By: H. Quincy Long
How would you like to have tax free income when you retire? Would you like to have the ability to leave a legacy of tax free income to your heirs when you die? The great news is that there is a way to achieve these goals – it is through a Roth IRA.
Historically, because of income limits for contributions to a Roth IRA and for converting a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA, high income earners have not been able to utilize this incredible wealth building tool. Fortunately, the conversion rules are changing so that almost anyone, regardless of their income level, can have a Roth IRA. But is it really worth converting your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA and paying taxes on the amount of your conversion if you are in a high tax bracket? For me, the answer is a resounding yes. I firmly believe it is worth the pain of conversion for the tremendous benefits of a large Roth IRA, especially given the flexibility of investing through a self-directed IRA.
For Traditional to Roth IRA conversions in tax year 2009, the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) limit for converting to a Roth IRA is $100,000, whether you are single or married filing jointly. However, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act (TIPRA) removed the $100,000 MAGI limit for converting to a Roth IRA for tax years after 2009. This means that beginning in 2010 virtually anyone who either has a Traditional IRA or a former employer’s retirement plan or who is eligible to contribute to a Traditional IRA will be entitled to convert that pre-tax account into a Roth IRA, regardless of income level.
Even better, for conversions done in tax year 2010 only you are given the choice of paying all of the taxes in tax year 2010 or dividing the conversion income into tax years 2011 and 2012. If you convert on January 2, 2010, you would not have to finish paying the taxes on your conversion until you filed your 2012 tax return in 2013 – more than 3 years after you converted your Traditional IRA! One consideration in deciding whether to pay taxes on the conversion in 2010 or dividing the conversion income into 2011 and 2012 is that 2010 is the last tax year in which the tax rates are at a maximum of 35%. Tax rates are scheduled to return to a maximum tax rate of 39.6% in 2011, and other tax brackets are scheduled to increase as well, so delaying the payment of taxes on the conversion will cost you some additional taxes in 2011 and 2012. The benefit of delaying payment of the taxes is that you have longer to invest the money before the taxes need to be paid, whether the payment comes from the Roth IRA or from funds outside of the Roth IRA.
The analysis of whether or not to convert your Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA is a complex one for most people, because it depends so much on your personal tax situation and your assumptions about what might happen in the future to your income and to tax rates, as well as how you invest your money. From my own personal perspective, I make the simple assumption that tax free income in retirement is better than taxable income. I can afford to pay my taxes now (not that I like it), and I would like to worry less about taxes when I retire. I also don’t believe that tax rates will be going down in the future. For me, the decision comes down to whether I want to pay taxes on the “acorn” (my Traditional IRA balance now) or the “oak tree” (my much higher IRA balance years in the future as I make withdrawals).
The way I analyze whether or not to convert to a Roth IRA is to calculate my “recovery period” – that is, the time it takes before my overall wealth recovers from the additional taxes I have to pay on the conversion. If I can recover the cost of the taxes on the conversion before I might need the money in the Roth IRA, then I say it is worth doing, especially since the gains after the conversion are tax free forever. Fortunately, with a self-directed IRA you are in total control of your investments, and the recovery period can be quite short. There may also be a benefit if you are able to convert an asset now that may have a substantial increase in value later.
Using my own situation as an example, I have been planning on doing a conversion in 2010 ever since the passage of TIPRA was announced in 2006. My first step was to immediately begin making non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions. Even though I am covered by a 401(k) plan at my company and earn more than the limits for making a deductible Traditional IRA contribution, this does not prevent me from making a non-deductible contribution since I am under age 70 ½. The main reason I have been making non-deductible contributions to my Traditional IRA is to have more money to convert into a Roth IRA in 2010. The best thing about this plan is that only the gains I make on the non-deductible contributions to the Traditional IRA will be taxed when I convert to a Roth IRA, since I have already paid taxes on that amount by not taking the deduction.
