably foreseeable at the time of a person’s death. It may be better to take a “wait and see” approach, rather than guessing at what the person might be worth in the near and distant future.

That approach might put some estates in limbo for years, forcing executors to retain assets during that time. When beneficiaries want to receive their inheritance immediately, this could present problems for executors.

One advisor says that a rational approach would be for estates to exclude likenesses or the ability to exploit a name and image, and then have distributed assets taxed after death at ordinary income rates.

For celebrities and those with a high value estate, expect more scrutiny from the IRS. The IRS is looking for revenue, and any high-profile assets will attract attention.

Non-celebrities should take heed as well. The IRS is looking for revenue, and an estate plan with strong tax planning will protect families from onerous federal and state estate taxes.

Reference: Bloomberg Tax (May 5, 2021) “Michael Jackson Estate’s Tax Win a Warning to Aggressive IRS”

How Do I File Taxes on a CARES 401(k) Withdrawal?

“Penalties were waived on 401(k) and IRA withdrawals for coronavirus costs, but you still owe the taxes.”

Several bills were passed by Congress to ease financial challenges for Americans during the pandemic. One of the provisions of the CARES Act was to allow workers to withdraw up to $100,000 from their company sponsored 401(k) plan or IRA account in 2020. This is a big departure from the usual rules, says an article from U.S. News & World Report titled “How to Avoid Taxes on Your CARES Act Retirement Withdrawal.”

Normally, a withdrawal from either of these accounts would incur a 10% early withdrawal penalty, but the CARES Act waives the penalty for 2020. However, income tax still needs to be paid on the withdrawal. There are a few options for delaying or minimizing the resulting tax bill.

Here are three key rules you need to know:

• The penalties on early withdrawals were waived, but not the taxes.
• The taxes may be paid out over a period of three years.
• If the taxes are paid and then the taxpayer is able to put the funds back into the account, they can file an amended tax return.

It’s wise to take advantage of that three-year repayment window. If you can put the money back within that three-year time period, you might be able to avoid paying taxes on it altogether. If you are in a cash crunch, you can take the full amount of time and repay the money next year, or the year after.

For instance, if you took out $30,000, you could repay $10,000 a year for 2020, 2021, and 2022. You could also repay all $30,000 by year three. Any repayment schedule can be used, as long as all of the taxes have been paid or all of the money is returned to your retirement account by the end of the third year period.

If you pay taxes on the withdrawal and return the money to your account later, there is also the option to file an amended tax return, as long as you put the money back into the same account by 2022. The best option, if you can manage it, is to put the money back into your retirement account as soon as possible, so your retirement savings has more time to grow. Eliminating the tax bill and re-building retirement savings is the best of all possible options, if your situation permits it.

If you lost your job or had a steep income reduction, it may be best to take the tax hit in the year that your income tax levels are lower. Let’s say your annual salary is $60,000, but you were furloughed in March and didn’t receive any salary for the rest of the year. It’s likely that you are in a lower income tax bracket. If you took $15,000 from your 401(k), you might need to pay a 12% tax rate, instead of the 22% you might owe in a higher income year.

Reference: U.S. News & World Report (April 23, 2021) “How to Avoid Taxes on Your CARES Act Retirement Withdrawal”

Roth IRA has a 5-Year Rule

“Established in 1997, the Roth individual retirement account has long been a favored option for retirement savings, due to its promise of tax-free withdrawals in retirement.”

Roth IRAs are popular for their flexibility and the simplicity of putting after-tax dollars in and not paying taxes on withdrawals during retirement. However, making the most of a Roth IRA requires paying attention to the details, according to a recent article “What is the Roth IRA 5-Year Rule?” from U.S. News & World Report.

More specifically, there are certain five-year rules that can undo all the good that comes from using a Roth, if you don’t know them. Avoid paying penalties or fees, by understanding how the Roth IRA rules work.

The Roth IRA five-year rule applies to investment earnings, and not to initial contributions. If you make withdrawals of investment earnings before the five-year time period, you’ll get hit with taxes and penalties, no matter how old you are. Many people think that once they turn 65 or 70, they can tap their Roth IRA whenever they want, but that’s not true.

