| Home » Sales Insight - September, 2007 |
 |
 |
 |
| Sales Insight - September, 2007 |
 |
 |
The Value of Flexible Untaxable
Retirement Income (FURI)
To help clients evaluate
tax-advantaged strategies, it helps to have an understanding of their marginal
income tax rates. Under our progressive tax system, this is defined as the
highest effective tax rate assessed on the last dollar of income earned.
But for one type of client – a
high-income retired person – it keeps getting tougher to identify marginal
income tax rates. If you haven’t yet reached this conclusion, it isn’t
necessarily your fault, because a confusing assortment of marginal rates applies
only to high-income retired people.
Now, the mood of high-income retired people (and pre-retirees) is
changing with the economic cycle and political environment. The ability of such
people to plan for secure retirements is clouded by worries that their income
taxes could go even higher, in even more complex ways.
The planning you do for clients
today could become their tax salvation later in retirement with the help of a
concept that I call flexible untaxable retirement income (FURI).
This column will explain how FURI can be integrated with state-of-the-art
investment tax planning techniques for retired people, including four specific
ways to help your clients implement it. If your services include life insurance,
retirement plans or ETFs, understanding these ways could expand your income and
referrals immediately.
Some Effective Marginal Federal Tax Rates That
Apply ONLY to Retired People
22.5% Applies to many taxpayers when 50% of
Social Security benefits are taxable.
51.8% Applies to some taxpayers when 85% of
Social Security benefits are taxable
100% An effective rate on tax-exempt
municipal income, when the taxpayer is subject to income-relating.
135% The maximum effective federal tax
rate on ordinary income when the taxpayer is subject to income-relating.
Deciphering the Tax
Complexities of Retired People
In a previous column, I described the impact of the new
“income-relating” provisions that took effect on 1/1/07 and increased Medicare
Part B premiums of high-income retired people. You can review that analysis
here:
http://www.freeerisa.com/Insight/200605si.asp
The analysis indicated that one
way to view the increased Part B premiums is as a series of new “phantom”
federal tax brackets faced only by high-income retired people. In each phantom
bracket, the effective tax rate is 100% plus the taxpayer’s regular federal tax
liability. Senior taxpayers who earn Modified Adjusted Gross Incomes (MAGI) of
$200,000 or more as single filers or $400,000 as joint filers are subject to
four such brackets, all of which are narrow in size but punitive in confiscating
at least 100% of marginal income.
Initially, CPAs are having a
difficult time planning for these brackets because they don’t appear on the
client’s 1040, and the tax impact is delayed by two tax years. For example, for
a single filer who reports MAGI of more than $80,000 in 2007, income-relating
will increase Medicare Part B premiums in 2009 but not appear on the 1040 for
any tax year. (Medicare premiums usually are deducted from Social Security
benefits.) The MAGI limits are twice as high for joint filers.
Social Security recipients also
can be subject to phantom tax brackets (under current law) as portions of their
benefits become subject to tax. For example, suppose that you are a retired
person paying tax in the 28% federal tax bracket and you then generate
investment income that causes the taxable portion of Social Security benefits to
increase from 50% to 85%. The effective federal marginal rate on this income is
51.8%. That’s calculated as 28% + (85%*28%). In other words: The last dollar of
taxable income is taxable at 28% and also cause 85 cents worth of Social
Security benefits to become taxable at 28%.
New Tax Complexities on the
Horizon
The complexity described above is under current law – and
many retirees and pre-retirees fear that matters will only get worse, because:
-
All of the leading Democratic candidates for
President advocate rolling back the “Bush tax cuts” of 2001 and 2003 by
letting them expire after 2010. This would restore the top federal tax bracket
to the 39.6% that existed prior to 7/1/01. John Edwards has proposed even
higher rates on taxpayers earnings more than $200,000 to pay for universal
health care.
-
The “income-relating” of Medicare Part B premiums
has not solved the fundamental problem of long-term insolvency in the Medicare
program. In the future, it is likely that: 1) Medicare premiums of all retired
people will increase under provisions of current law; and 2) the income
thresholds for income-related premiums will be reduced, so that more retired
people are affected.
-
“Income-relating” did more than increase Medicare
premiums of high-income people. It also provided the legal permission and
operational infrastructure for the IRS and the Social Security Administration
to share MAGI data. Because Social Security also faces a long-term funding
problem, it is possible that income-relating could be extended to Social
Security benefits in the future – i.e., retired people would lose X% of
scheduled retirement benefits for every dollar of MAGI over a threshold.
-
Likewise, it is possible that Social Security
reform could make 100% of benefits taxable for the highest-income retired
people, compared to a maximum 85% portion under current law.
