by Mat Sorensen | Nov 17, 2015 | News
Distributions from a 401(k) to its owner are subject to a 20% withholding tax whereas distributions from an IRA are not subject to a withholding tax. As a result, any amounts distributed from a 401(k) to its owner will be reduced by 20% and that 20% will be sent to the IRS in expectation of the taxes that will be due from the account owner for the distribution. Any amounts distributed from an IRA, however, are not subject to the 20% withholding as the IRA owner can elect out of withholding. The discrepancy in the rules is one advantage of using an IRA in retirement as opposed to a 401(k) since the amounts distributed from the IRA can be received in their entirely. Keep in mind, the tax owed on a distribution from an IRA or 401(k) is the exact same. The difference is when you are required to pay it. In both instances you will receive a 1099-R from your custodian/administrator but in the 401(k) distribution you are required to set aside and effectively pre-pay the taxes owed.
The 401(k) Withholding Rule in Practice
Let’s walk though a common situation that outlines the issue. Sarah is 64 and has a 401(k). She would like to distribute $100,000 from the 401(k). She contacts her 401(k) administrator and is told that on a $100,000 distribution they will send her $80,000 and that $20,000 will be sent to the IRS for her to cover the 20% withholding requirement. Since this 20% withholding requirement does not apply to IRAs, Sarah decides to roll/transfer the $100,000 from her 401(k) directly to an IRA. Once the funds arrive at the IRA, Sarah takes the $100,000 distribution from the IRA and there is no mandatory 20% withholding so she actually receives $100,000 in total. Keep in mind, Sarah will still owe taxes on the $100,000 distribution from the IRA and she will receive a 1099-R to include on her tax return. That being said. Sarah has given herself the ability to access all of the amounts distributed for her retirement account without the need for sending withholding to the IRS at the time of distribution.
It’s that simple. Don’t take distributions from a 401(k) and subject yourself to the 20% withholding tax when you can roll/transfer those 401(k) funds to an IRA and receive the entire distribution desired without a 20% withholding.
by Mat Sorensen | Oct 6, 2015 | News
I was recently interviewed and asked, “what has caused so many investors to self-direct their retirement plan?” As many people know, self-directed retirement plan investors use their self-directed IRA and 401(k)s to invest into real estate, private companies, precious metals and other “non-wall street” investments. I’ve worked with thousands of self-directed IRA and 401(k) investors and as I reflected on the question, I realized that there are three primary categories of self-directed investors.
I. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE INVESTORS USING ROTH ACCOUNTS
These investors like to invest in what they know. They avoid mutual funds and the stock market because they have a competitive advantage over other investors and usually have a special expertise over other investors. Because they have a special expertise, they often expect to make significant returns and therefore will frequently use Roth IRA or 401(k) accounts for their investments. Let me offer a few examples from actual un-named clients of mine that all resulted in 7 figure returns.
- Software Engineer. Software Engineer who used Roth IRA funds along with some other technology savvy investors and funded an LLC. This LLC then engaged and paid some un-related developers to develop new programming that the Roth IRA investors knew would have value. The LLC owned by the Roth IRAs then in turn negotiated a royalty agreement with an unrelated company who wanted the technology to be used in a specific software program that it would sell commercially. The LLC receives royalties on the use/sales of the product. The income goes back to the Roth IRAs tax free.
- Real Estate Developer. Real estate developers and investors personally develop millions of dollars of real estate a year and decides to use his Roth IRA to fund a specific real estate investment. Real estate developer converted a couple hundred thousand dollars of traditional IRA funds to Roth IRA funds so that he could acquire a specific piece of real estate that was to be held and later sold. The developer knows the land would have significant value over the next few years as a result of zoning law changes and planned development from neighboring property. The Roth IRA paid for some paper development zoning changes upon acquisition and then held the property as an investment for a few years. The property later increased nearly 10 times in value as neighboring development took off.