Once you’ve opened and funded a Roth IRA, you’ll have to wait five years until you can start taking tax-free withdrawals of your investment earnings. The clock starts ticking on the date you open the account and make your very first contribution.

After five years, there are still certain requirements that must be met to take out earnings without a penalty. Before you can take out tax-free withdrawals, you will need to be at least 59½ or older.

That’s even if your first contribution was made the year you celebrated your 58^th birthday. You’ll need to wait until age 63 before you may take qualified distributions from the account. The five-year rule applies, even if you opened the Roth IRA at age 70.

How is this time frame calculated? The IRS does it based on tax years. A tax year runs from January 1 to December 31. The deadline for contributions is the same as the deadline for filing taxes. Let’s say you funded a Roth IRA in April 2021 for the calendar year of 2020. The five-year rule begins on January 1, 2020. Apply the five-year rule, and you could begin taking withdrawals from the account on or after January 1, 2025.

What happens if you need to make withdrawals before the account hits that five-year mark? In that case, withdraw contributions to the account and not investment earnings.

If you’ve contributed money to a Roth IRA account, you can take that money out with no tax or penalty, no matter how old you are. However, make sure you meet all of the requirements. Remember that to avoid any taxes or penalties, you’ll need to leave the earnings in the account.

Reference: U.S. News & World Report (March 10, 2021) “What is the Roth IRA 5-Year Rule?”

Can a Charity Be a Beneficiary of an Estate?

“Ever since a group of philanthropists created the Giving Pledge in 2010, taxpayers have expressed greater interest in potential estate planning strategies that would allow them to leave a significant portion of their assets to charity upon their death.”

The interest in charitable giving increased in 2020 for two reasons. One was a dramatic increase in need as a result of the COVID pandemic, reports The Tax Advisor’s article “Charitable income tax deductions for trusts and estates.” The other was more pragmatic from a tax planning perspective. The CARES Act increased the amounts of charitable contributions that may be deducted from taxes by individuals and corporations.

What if a person wishes to make a donation from the assets that are held in trust? Is that still an income tax deduction? It depends.

The rules for donations from trusts are substantially different than those for charitable contribution deductions for individuals and corporations. The IRS code allows an estate or nongrantor trust to make a deduction which, if pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument, is paid for a purpose specified in Section 170(c). For trusts created on or before October 9, 1969, the IRS code expands the scope of the deduction to allow for a deduction of the gross income set aside permanently for charitable purposes.

If the trust or estate allows for payments to be made for charity, then donations from a trust are allowed and may be tax deductions. Otherwise, they cannot be deducted.

If the trust or estate allows distributions for charity, the type of asset contributed and how it was acquired by the trust or estate determines whether a tax deduction for a charitable donation is permitted. Here are some basic rules, but every situation is different and requires the guidance of an experienced estate planning attorney.

Cash donations. A trust or estate making cash donations may deduct to the extent of the lesser of the taxable income for the year or the amount of the contribution.

Noncash assets purchased by the trust/estate: If the trust or estate purchased marketable securities with income, the cost basis of the asset is considered the amount contributed from gross income. The trust or estate cannot avoid recognizing capital gain on a noncash asset that is donated, while also deducting the full value of the asset contributed. The trust or estate’s deduction is limited to the asset’s cost basis.

Noncash assets contributed to the trust/estate: If the trust or estate acquired an asset it wants to donate to charity as part of the funding of the fiduciary arrangement, no charity deduction is permitted. The asset that is part of the trust or estate’s corpus, the principal of the estate, is not gross income.

The order of charitable deductions, compared to distribution deductions, can cause a great deal of complexity in tax planning and reporting. Required distributions to noncharitable beneficiaries must be accounted for first, and the charitable deduction is not taken into account in calculating distributable net income. The recipients of the distributions do not get the benefit of the deduction. The trust or the estate does.

Charitable distributions are considered next, which may offset any remaining taxable income. Last are discretionary distributions to noncharitable beneficiaries, so these beneficiaries may receive the largest benefit from any charitable deduction.

