The enactment of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA ’97) significantly increased the ability of retirement plan participants to accumulate wealth and reduce taxes. It created a new type of IRA—the Roth IRA—and expanded retirement planning opportunities for current, regular (i.e., deductible) IRA owners.

All of the new IRA provisions became effective on Jan. 1, 1998. This article explains how tax advisers can use the new IRA laws to provide maximum tax benefits for their clients.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

For regular IRAs, much of the pre-TRA ’97 law still applies, but there are enhancements. Under Sec. 219(b)(1)(A), a taxpayer may still contribute up to $2,000 per year, provided earned income is at least that high. If the taxpayer is not an active participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan (active participant), the contribution is fully deductible. If the taxpayer is an active participant, the maximum $2,000 deduction is reduced proportionately over a new adjusted gross income (AGI) phaseout range, under Sec. 219(g)(3), as follows:

AGI Limits

Example 1: H’s and W’s combined 1998 AGI is $140,000; H is an active participant. W can make a fully deductible IRA contribution of $2,000 for 1998. H cannot make a deductible IRA contribution, because he is an active participant and their combined AGI exceeds the applicable phaseout limit. As will be discussed, H could make a $2,000 contribution to a Roth IRA for 1998; W could make a $2,000 contribution to either a Roth IRA or a regular IRA.

The TRA ’97 also increases an IRA owner’s ability to withdraw funds before age 59½ without incurring the 10% penalty. Under Sec. 72(t)(2)(E), the penalty can be avoided if the funds are used to pay for qualified higher education expenses of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a child or grandchild. Early withdrawals of up to $10,000 are also permitted under Sec. 72(t)(2)(F) if used within 120 days to pay the costs of a first-time home purchase, including, under Sec. 72(t)(8)(C), costs incurred for the acquisition, construction or reconstruction of a first-time homebuyer’s principal residence, or financing, settlement or closing costs. According to Sec. 72(t)(8)(A), such withdrawals can be used by the IRA owner, his spouse, child, grandchild or ancestor, or ancestor of the IRA owner’s spouse.

For many active participants, one of the most profound law changes was the repeal of the 15% excess distribution and excess accumulation taxes by TRA ’97 Section 1073(a), for tax years after 1996. The excess distribution tax was imposed on taxpayers who received substantial retirement plan and IRA distributions. The excess accumulation tax was levied against the estates of IRA owners who had substantial retirement account balances at death. Some tax advisers had encouraged their clients with significant IRA balances to make early withdrawals to avoid these taxes; now, most clients will be best served by retaining their IRA accumulations instead of making taxable distributions before (1) the funds are desired or (2) required by the minimum distribution rules.

However, it may be wise to take taxable IRA distributions earlier than required when there will be significant estate taxes, and the IRA holds the only funds available to pay them. The taxpayer would take an IRA distribution, pay the income tax and give the after-tax proceeds to the beneficiaries. Methods of leveraging gifts with second-to-die life insurance policies, grantor retained annuity trusts, grantor retained unitrusts, family limited partnerships and other techniques may be appropriate for wealthy individuals. The strategy of prematurely incurring income taxes on IRAs and gifting after-tax proceeds will, in limited circumstances, be beneficial by reducing the estate and providing beneficiaries funds to pay estate taxes. Because this strategy will maximize family wealth in only limited circumstances, tax advisers should run the numbers to determine whether the family would benefit.

Named for Senator Roth (R-Del.), the new Roth IRA does not allow a deduction when contributions are made, but allows tax-free withdrawals of both contributions and earnings. Thus, unlike regular IRAs, which only defer taxes, the Roth IRA allows the tax-free accumulation of wealth. Contributions are capped by Sec. 408A(c) at the lesser of $2,000 per year or 100% of earned income for the year; as is discussed below, AGI phaseouts apply. Generally, withdrawals can occur tax-free under Sec. 408A(d)(1) and (2) if the Roth IRA account has been established for five years and (1) the owner is at least age 59½, (2) the owner is deceased or disabled or (3) the distribution will be used for first-time homebuyer expenses.

Under Sec. 408A(c)(2)(B), the maximum contribution a taxpayer can make to all IRAs is $2,000 per year ($4,000 if married filing jointly) or 100% of earned income, whichever is less. While a taxpayer can contribute to a Roth IRA even if he is an active participant, the following AGI phaseout ranges apply under Sec. 408A(c)(3)(C): $95,000 to $110,000 for single taxpayers and $150,000 to $160,000 for joint filers.