- Bio-Tech Start-Up Entrepreneur. An experienced bio-tech investor had an opportunity to invest at early stages in a patent that was going to be the basis for a new bio-tech start-up. The investor used Roth IRA funds and funded additional research costs in exchange for an interest in the patent that was being developed by un-related researchers for commercial purposes. The patent was the basis of value for a start-up venture and the Roth IRA received a significant share of the company in exchange for the patent interest.
This group would also include former Republican Party Nominee, Mitt Romney, and famous Venture Capitalist, Peter Theil, whose large self-directed IRAs have been reported on extensively.
Keep in mind, the rules for these investments are complex and careful planning must be taken to avoid prohibited transactions, as well as unrelated business income tax (UBIT). However, when properly executed with the right investment, this group can sock away significant returns in tax-free Roth accounts. There’s no better deal in the tax code than this!
II. SEEKING INCREASED RETURNS AND TIRED OF POOR FUND OR STOCK PERFORMANCE
This is the largest group of self directed IRA investors. These investors have seen stagnant performance, losses, or ridiculous fees eat away at their retirement account. They are generally tired of the ups and downs of the stock market and want stable investments they can actually understand. This group usually invests in real estate, in its various forms, because it can offer more stable returns and because the investor can actually understand the investment (something they can’t do from a 100 page mutual fund prospectus). Here are a couple of actual client examples.
- Retired Corporate Manager Becomes a Real Estate Investor. A retired real estate investor client of mine rolled over former employer 401(k) funds to a traditional self-directed IRA. This investor is in their early 60’s and uses the income from her retirement account to live on. She invested her traditional IRA into a modest 3 bd 2 bth single family rental. The property has no debt and the cash-flow goes back into her IRA. She routinely takes distributions of the cash-flow to supplement her retirement income. Since this is a traditional IRA she is taxed on the distributions (as she would with any traditional IRA) but she is not reducing the actual investment value of the IRA as she only distributes the cash-flow. This client has had an increase in confidence as the rental income has proven to be consistent over time and she still knows that her IRA owns the property so she doesn’t feel like she’s depleting her retirement account when she takes distributions of the cash-flow. Frankly, I’ve talked to hundreds if not thousands of clients in a scenario similar to this.
- Real Estate Broker Loans Solo 401(k) Funds to Other Investors. This real estate broker uses his self-directed 401(k) to loan money to real estate investors buying investment properties. Some people refer to use these loans as hard money loans or as trust deed loans. The 401(k) will loan funds to other real estate investors in situations where banks are typically un-willing to lend. The real estate broker lends to properties in markets that he knows and receives a first or second place deed of trust (mortgage) securing his loan. The typical loan terms are 10% annual interest with 2 points. This self-directed investor knows real estate and has been able to receive annual returns far in excess of the stock market.
III. HARD ASSETS OVER PAPER ASSETS
These investors value hard assets over paper assets. They are generally disillusioned by the stock market and feel that price to earnings ratios of publically traded companies have sky-rocketed without regard to company performance. They tend to believe that stock prices have nothing to do with actual value but instead are propped up by the Wall Street money machine. They’ve usually had retirement accounts for years and have seen their account go through the dot-com bubble and the financial crisis. They have little faith in paper assets and desire to move to a self-directed account at a time when they believe the market is going to collapse. Most of these investors will invest in precious metals or real estate.
- Retired Corporate 401(k). A retired corporate employee rolls over a portion of his prior employer’s 401(k) to a self-directed IRA and buys actual precious metals that are stored at a depository for his IRA. The precious metals are not an ETF or a fund but are actual, physical, gold bullion that meets the retirement plan rules for ownership by an IRA. Common precious metals would be gold or silver bullion as well as specifically approved American Eagle coins.