If the trust claims a charitable deduction, it must file form 1041A for the relevant tax year, unless it meets any of the exceptions noted in the instructions in the form.

These are complex estate and tax matters, requiring the guidance of an experienced estate planning attorney for optimal results.

Reference: The Tax Advisor (March 1, 2021) “Charitable income tax deductions for trusts and estates”

Wealthy Women Face Challenges in Estate and Tax Planning

“Given the expectation the Biden administration will roll back some of Trump’s favorable policies of the past four years, tax consultants and accountants are already hard at work. But for HNW women, dealing with election fallout is minor, compared to the bigger fish they have been frying in the tax pan for decades.”

Election cycles often mean changes to estate and tax planning strategies around estate planning, charitable donations and capital gains, but that’s not the only challenge facing wealthy women now, says a recent article “For Wealthy Women, Tax and Estate Planning is Weak Link” from Think Advisor. Preparing for big changes, from presidential elections to death or divorce, is all too often a surprise, even for accomplished and financially successful women.

Statistically, women do outlive men, so there needs to be a plan for the unexpected. As attitudes shift and more women build their own wealth, they are less likely to stay in unsatisfying marriages. Although the overall rate of divorce in America is declining, the number of “gray” divorces is increasing.

One essential step in planning for high net worth women is to consider what assets they will need to continue their current lifestyles, and what assets would be at risk, in case of death or divorce.

Some assets are not available to singles, like the Spousal Lifetime Access Trust, an irrevocable trust available to couples but not to singles. For those considering divorce who have a SLAT agreement, speak with your estate planning attorney, as the SLAT may include a provision that terminates spousal trust rights upon divorce. Women should not assume that these or other assets will be available to them in case of a divorce.

There are also future costs associated with losing a spouse. If women do not have long-term care insurance, it should be purchased, if she still qualifies. These policies become more expensive as time goes by, so the 40s and 50s are the ideal time to invest in them.

Timing and tax policy changes from a new administration make this a good time to begin planning for any changes that may come in the next year. Women with substantial net worth should be making plans for gifting and trusts now. The gift tax lifetime exemption remains at $11.7 million, but even if there is no legislative action, on January 1, 2026, this will return to $5 million.

Dramatic changes in asset valuation resulting from the pandemic may make this a good time to transfer shares to children and grandchildren, including real estate holdings and closely held family businesses.

The effects of COVID-19 have provided a global lesson in preparing for the unexpected. Among many other issues has been a huge backlog in most surrogate courts. Even families who had an estate plan in place, found their estate planning hampered by waiting for courts to appoint executors.

In many cases, surviving spouses (mostly women) found themselves unable to move an estate plan forward, gain access to assets, even to pay household bills. Families who have been lucky enough to escape the impact of COVID-19 so far, should take the opportunity to plan for the unexpected, including the creation of a revocable trust, so the trustee can swiftly access assets and start managing right away, rather than waiting for courts to clear.

Reference: Think Advisor (Jan. 6, 2021) “For Wealthy Women, Tax and Estate Planning is Weak Link”

How to Benefit from a Roth IRA and Social Security

“Although Social Security helps millions of seniors stay afloat financially, living on those benefits alone could mean winding up cash-strapped in retirement.”

When originally created, Social Security was designed to prevent the elderly and infirm from sinking into dire poverty. When most working Americans enjoyed a pension from their employer, Social Security was an additional source of income and made for a comfortable retirement. However, with an average monthly benefit of just over $1,500 and few pensions, today’s Social Security is not enough money for most Americans to maintain a middle-class standard of living, says the article “3 Reasons a Roth IRA Is a Perfect Supplement to Social Security” from Tuscon.com. It’s important to plan for additional income streams and one to consider is the Roth IRA.

Roth IRAs can be funded at any age. Many seniors today are continuing to work to generate income or to continue a fulfilling life. Their earnings can be put into a Roth IRA, regardless of age. If you are still working but don’t need the paycheck, that’s a perfect way to fund the Roth IRA.

Withdrawals from a Roth won’t trigger taxes on Social Security benefits. If your only income is Social Security, you probably won’t have to worry about federal taxes. However, if you are working while you are collecting benefits, once your earnings reach a certain level, those benefits will be taxed.

