Affluent retirees who have wanted to convert sizable traditional
individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs but weren’t
eligible because of income restrictions may find 2005 the
year to make the conversion.
Starting in 2005, an obscure provision in a 1998 federal
tax act allows retirees age 70 1/2 or older to exclude from
their income the required minimum distributions from traditional
IRAs when determining conversion eligibility. Consequently,
conversions should become a possibility for some affluent
retirees, say financial planners.
To understand how this all works, let’s quickly compare
traditional and Roth IRAs. A traditional IRA is funded with
pre-tax dollars, it grows tax deferred, and withdrawals are
taxed at the owner’s ordinary income tax rate. Furthermore,
the owner must begin taking minimum mandatory withdrawals
after turning 70 1/2. These minimum withdrawals eventually
drain the IRA account.
A Roth IRA is funded with after-tax dollars and grows tax
deferred. Withdrawals are tax free as long as the account
has been open for at least five years and the owner is 59
1/2 or older. Furthermore—and this is the key for affluent
retirees—there are no mandatory distributions beginning
at age 70 1/2. It can be left untouched until death and passed
on income-tax free to heirs.
This makes Roth IRAs especially attractive to affluent retirees
who may want to pass IRAs on to their heirs or who may want
to conserve IRA assets until much later in life to pay for
such things as high medical or long-term care expenses. So,
if you have traditional IRAs you may want to convert them
to Roth IRAs. The catch is that you have to pay income taxes
on the amount you convert, and you can’t convert in
a year in which your modified adjusted gross income (before
the conversion) exceeds $100,000.
That’s where the 1998 provision helps. Those required
withdrawals are often a significant source of income for
affluent retirees—even if they don’t need the
money at that time. And until now, those mandatory withdrawals
counted toward the modified AGI. But they won’t starting
in 2005.
Assume that you earn $70,000 in non-IRA income, you are
age 72, and you have $800,000 in a traditional IRA. Your
required minimum distribution for that IRA is $31,250. Because
your total modified AGI is $101,250, you wouldn’t qualify
for a Roth conversion in 2004. But you would qualify in 2005
because that $31,250 no longer counts toward the $100,000
conversion limit.
But even if you now qualify for a conversion, you need to
weigh other factors in deciding whether to convert. First,
all that money that comes out of the traditional IRA for
a conversion will count as income for that year, and may
push you into a higher tax bracket. You could end up with
a hefty tax bill.
On the other hand, argue some tax experts, tax rates are
not likely to go any lower, and some believe that they may
rise in the future to offset the growing federal deficit.
So it may be a matter of gettin’ while the gettin’s
good.
It’s best if you can afford to pay that tax bill with
money from outside the IRA withdrawal. That allows you to
roll the full amount into the Roth IRA. Other tax factors
include the conversion’s impact on state income taxes
and the alternative minimum tax, so you’ll want to
work closely with a tax expert.
Are potential creditor lawsuits a risk for you? Federal
law does not shield IRAs from creditors. Many states do,
but not all include Roth IRAs in that protection, so you
may want to see what your state’s laws are before converting.
Lastly, keep in mind that if you do convert, you have until
October 15 of the year after the conversion to switch back
to the way things were (your conversion tax will be refunded).
You will want to do this if your income for the conversion
year unexpectedly exceeds $100,000. You may also want to
consider reconverting if the value of your new Roth has dropped
substantially since the conversion. You would reconvert to
a traditional IRA, wait 30 days, and convert again with the
lower account value (thus incurring lower conversion taxes
than you incurred in the original conversion).
December 2004— This column is produced by the Financial
Planning Association, the membership organization for the
financial planning community, and is provided by Sherrill
St. Germain, a local member of the FPA.