- Working Corporate Employee with Prior Employer 401(k). A 50 year old corporate employee uses her present employer retirement plan for standard mutual fund investments based on risk factors and tolerances for investors her age. Her current employer’s plan cannot be self-directed but she rolls over a prior employer’s 401(k) to a self-directed IRA and uses that self-directed IRA to invest in real estate investments with other like-minded investors. The investors use their self directed IRAs and each invest into the newly created IRA/LLC (and LLC owned by IRAs). The LLC then uses the combined funds to purchase a multi-family property. In the end, her IRA owns a 20% interest in an LLC that owns an apartment building.
There are many other characteristics of self-directed investors and even more examples of these groups in the industry. However, the three groups above seem to capture 90% of the growing self-directed retirement plan market. Additionally, many investors have cross over and identify in two or all three of these groups. Because self-directed IRAs and 401(k)s give investors options for greater control and because they provide better access to investment opportunities, we will only continue to see growth in the self-directed retirement plan market.
By: Mat Sorensen, Attorney and best-selling Author of The Self Directed IRA Handbook
Mat has been at the forefront of the self-directed IRA industry since 2006. He is the CEO of Directed IRA & Directed Trust Company where they handle all types of self-directed accounts (IRAs, Roth IRAs, HSAs, Coverdell ESA, Solo Ks, and Custodial Accounts) which are typically invested into real estate, private company/private equity, IRA/LLCs, notes, precious metals, and cryptocurrency. Mat is also a partner at KKOS Lawyers and serves clients nationwide from its Phoenix, AZ office.
He is published regularly on retirement, tax, and business topics, as well as a VIP Contributor at Entrepreneur.com. Mat is the best-selling author of the most widely used book in the self-directed IRA industry, The Self-Directed IRA Handbook: An Authoritative Guide for Self-Directed Retirement Plan Investors and Their Advisors.
by Mat Sorensen | Sep 15, 2015 | News
Have you rolled over your 401(K) plan or other employer based plan to a rollover IRA? Has someone told you that your rollover IRA in California isn’t protected from creditors. They’re wrong.
California Exemptions
Retirement plans are known for being great places to build wealth and they have numerous tax and legal advantages. One of the key benefits of building wealth in a retirement account is that those funds are generally exempt from creditors. However, some states have laws that protect employer based retirement plans (aka, ERISA Plans) more extensively than IRAs. California is one of those states as their laws treat IRAs and ERISA based plans differently (the California Code refers to ERISA based plans, such 401(k)s, as private retirement plans) .
California Code of Civ. Proc., § 704.115, subds. (b),(d), treats funds held in a private retirement plan as fully exempt from collection by creditors. “Private retirement plans” include in their definition “profit-sharing” plans. The most common type of profit sharing plan is commonly known as a 401(k) plan.
IRAs, on the other hand, are only exempt from creditors up to an amount “necessary to provide for the support of the … [IRA owner, their spouse and dependents] … taking into account all resources that are likely to be available…” In other words, the exemption protection for IRAs is “limited”. California Code of Civ. Proc., § 704.115, subdivision (e).
McMullen v. Haycock
Notwithstanding the limited creditor protections for IRAs outlined above, the California Court of Appeals has ruled that rollover IRAs funded from “private retirement plans” receive full creditor protection as if they were a fully protected private retirement plan under California law. McMullen v. Haycock, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 660 (2007). In McMullen v. Haycock, McMullen had a judgement against Haycock for over $500,000. McMullen attempted to get a writ of execution against Haycock’s IRA at Charles Schwab. In defending against the writ of execution, Haycock claimed that the entire IRA was a rollover IRA funded and traceable to a private retirement plan and thus fully protected from collection as a private retirement plan. Haycock relied on California Code of Civ. Proc., § 703.80, which allows for the tracing of funds for purposes of applying exemptions.
Haycock lost at the trial court level but appealed and the appellate court found in his favor and ruled that his rollover IRA was fully protected from the collection of creditors as the funds in the rollover IRA were traceable to a fully exempt private retirement plan (e.g. former employer’s 401(k) plan).