To calculate taxes on Social Security benefits, you’ll need to determine your provisional income, which is the non-Social Security income plus half of your early benefit. If you earn between $25,000 and $44,000 as a single tax filer or between $32,000 and $44,000 as a married couple, you could be taxed as much as 50% of your Social Security benefits. If your single income goes past $34,000 and married income goes past $44,000, you could be taxed on up to 85% of your benefits.

If you put money into a Roth IRA, withdrawals don’t count towards your provisional income. That could leave you with more money from Social Security.

A Roth IRA is flexible. The Roth IRA is the only tax-advantaged retirement savings plan that does not impose Required Minimum Distributions or RMDs. That’s because you’ve already paid taxes when funds went into the account. However, the flexibility is worth it. You can leave the money in the account for as long as you want, so savings continue to grow tax-free. You can also leave money to your heirs.

While you don’t have to put your savings into a Roth IRA, doing so throughout your career—or starting at any age—will give you benefits throughout retirement.

Reference: Tuscon.com (Oct. 5, 2020) “3 Reasons a Roth IRA Is a Perfect Supplement to Social Security”

Surprising Ways Beneficiary Designations Can Damage an Estate Plan

“During the estate planning process, these beneficiary designations are reviewed to ensure that the beneficiaries are correct, and that the distribution of these assets conforms with the client’s intended estate plan.”
Naming a beneficiary on a non-retirement account can result in an unintended consequence—it can even topple an entire estate plan—reports The National Law Review in the article “Overuse of Beneficiary Designations: How They Can Derail a Client’s Estate Plan.” How is that possible?
In most cases, retirement accounts and life insurance policies pass to beneficiaries as a result of the beneficiary designation form that is completed when someone opens a retirement account or purchases a life insurance plan. Most people don’t even think about those designations again, until they embark on the estate planning process, when they are reviewed.
The beneficiary designations are carefully tailored to allow the asset to pass through to the heir, often via trusts that have been created to achieve a variety of benefits. The use of beneficiary designations also allows the asset to remain outside of the estate, avoiding probate after death.
Apart from the beneficiary designations on retirement accounts and life insurance policies, beneficiary designations are also available through checking and savings accounts, CDs, U.S. Savings Bonds or investment accounts. The problem occurs when these assets are not considered during the estate planning process, potentially defeating the tax planning and distribution plans created.
The most common way this happens, is when a well-meaning bank employee or financial advisor asks if the person would like to name a beneficiary and explains to the account holder how it will help their heirs avoid probate. However, if the estate planning lawyer, whose goal is to plan for the entire estate, is not informed of these beneficiary designations, there could be repercussions. Some of the unintended consequences include:
Loss of tax saving strategies. If the estate plan uses funding formulas to optimize tax savings by way of a credit shelter trust, marital trust or generation-skipping trust, the assets are not available to fund the trusts and the tax planning strategy may not work as intended.
Unintentional beneficiary exclusion. If all or a large portion of the assets pass directly to the beneficiaries, there may not be enough assets to satisfy bequests to other individuals or trust funds created by the estate plan.
Loss of creditor protection/asset management. Many estate plans are created with trusts intended to protect assets against creditor claims or to provide asset management for a beneficiary. If the assets pass directly to heirs, any protection created by the estate plan is lost.
Estate administration issues. If a large portion of the assets pass to beneficiaries directly, the administration of the estate—that means taxes, debts, and expenses—may be complicated by a lack of funds under the control of the executor and/or the fiduciary. If estate tax is due, the beneficiary of an account may be held liable for paying the proportionate share of any taxes.
Before adding a beneficiary designation to a non-retirement account, or changing a bank account to a POD (Payable on Death), speak with your estate planning attorney to ensure that the plan you put into place will work if you make these changes. When you review your estate plan, review beneficiary designations. The wrong step here could have a major impact for your heirs.
Reference: The National Law Review (Feb. 28, 2020) “Overuse of Beneficiary Designations: How They Can Derail a Client’s Estate Plan”