-
Legislation for both Medicare “income-relating”
and the taxable portion of Social Security has been written to discourage
retirees from using tax-exempt municipal bond income as a shelter. Under
“income-relating” rules, it is possible that a retired couple could earn
$1,000 of municipal interest and 100% of it could effectively become taxable
(two years later).
To summarize: The tax
costs and complexities that high-income retired people face in the future are
certainly complex and perhaps bleak. Fortunately, the combination of long-range
planning and FURI can create viable solutions.
Flexible Untaxable
Retirement Income (FURI)
Successful CPAs will serve the
high-income retirement market of the future by using sophisticated “what-if”
computer models. Clients will find it advantageous to have the flexibility to
take some retirement income (in a given year) from sources that don’t generate
income tax or income-relating impact.
-
Conversely, the most
difficult types of retirement income to plan around are those that are
inflexible and taxable. They include:
-
Pension and immediate annuity payouts;
-
Variable annuity withdrawals taken under
Guaranteed Minimum Withdrawal Benefit (GMWB) programs;
-
Required minimum distributions from retirement
plans and IRAs;
-
Bond interest;
-
And mutual fund distributions.
High-income retired people who
receive most of their income from these sources may find themselves boxed-in,
with little flexibility to avoid potentially punitive marginal income tax rates.
FURI is defined as income that
a retired person can decide to take (or not take) as late as December of each
year, after the year’s tax picture becomes clear. This income can fill spending
needs without increased tax impact. Four examples of FURI are:
-
Tax-free loans from permanent life insurance
contracts;
-
Tax-free loans from one-person 401(k) plans;
-
Roth IRA distributions;
-
And a FURI program built around ETFs.
Tax-Free Loans from
Permanent Life Insurance Contracts
Imagine a 55-year old wealthy
client who has accumulated $1 million in qualified retirement plans or IRAs.
Whether or not this client has yet retired, current income is not needed; so the
client plans to let the money keep accumulating on a tax-deferred basis. But is
this a smart idea?
The client won’t be subject to Medicare Part B “income-relating” impact until
age 63. (MAGI earned at age 63 will determine Part B premiums in the first year
of Medicare eligibility, at age 65.) The client doesn’t plan to become subject
to tax on Social Security benefits until full benefits are earned, at age 66.
The top federal tax bracket currently is 35%, compared to the 39.6% proposals of
Hillary and Obama or the 40%+ proposal of John Edwards. In short, this client
may have a more favorable tax picture now than later in retirement.
Each year, taxable
distributions can be taken from the plan and then the after-tax amounts can be
used to fund permanent life insurance premiums in a non-MEC contract. From age
65 on, the client will have the flexibility to extract FURI from the insurance
policy via tax-free loans. Toward the end of the client’s 65th year,
for example, a CPA might say: “You need an extra $25,000 of income to meet
expenses. But if this income is taxable, the marginal impact will be 55%.” In
that case, having a FURI pocket available could make retirement more
tax-efficient and enjoyable.
Tax-Free Loans from
One-Person 401(k) Plans
At retirement, many people
ritually transfer 401(k) plan balances to Traditional IRAs that seem to offer
comparable tax advantages. But there is one key difference, and that is access
to tax-free loans – which are available in 401(k)s but not in IRAs. Loans taken
from 401(k)s are comparable to loans from permanent life insurance programs
because in both cases they are tax-free and the net cost of borrowing can be
low.
For high-income retiring people
who continue to earn some self-employment income, a transfer to a one-person
401(k) plan can be an attractive alternative to a Traditional IRA. The
contribution limits in 401(k)s are higher than in IRAs, and plan loans can
generally be taken up to the lesser of 50% of the account balance or $50,000.
Roth IRA Distributions
For retirees and pre-retirees
who are concerned about higher taxes in the future, Roth IRAs keep looking
better. Starting in 2010, the income limits on Roth conversions will be
eliminated, and everyone will be eligible to convert money from a Traditional
IRA or qualified plan to a Roth.