Example 2: N is single and an active participant. His 1998 AGI is $100,000. The maximum contribution he can make to a Roth IRA for 1998 is $1,333, computed as follows:

Maximum contribution = $2,000 - [((AGI - $95,000)/$15,000) ´ $2,000]

= $2,000 - [(($100,000 - $95,000)/$15,000) ´ $2,000]

= $2,000 - [$5,000/$15,000 ´ $2,000]

= $2,000 - [$667]

= $1,333

Above the phaseout levels, taxpayers can still contribute to a regular, nondeductible IRA, even if their AGI exceeds the phaseout amounts for deductible or Roth IRAs.

If the Roth IRA owner takes a distribution before five years has passed or before age 59½, it is tax-free under Sec. 408A(d)(1)(B) only to the extent of the previously contributed amounts (i.e., only the earnings are taxable). This rule also applies to the beneficiary of a Roth IRA whose owner dies before the five-year period has ended. The beneficiary may withdraw funds tax-free as long as they do not exceed the amount contributed, but must wait until the five-year period has passed before being able to make a tax-free withdrawal of the Roth IRA’s earnings.

Sec. 408A(d)(1)(B) and (2)(A) provide that distributions from Roth IRAs before age 59½ are subject to the Sec. 72(t) 10% penalty imposed on premature distributions from regular IRAs. No penalty applies if the owner is deceased or disabled, or the distribution is for a first-time home purchase.

Roth IRA owners are not subject to the minimum distribution rules that normally require regular IRA owners to begin taking taxable distributions at age 70½. In addition, Sec. 408A(c)(4) permits taxpayers to contribute to a Roth IRA beyond age 70½. The rules requiring distributions after a Roth IRA owner’s death are apparently the same as the rules for regular IRAs, except that the beneficiary’s distributions from a Roth IRA (including the amounts appreciated after the IRA owner’s death) will be tax-free. Thus, a Roth IRA owner can designate his spouse as the account beneficiary; on the account owner’s death, the surviving spouse would have the option of postponing minimum distributions until death. After the surviving spouse’s death, the subsequent beneficiary (usually a child) would be required to take nontaxable minimum distributions based on his own life expectancy.

Many taxpayers who are active participants will choose to make a Roth IRA contribution because their high AGIs preclude them from deducting regular IRA contributions. However, if a regular IRA deduction is available, to which type of IRA should contributions be made? As was discussed, an eligible taxpayer can contribute to both types of IRAs each year, as long as the total contributions do not exceed $2,000 (or earned income, if lower). The analysis in this article indicates that a Roth IRA would be preferable in most situations.

Many financial planners have been using a simplified analysis to illustrate which IRA would be more beneficial, as reflected below. This table¹ compares contributing $2,000 to a regular IRA versus a Roth IRA. Both IRAs grow for ten years at 10% annually. The owner is in the 28% tax bracket until the final year (when all of the accumulated funds are withdrawn); the IRA owner is shown in various tax brackets when the funds are withdrawn.

The first conclusion that can be drawn from this oversimplified analysis is that contributing to a Roth IRA will be advantageous when the tax rate at retirement will equal or exceed the tax rate when contributions are made. The second conclusion is that contributing to a Roth IRA will not be advantageous when the tax rate at withdrawal will be lower than when the contributions were made. However, this conclusion is not true if a longer timeframe is used. The table below uses the same assumptions as in the table above, but shows the net assets available after the IRA has been retained for a greater number of years and before all of the funds are withdrawn.

The primary problem with using a 10-year analysis is that a lower tax rate in retirement does not necessarily mean that contributing to a regular IRA will be more beneficial than contributing to a Roth IRA. Roth IRAs have other advantages--they are not subject to the minimum distribution rules during the owner’s life and longer investment periods will be common (especially for wealthy taxpayers).

The above analysis can also be applied to employees who have a choice of making non-matching contributions to either an employer plan (e.g., a Section 401(k) plan) or a Roth IRA. Employees should consider investing in retirement plans in the following priority: (1) employer-matched contributions, (2) Roth IRAs for employee and spouse, and (3) non-matched contributions.

Conversion to a Roth IRA

Perhaps the most significant feature of the TRA ’97 for taxpayers who have IRA accumulations is the ability under Sec. 408A(d)(3) to convert a regular IRA to a Roth IRA. Although generally, income taxes must be paid on the amount converted at the time of the conversion, Sec. 408A(d)(3)(A)(iii) allows the owner to include the income ratably over four years, if the conversion occurs in 1998.