As a result of McMullen v. Haycock, California IRA owners whose IRAs consist entirely of funds rolled over from a private retirement plan of an employer are fully protected from the collection efforts of creditors. IRAs that consist of individual contributions and are not funded from a prior employer plan rollover will only receive limited creditor protection. It is unclear so far how an IRA would be treated that consists of both private retirement plan rollover funds and new IRA contributions. Presumably, the Courts will trace the funds and separate out the private retirement plan rollover IRA portions from the regular IRA contributions and the regular IRA contributions would then receive the limited protection. Unfortunately, there is no case law or guidance yet as to rollover IRAs with mixed rollover and regular IRA contributions.
McMullen v. Haycock was a big win for IRA owners with funds rolled over from a private retirement plan and one that should be kept in mind when planning your financial and asset protection plan.
by Mat Sorensen | Jul 21, 2015 | News
When a retiree begins taking distributions from a traditional IRA, 401(k), or pension plan, those distributions are taxable to the retiree under federal income tax and any applicable state income tax rules. While federal taxation cannot be avoided, state taxation may be avoided depending on your state of residency. In general, there are some states that have zero income tax and therefore don’t tax retirement plan distributions, some states that have special exemptions for retirement plan distributions, and other states that do in fact tax retirement plan distributions. This article breaks down the basics and discusses some of the states where income taxes can be avoided.
The No State Income Tax States
First, the easiest way to avoid state income tax on retirement plan distributions is to establish residency in a state that has no state income tax. It isn’t just the fun and sun of Florida that helps attract all of those retirees. It’s the tax free state income treatment that you’ll get from all of that money stocked away in your retirement account. The other states with no income tax and therefore no tax on retirement plan distributions are Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
States with Retirement Income Exclusions
Second, there are some states that have a state income tax but who exempt retirement plan distributions for retirees from state income taxes. There are 36 states in this category that have some sort of exemption for retirement plan distributions. As each of these states are very different, so too are their exemptions. The type of retirement account, however, does tend to govern the exemptions available. Here’s a quick summary of the common exemptions found in the states.
- For Public Pensions and Retirement Plans. Distributions from federal or state employer plans are exempt from taxation in many states. This is the most common exemption amongst states that have an income tax but who exempt some types of retirement plan distributions from income. Most of the 36 states that have an exemption for retirement plan income provide an exemption for public employee pensions and retirement plans.
- For Private Pensions and Retirement Plans. About 10 states offer a full exclusion for private pensions and retirement plans. Some of them differ between pension and contributory plans (e.g. 401(k)) and some of them make no distinction. Pennsylvania, for example, excludes all income distributions. Hawaii excludes certain distributions from state income tax for private retirement plans and for portions from company plans rolled over to a rollover IRA and then distributed from the rollover IRA.
- For IRAs. There are some states that do no tax any retirement pan distributions, including IRA distributions to retirees. Illinois for example does not tax distributions from retirement plans at all (pensions, IRAs, 401(k) s). Tennessee and New Hampshire are states that do not tax wage income and therefore they do not tax retirement plan distributions of any kind (IRA, 401(k), etc.). There are also numerous states that exclude a certain limit of retirement plan income from taxation. For example, Main exempts the first $10,000 of income from any retirement plan, including IRAs.
In sum, the state tax rules for retirement plan distributions are complicated and vary significantly. Each state can be understood rather quickly though and everyone planning for retirement should understand how state income taxes may eat into their planned retirement plan distributions. I, for example, looked into Arizona and found that there is no exemption for 401(k) or IRA income in the state of Arizona. While we do have a low state income tax rate, Arizona state income tax includes income from private retirement plans (pensions and 401(k) s) and IRAs and has a modest deduction for distributions from public retirement plans. Each state is unique to the type of plan, and the amounts being distributed but don’t just think you need to be in a state with zero income tax to avoid taxes on retirement plan distributions. For example, you could be in Illinois, Tennessee, or New Hampshire and could realize state income tax-free distributions of your IRA or 401(k). The National Conference of State Legislators has an updated 2015 chart that is very useful and can be used to look up your state’s tax treatment of retirement plan distributions for retirees.