I plan on converting approximately $100,000 in pre-tax Traditional IRA money in 2010. The actual amount converted will be more like $150,000, but as I noted above my wife and I have been making non-deductible contributions to our Traditional IRAs since 2006, so the actual amount we pay taxes on will be less than the total conversion amount. This means that my tax bill on the conversion will be $35,000 if I pay it all in tax year 2010 or $39,600 divided evenly between tax years 2011 and 2012, assuming I remain in the same tax bracket and Congress doesn’t make other changes to the tax code.
To help analyze the conversion, I made some calculations of how long it would take me to recover the money I had to pay out in taxes at various rates of return, assuming a taxable conversion of $100,000 and a tax bite of $35,000. I calculated my recovery period based on paying the taxes with funds outside of the IRA (which is my preference) and by paying taxes from funds withdrawn from the Roth IRA, including the early withdrawal penalty I would have to pay since I am under age 59 ½.
If I pay taxes with funds outside of my Roth IRA and can achieve a 12% return compounded monthly, my Roth IRA will grow to $135,000 in only 30 months, at which point I will have fully recovered the cost of the conversion. A 6% yield on my investments will cause my recovery period to stretch to 60 months, while an 18% yield will result in a recovery period of only 20 months! Of course paying taxes with funds outside of the IRA reduces my ability to invest that money in other assets for current income or to spend it on living expenses. But if I have to withdraw the money from the Roth IRA to pay taxes and the early withdrawal penalty, the recovery period for my Roth IRA to achieve a $39,000 increase ($35,000 in taxes and a $3,900 premature distribution penalty) increases to 50 months at a 12% yield and 99 months for a 6% yield. Paying the taxes from funds outside of my Roth IRA will result in a much larger account in the future also since the full $100,000 can be invested if taxes are paid with outside funds, while only $61,000 remains in the Roth IRA after withdrawal of sufficient funds to pay the taxes and penalties.
I believe that since my IRAs are all self-directed I can easily recover the cost of the conversion (i.e. the taxes paid) in less than 3 years based on my investment strategy. From that point forward I am building tax free wealth for me and my heirs. How can I recover the taxes so quickly? It’s easy! Self-directed IRAs can invest in all types of non-traditional investments, including real estate, notes (both secured and unsecured), options, LLCs, limited partnerships and non-publicly traded stock in C corporations. With a self-directed IRA you can take control of your retirement assets and invest in what you know best.
In my retirement plan I invest in a lot of real estate secured notes, mostly at 12% interest with anywhere from 2-6% up front in points and fees. I also own some stock in a 2 year old start up bank in Houston, Texas which is doing very well, and a small amount of stock in a Colorado bank. As the notes mature I plan on purchasing real estate with my accounts, because I believe now is the best time to buy. In some cases I may purchase the real estate itself and in other cases I will probably just purchase an option on real estate. The bank stock will be converted at the market price in 2010, but when the banks sell in a few years I expect to receive a substantial boost in my retirement savings since banks most often sell at a multiple of their book value. In the meantime, the notes and the real estate will produce cash flow for the IRA, and if I have done my investing correctly the real estate will also result in a substantial increase in my Roth IRA when it sells in a few years.
Note that I have written this article from the perspective of someone who is in a high tax bracket. A lower tax bracket will reduce the recovery period and is an even better bargain, especially if you can afford to pay the taxes from funds outside of the Roth IRA. If you take advantage of the opportunities afforded to you by investing in non-traditional assets with your self-directed Roth IRA, you can truly retire wealthy with a pot of tax free gold at the end of the rainbow.
H. Quincy Long is Certified IRA Services Professional (CISP) and an attorney and is President of Quest IRA, Inc., with offices in Houston, Austin, and Dallas, Texas. In addition to Texas, Qunicy has opened an office in Mason, MI this year in December of 2011 and is planning to open an office in Seattle, Washington within the next 12 months. He may be reached by email at Quincy@QuestIRA.com Nothing in this article is intended as tax, legal or investment advice.