All else being equal, a Roth
conversion can help clients achieve a “tax rate arbitrage” if tax rates go
higher in the future. The examples below may help to quantify this advantage for
high-income clients:
|
Example #1: Assumes Marginal Federal
Tax Rate Stays Constant at 35% |
|
Traditional IRA |
Roth Conversion |
|
Holding period 10 yrs. |
Holding period: 10 yrs. |
|
Invest. return: 8% |
Invest. return: 8% |
|
Balance $100,000
Growth: $215,893
Tax: $75,562
After-tax: $140,330 |
Balance: $100,000
Tax $35,000
After conversion $65,000
Growth $140,330
|
|
Example #2: Assumes Marginal Federal
Tax Rate Increases from 35% to 42% |
|
Traditional IRA |
Roth Conversion |
|
Holding period: 10 yrs. |
Holding period: 10 yrs. |
|
Invest. Return: 8% |
Invest. Return: 8% |
|
Balance $100,000
Growth: $215,893
Tax: $75,562
After-tax: $125,218 |
Balance: $100,000
Tax $35,000
After conversion $65,000
Growth $140,330
|
If tax rates stay constant, the
Roth conversion produces the same hypothetical 10-year benefit as the
Traditional IRA. But if the marginal rate increases from 35% to 42%, the Roth
produces $15,112 more benefit ($140,330 - $125,218).
Equally important: The
Roth IRA can be tapped as FURI only in years when the retired client may face
high marginal tax rates and need more income. There are no minimum distribution
requirements during the owner’s lifetime, and in any case qualifying
distributions are not federally taxable. Roth conversions can help clients avoid
being boxed-in by inflexible, taxable minimum distributions after age 70 ½.
A FURI Program Built Around
ETFs
Mutual funds have an inherent
problem for high-income retired investors who may at times face high marginal
tax impact – namely, investors have no control over the taxable distributions
that funds pay out. This could become a bigger problem if the 20% maximum
federal rate on long-term capital gains is allowed to expire as scheduled at the
end of 2010. However, there is another more tax-efficient way to invest in
diversified funds, while also enabling FURI planning. It is to dollar cost
average into several ETFs through a brokerage account that tracks the tax lots
of each purchase.
Most ETFs do not make annual
taxable distributions due to the way they are structured so there is normally no
tax impact until shares are sold. FURI can be achieved by designating sales of
those shares with the highest cost basis (relative to market value) and then
netting capital losses against gains.
There are a few caveats
financial advisors should heed in recommending FURI programs built around ETFs:
1.
These programs will work better in
volatile up-and-down stock markets than in sustained bull markets.
2.
They will work best when several
different ETFs are chosen and when some ETFs have volatile prices. This enhances
the potential to have some shares with gains and others with losses.
3.
The program can work best to generate
FURI in the later years of retirement. Over time, selling high basis shares and
holding low-basis shares will build up unrealized portfolio gains. But at the
owner’s death, highly appreciated shares passing to heirs can qualify for
stepped-up basis, under current law.
Individual stocks that pay no
dividends also can be included in such a program. However, diversified ETFs may
work better by helping retired clients avoid forced sales of appreciated shares
because of a downturn in a given company’s outlook.
How to Talk to Your Clients
about FURI
For many clients, FURI may seem
to be a counterintuitive concept, for two reasons:
1.
Most people believe their income tax
rates will go down in retirement, not up.
2.
Most people have been taught that
relatively conservative income-producing strategies like CDs, bonds, and
immediate annuities are appropriate for retirement.
What has changed? The United
States Government needs tax revenue to fill deficits and pay for new
initiatives. It is a shrewd move for a populist politician like John Edwards to
suggest paying the cost of universal health care by taxing households earning
$200,000 or more, because such households are few in number and have minimal
voting clout. High-income seniors are an especially inviting target for filling
future shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security funding, and that trend has
already begun with Medicare Part B “income-relating.
You may find that many of your
high-income clients feel tax-vulnerable, even if they can’t express specific
reasons why. So, try to uncover these feelings with pointed open questions, such
as:
-
“When a political candidate talks about raising
income tax rates on high-income people, how does that make you feel?”
-
“When you see your Medicare premiums increase by
hundreds of dollars per year, just because you have achieved a high income,
how does it make you feel?”
Clients’ concerns about higher
taxes are important, and expressions of anxiety or vulnerability will reveal
opportunities to plan for FURI. The four examples of FURI included in this
article should help you see that long-range planning is the key. None of these
ideas will work well for clients who reach age 65 or 70 ½ and then find
themselves in a tax predicament. Ideally, these concepts can be monitored
annually through teamwork between an insurance/investment specialist and a CPA
equipped with “what-if” tax impact models. Now is a good time to form alliances
with CPAs in your market who serve high-income retired clients.
A person who retires today at
age 60-65 should plan for at least the next 25 years. For most high-income
people, that’s a long time to be vulnerable to income tax uncertainties.
Show your clients how FURI can reduce retirement income tax worry.
If you have questions
about your e-newsletter subscription, or if you would like to
unsubscribe, please visit http://www.freeerisa.com/customer/userupdate.asp
|