by Mat Sorensen | Jun 29, 2015 | Prohibited Transactions
A recent Bankruptcy Court decision dealt with prohibited transaction claims against a self directed IRA owner who was using their IRA to flip real estate for profit. The claims were brought by a bankruptcy trustee who argued that the protected IRA was no longer an IRA because it engaged in a number of prohibited transactions. If the trustee is successful in disqualifying the retirement account because of a prohibited transaction, then the funds and assets held in such retirement account are no longer protected from creditors and may be used to pay debtors involved in the bankruptcy. While most prohibited transaction cases arise in Tax Court, I’m seeing more cases on prohibited transactions in Bankruptcy Court as trustees are becoming more aggressive and as self directed IRAs are becoming more popular.
The case in question is known as In re Cherwenka, Case 13-57592-MGD (Bankr. N. D. GA 2014). The case included two important prohibited transaction analysis that are helpful to IRA owners.
Court Rules No Prohibited Transaction When Managing IRA Investment Properties Without Compensation
The first significant ruling from the Court was that there was no prohibited transaction when the IRA owner completed the following tasks related to the IRA owned property.
- Research and identified properties to buy
- Appointed and approved work on the properties
- Oversaw payments on the property for work from the self-directed IRA.
The Court reasoned that these actions do no constitute a “transaction” as defined in IRC § 4975 and as a result they cannot constitute a prohibited transaction. The Court further stated that, “…self-directed IRAs as qualified IRAs, necessarily implies that a disqualified person (the owner as fiduciary) will make investment decisions regarding the plan. The Court distinguished this case from In re Williams, 2011 WL 10653865 (Bankr E.D. Cal 2011) a similar case in which the self-directed IRA owner was managing properties owned by the IRA because in Williams the IRA was paying the self-directed IRA owner for the services. The court stated that it was the payment from the IRA to the IRA owner in Williams that caused the prohibited transaction and not the mere provision of managing the IRAs investment owned by the IRA.
Court Ruled That No Prohibited Transaction Occurred When IRA and Owner Invested Into Property Together
The second significant ruling from the Court was that there was no prohibited transaction when the IRA owner and the IRA co-invested into a property together. The property in question was owned 45% by the IRA and 55% by the IRA owner. The Court rejected the bankruptcy Trustee’s argument that such co-investment purchase resulted in a prohibited transaction and stated that the interests appeared to have been treated distinctly and that the HUD documents from the sale of the property show that the IRA and the IRA owner’s proceeds from the sale were treated separately and that they were apportioned properly. As a result, the Court concluded that no prohibited transaction occurred since there was no evidence of un-fair benefit between the IRA owner and his IRA. In its reasoning, the Court referenced DOL Opinion 2000-10A which addressed an IRA and the IRA owner co-investing into a partnership. In the Opinion the DOL states that, “a violation of section 4975 (c)(1)(D) or (E) will not occur merely because the fiduciary [IRA owner] drives some incidental benefit from the transaction involving IRA assets.” The Court referenced this opinion and stated that unless there is evidence of some un-fair benefit that no prohibited transaction occurred merely because of co-investment into the same property.
There are two key take-away’s for self-directed IRA investors from this case.
First, never take compensation or payment from the IRA for services rendered. It is clear that the Courts will find a prohibited transaction if you do and that you will no longer have an IRA.
Second, if you are buying property or others assets (e.g. LLC interests) between your IRA and yourself personally (or another disqualified person) those interests must be carefully calculated and treated such that there is no benefit going unfairly between the IRA and the disqualified person (e.g. IRA owner). In sum, get advice and plan carefully as there are many land-mines you could encounter when investing IRA funds with your own personal funds. Bottom line, it can be done but it can easily be done incorrectly.