Example 3: B converts $100,000 from her regular IRA to a new Roth IRA in 1998. In each of 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, she will include $25,000 in gross income. If the conversion occurred in 1999 or thereafter, the entire $100,000 would be included in B’s income in the year of conversion.

The Tax Technical Corrections Act of 1997² would impose a 10% penalty on amounts converted from a regular IRA to a Roth IRA that are subsequently withdrawn before the expiration of the four-year income inclusion period. (This is in addition to the 10% penalty imposed on the withdrawal of earnings before the five-year holding period.) If the IRA owner dies before the end of the four-year spread period and named a nonspouse as the beneficiary, the unreported balance must be included as income on the IRA owner’s final return. A spouse named as the beneficiary can continue including the amounts ratably in gross income.

The conversion strategy has a significant drawback--Sec. 408A(c)(3)(B)(i) provides that a regular IRA can be converted to a Roth IRA only if the owner’s AGI (computed before the conversion) does not exceed $100,000 (whether married or single). Sec. 408A(c)(3)(B)(ii) bars

conversion by married taxpayers filing separately. IRA owners whose AGIs exceed $100,000 should consider tax-planning strategies with the goal of reducing AGI below $100,000 (preferably in 1998) to create a one-year window of opportunity to convert.

Often, active participants have the option at retirement to roll over their plan accumulations into an IRA. In most circumstances, currently employed active participants will not be allowed to roll over their accumulations in employer plans into an IRA. This puts an employee with a significant accumulation in his employer plan in a worse position than one who has an identical balance in an IRA. Many employees, however, may have IRAs as well, that will

will be eligible for conversion before the owner’s retirement or termination.

The potential for tax-free growth is so compelling that all taxpayers who have substantial IRA balances and qualify for conversion should consider whether to convert at least a portion of their IRAs. Because the decision contains many variables, clients likely will seek advice from their CPAs in deciding whether the conversion will be beneficial. A Roth IRA conversion is one of the rare situations in which a CPA may recommend prepaying income taxes; however, many factors must be considered, including:

• The IRA owner’s current and future income tax rates.

• The IRA owner’s age and life expectancy.

• The IRA owner’s anticipated spending needs during retirement.

• The IRA owner’s other sources of retirement funds (including pension plans).

• The IRA owner’s other sources of after-tax money and investments.

• The age and life expectancy of the IRA owner’s beneficiary.

• The beneficiary’s planned use of the IRA funds on inheritance.

• The beneficiary’s future income tax rates.

• The rate of return on investment.

Example 4: Balance in IRA Account

Assumptions:

Example 4 in the box above demonstrates that a regular-to-Roth IRA conversion will result in greater net assets than if there is no conversion. In this example, net assets are measured in after-tax dollars (i.e., at the different measuring ages, it is assumed that all of the IRA funds are withdrawn and income taxes paid on the withdrawals). Additionally, the conversion occurs in 1998, so the four-year income spread is available.

Example 4 shows the amount that would be inherited by the beneficiary if G (the IRA owner) dies at the stated age and the beneficiary immediately withdraws the entire IRA balance, or the after-tax dollars available to G if he withdraws all funds from the account at the stated age. In the example, G is required to take minimum distributions from his regular IRA at age 70½, which are taxed and added to the after-tax funds balance. Thus, the regular IRA net asset balances are much lower than the Roth IRA balances when G reaches age 75, 85 and 95. Distributions need not be taken from the Roth IRA, allowing for continued tax-free growth. Although the after-tax funds from the Roth IRA are less than the pre-tax funds from the regular IRA, the net combined assets from the Roth IRA exceed that of the regular IRA almost immediately, because the Roth IRA’s earnings are tax-free.

In this example, the benefit of making the conversion occurs 1.08 years after conversion, and continues to grow over time. The conversion is slightly detrimental in the first 1.08 years, because it is assumed that G and his spouse are in the 31% bracket in the conversion year (1998) and the following three years (1999-2001), because of the four-year income inclusion. When G is age 78.9, his Roth IRA’s total assets exceed those in a regular IRA. Comparing total assets, however, is useful only in limited circumstances (e.g., when the beneficiary is a charity). A dollar in a regular IRA is generally worth less than an after-tax dollar, and a dollar in a Roth IRA is worth more than an after-tax dollar because of the continued tax-free growth potential of these funds. The different values of a dollar in the Roth and regular IRAs and after-tax funds could become quite substantial.

Example 4 assumes complete withdrawal of the IRA funds at the stated ages. A more realistic assumption is that G will leave the funds in the Roth IRA until they are needed or desired, and then withdraw only the amount needed, not the entire balance. In general, the longer the funds are invested, the more valuable the Roth IRA becomes compared to either after-tax money or a regular IRA. Because the timeframe used to compare a Roth IRA to a regular IRA could be as long as G’s and the beneficiary’s lives, with only minimum distributions based on the beneficiary’s life expectancy throughout, determining the relative value of a dollar in these different environments is quite complex.

In certain circumstances, a Roth IRA may still be beneficial, even if G did not have sufficient after-tax funds to pay the income taxes due on conversion of a portion of a regular IRA. The remaining, unconverted IRA funds are used to pay the income tax liability on the converted portion. However, the conversion is not as beneficial as when after-tax funds are available to pay the income taxes on the converted funds.

Other Variables

What is the effect of G having a lower or higher income tax rate in retirement?

Example 5: The facts are the same as in Example 4, except that G’s tax bracket changes during retirement. The table below illustrates the difference in net assets after conversion.

Example 5:

Thus, for a taxpayer in the 28% bracket, converting to a Roth IRA will always be advantageous if the funds are invested for 10 years or more, even if the IRA owner’s tax bracket will decline from 28% at the time of conversion to 15% at retirement. Converting to a Roth IRA will be even more advantageous if the IRA owner’s bracket will increase during retirement.

Some critics of the above analysis suggest that it is not realistic to assume that all after-tax investments will generate an increase in value by only the amount of regular income; rather, some of the increase in value will be capital appreciation that is not currently taxed and some will be current capital gain.

Example 6: The facts are the same as in Example 4, except that (1) only 30% of the investment income (e.g., interest and dividends) are taxed at regular rates; (2) capital appreciation occurs on 70% of the investment income; (3) capital gains result each year based on a 15% portfolio turnover rate (i.e.,15% of the beginning year’s cumulative capital appreciation not previously taxed); such gains will be taxed at 18%. In addition, the accumulated after-tax appreciation that has not been taxed may be taxed at a capital gains rate (if the investments are sold) or represent a step-up in basis for heirs (if held until death), completely avoiding taxation.

This example demonstrates that when the investor achieves more favorable capital gains tax treatment on after-tax investments, the advantage of a Roth IRA conversion is mitigated somewhat, but still remains.

Example 6:

Example 7: In 1998, Y and Z are each 30 years old; each has a $100,000 regular IRA. Y converts his IRA to a Roth IRA at age 30; Z converts his IRA at age 55. By waiting until age 55, Z will not have the four-year spread period for paying tax on the conversion. The table below illustrates the different results.

Example 7:

Making the conversion at a younger age is more beneficial, because the Roth IRA has more time to grow tax-free (as opposed to tax-deferred in a regular IRA). Another advantage of an earlier conversion is that Congress could repeal the ability to convert; however, converted IRAs should be grandfathered.

The results in Example 4 can understate the advantages of a Roth IRA, because they do not consider the beneficiary’s timeframe for making distributions from the inherited IRA. The analysis does not consider the potential benefits a beneficiary may receive from withdrawing less than all of the funds immediately after the IRA owner’s death. Tax-free growth is maximized only if the beneficiary takes the required minimum distributions. Decreasing the rate at which distributions are taken from a inherited regular IRA will only defer taxes, while slowing distributions from an inherited Roth IRA will provide greater tax-free growth.

Example 8:  W, age 45, inherits a $100,000 regular IRA. His Federal income tax rate is 28%; his state income tax rate is 3% (on after-tax investment income). All after-tax and IRA funds earn 10% annually. Only required minimum distributions are taken, and they are equal for both the Roth and regular IRA. These distributions are added to the after-tax funds.

Example 8 and Exhibit 3 below clearly illustrate the advantage of inheriting a Roth IRA versus a regular IRA; the difference results from the lack of income tax on the Roth IRA.

Example 8:

Example 9: The facts are the same as in Example 4, except that G dies at age 75. His total assets at death (assuming he converted to a Roth IRA) are less than if he had not converted. G’s beneficiary spends $48,000 per year (indexed for 4% inflation) of the after-tax funds inherited.

Example 9: