May 2016

Inheriting HSA Beneficiary - Duty to Prepare Form 8889

If the HSA owner's surviving spouse is the designated beneficiary, the surviving spouse becomes the HSA owner. Consequently, he or she completes Form 8889 for transactions occurring after the HSA owner's death.

If the HSA owner has designated a non-spouse beneficiary and dies, the HSA ceases being an HSA. If the inheriting beneficiary is not the HSA owner's estate, the beneficiary completes Form 8889 as follows.

1. Across the top of the form write, “Death of HSA Owner.
2. At the top the beneficiary will insert his/her name and social security number. Part I (Contributions) is not to be completed. It is to be skipped as no additional HSA contributions may be made by a beneficiary
3. On line 14a the HSA’s fair market value as of the date of death is inserted. The beneficiary includes this amount in his or her taxable income for the year during the HSA owner died. This is true even if the beneficiary withdraws the funds in a following year. The 20% penalty for non-medical use does not apply. Any earnings realized after the death of the HSA owner are included in the beneficiary's income for the withdrawal year. The HSA Custodian/trustee prepares the Form 1099-SA to report the distribution to the beneficiary for the year during which the withdrawal occurs
4. The remainder of Part II (Distributions) is to be completed
5. If the beneficiary pays within one year of the date of death medical expenses incurred by the HSA owner prior to his or her death, then such amount is to be listed on line 15. At times the beneficiary may need to file an amended tax return.

If the inheriting beneficiary is the HSA owner's estate, the final tax return and Form 8889 for the HSA owner as follows.

1. Across the top of the form write, “Death of HSA Owner.
2. Part I is to be completed, if applicable. That is, if the HSA owner made contributions prior to his death, they are reported
3. On line 14a the HSA fair market value as of the date of death is inserted. This amount is included on the deceased HSA owner's final tax return for the year he or she died. This is true even if the personal representative withdraws the funds in a following year.
4. The remainder of Part II (Distributions) is to be completed
5. If the estate pays within one year of the date of death medical expenses incurred by the HSA owner prior to his or her death, then such amount is to be listed on line 15. At times the final tax return for the deceased HSA owner may need to file an amended tax return.

There are two times when a person is apparently required to file a paper tax return (versus an electronic filing) and file multiple 8889 forms.

The first situation is the person has his or her own personal HSA and then inherits an HSA. The person must prepare a Form 8889 for each HSA and a summary Form 8889. “Statement is to be written at the top of each of the non-summary 8889 forms. These statements are to be attached to the summary Form 8889. The IRS instructions use the term “controlling 8889”, we prefer “summary 8889.”

CWF Discusses - Non-Deductible Traditional IRA Contributions by Bank Presidents and other High Income Individuals

More Wealthier Individuals Should Be Making Non-deductible Traditional IRA Contributions - They Just Need Some Help and You Can Provide It.

Wealthier individuals should be rushing to their IRA custodian/trustee to make a non-deductible IRA contribution. This is certainly true if they are a 401(k) participant.

Many individuals should be making non-deductible traditional IRA contributions and they don’t do so because they (and their advisors) many times don’t understand the benefits, including how the related tax rules apply. Every person should contribute as much as possible to a Roth IRA. Why? There are very few times under US income tax laws where Income is not taxed. That is, no taxes are owed with respect to Roth IRA funds if the Roth owner has met a 5-year rule and is age 59½ or older or the Roth owner is a beneficiary who has inherited the Roth IRA and the 5-year rule has been met.

The federal tax laws have been expressly written to make it impossible for a person with a high income to make an annual Roth IRA contribution. Some people (i.e. many Democrats) don’t want “wealthier” individuals to gain the benefit of contributing funds to a Roth IRA and earning tax free income. They want them to pay more income taxes. A person who had tax filing status of single was ineligible to make a 2015 Roth IRA contribution if his or her MAGI (modified adjusted gross income) was $132,000 or more. A person who had filing status of married filing jointly was ineligible to make a 2016 Roth IRA contribution if the couple’s MAGI was $193,000 or more. A person who had filing status of married filing separately was ineligible to make a 2016 Roth IRA contribution if his or her MAGI was $10,000 or more.

For discussion and illustration purposes, we will assume that Jane Doe has the following situation. She is age 54. She is married. Her husband, Mark Doe, is a bank president. He is age 57. Their joint income is sufficiently high that neither one of them is eligible to make an annual Roth IRA contribution. Their joint income is sufficiently high that neither one of them is eligible to made a deductible traditional IRA annual contribution.

This article is going to discuss the question, “should these two each make a non-deductible traditional IRA contribution?” For the reasons discussed below, both should make a maximum non-deductible traditional IRA contribution until each is no longer eligible to make a traditional IRA contribution (i.e. the year a person attains age 70½).

On March 15, 2016, Jane contributed $6,500 to a traditional IRA she had established in 1984. She designated her contribution as being for 2015. The IRA balance at the time of contribution was $8,500. With the addition of her $6,500 contribution the IRA balance became $15,000. Since then the account has earned $40 of interest. It is now assumed that Jane has no other IRA funds in any traditional, SEP or SIMPLE IRAs. The IRA taxation rules require in applying the taxation rules that all non-Roth IRA funds be aggregated. One cannot avoid the pro-rata taxation rule by setting up separate IRAs or having separate time deposits.

The couple’s tax preparer has recently informed Jane that her contribution is non-deductible as her husband participates in a 401(k) plan and their MAGI is sufficiently high that they are not permitted to claim any tax deduction for her $6,500 contribution. What tax options are available to her? What options are unavailable to her?

She may not use the recharacterization rules to make her traditional IRA contribution a Roth IRA contribution as their 2015 MAGI is too high.

There is no IRS guidance allowing the IRA custodian to switch the year for which the IRA contribution was made from 2015 to 2016.

The IRS has issued rules allowing her to withdraw her 2015 IRA contribution with no adverse tax consequences as long as she does so by 10-15-16, no deduction is claimed on the 2015 tax return and the related income is withdrawn. If she withdraws her $6,500 contribution she is required to withdraw the related income and it is taxable for 2016 since the contribution was made in 2016. The related income is a pro-rata amount of the $40 determined as follows: 6500.15000 x $40 = $17.33. Since she is younger than age 59½ she does owe the 10% additional tax on this $17.33. The bank as the IRA custodian will prepare a 2016 Form 1099-R inserting the codes (81) in box 7, box 1 would show $6,517.33 and box 2a would show $17.33.

In 2016 she is eligible to make a Roth IRA conversion of any amount in the range of $.01 to $15,040. If she would convert $15,040 into her Roth IRA she/they would include in income on their 2016 tax return the amount of $8,540. She as many taxpayers does not want to include the $8,540 in her/their income and pay tax on it. Jane as many taxpayers would like to convert only her non-deductible contribution of $6,500. This would allow her to pay no taxes since she would not be converting any of the $8,540. The tax rules require use of the standard pro-rata taxation rule when an IRA has taxable funds and nontaxable funds. If she converts $6,500, a portion would be taxable and a portion would not be. The taxable portion is: $6,500 x $8,540/$15,040 ($3,690.82) and the non-taxable portion is $6,500 x $65,00/15,040 ($2,809.18) . Jane made a non-deductible IRA contribution for 2015. She is required to file Form 8606 and attach to the couple’s Form 1040. If it was not filed with the original return, an amended tax return should be filed and the 2015 Form 8606 attached. She is not relieved of this duty because she withdraws the $6,500 or converts it. A $50 penalty applies to a person who fails to file Form 8606 unless she could show a reasonable cause why she did not file it. A person must pay a $100 penalty if a person overstates the amount of non-deductible contributions. Note that Jane will also be required to file a 2016 Form 8606 regardless if she withdraws a portion or all of the $6,500.

Having to include in income the amount of $8,540 and pay tax on this amount should not influence Jane or any other wealthy person to not make non-deductible contributions. But it does. Tax on $8,540 should not be that material to a couple who are ineligible to make annual Roth IRA contributions. From a practical standpoint, Jane could convert her traditional IRA over a 2-4 year time period to lessen the amount of income which would be taxed each year.

The best of all “planning” situations would be if Jane would either work for an employer that had a 401(k) plan written to accept rollovers from traditional IRAs or if she could work for the bank and become eligible under the bank’s 401(k) plan. Why? If Jane was a participant of a 401(k) plan, the tax rules have been so written that if she would rollover a portion of the $15,040, the amount rolled over “first” is the taxable portion. The prorate rule does not apply in this situation. If Jane only rolls over $8,540, this means that the $6,500 remaining in the IRA are non-taxable. She may then convert such amount to a Roth IRA. This is her goal, this any person’s goal.

Jane wants to make as many non-deductible IRA contributions (currently $6,500 but his amount which change as it is indexed for inflation) as she can between ages 54-70½ because she should convert all such funds into a Roth IRA. What about her husband, Mark? He too wants to make the maximum amount of non-deductible IRA contributions from ages 57-70½ and at some point convert such contributions to a Roth IRA. The sooner the conversion can be completed the better as the earnings realized after the conversion will be tax free if the qualified distribution rules are met.

Most likely Mark participates in a 40(k) plan which will allow him to move ‘taxable IRA money into his 401(k) account. If not, he probably has the ability to rewrite the plan so he would have this right. The 401(k) plan in which he participates may allow him to make Designated Roth deferrals and he exercises that right to the maximum. This would be $24,000 for 2016 ($18,000 + $6,000). Good for him. But why not contribute an additional $6,500 to his traditional IRA and convert it? Contributing $6500 for 13 or 14 years would result in an additional $84,500 or $91,000 in a Roth IRA. Those individuals attaining age 70 between July and December 31st are eligible to make a contribution for their "70" year whereas those who attain age 70 and 70½ are ineligible.

Be aware that under existing laws Roth IRA funds are ineligible to be rolled over into a 401(k) plan. This is true even for 401(k) plans having Designated Roth features.

Mark too should want to make as many non-deductible traditional IRA contributions as he is eligible for until his 70½ year.

In summary, a bank president and his/her spouse want to make as many non-deductible traditional IRA contributions as possible prior to his/her 70½ year. With some pre-planning, it will be possible to convert these to be Roth IRA conversion contributions.

Obama Administration Again Proposes Taxing Some Roth IRA Distributions And Other Law Changes

Below is a summary of the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal for IRA and pension law changes. Unsurprisingly, the proposals seek to reduce the tax benefits realized by individuals with higher incomes.

1. The law will “cap” the tax benefit (exclusion or tax deduction) that a person may receive from an IRA, 401(k) or other tax preferred plan at the 28% bracket. That is, those individuals in a higher tax bracket (33%, 35%, 39.6%, etc) would not be able to claim a tax deduction for the full amount or claim a full tax exclusion. This is the first proposal or discussion making some Roth IRA distributions taxable. New for 2016
2. The standard RMD rules would apply to a person who had funds within a Roth IRA in the same manner as they know apply to funds within a traditional IRA, SEP-IRA and SIMPLE IRA. This change does not generate any additional tax revenues, but is being made to lower the amounts in Roth IRAs earning tax free income. Proposed in 2015. This change would only apply to those Roth IRA accountholders who attain age 70½ in 2016 or later
3. Required distributions would no longer apply to individuals who had an aggregated balance of less than $100,000 in IRAS, 401(k)’s and other retirement accounts. A special rule would apply in the case of certain defined benefit plans. Proposed in 2015
4. A person who has after-tax dollars in an IRA or pension plan would lose the right to convert such dollars into a Roth IRA. That is, a person will be eligible to convert only “taxable” funds, he or she could not convert after-tax funds. New for 2016.
5. Require most non-spouse beneficiaries to take required distributions using the 5-year Rule. The life distribution rule no longer could be used. This is a large revenue raiser and it raises greatly the taxes to be paid by non-spouse beneficiaries. This change would only apply if the IRA accountholder died on or after January 1, 2017
6. The proposed law will “cap” the amount of funds a person may accumulate within tax preferred plans. This was also proposed in the 2015 budget proposal. The person would be required to aggregate the balance he or she has within personal IRAs with the balance within all employer sponsored retirement plans. Once a certain limit is reached, then no additional contributions could be made by the individual or by the individual’s employer on his or her behalf. The account balance could grow if due to earnings, but not on account of new contributions. The law would permit a person to accumulate an initial balance of $3,400,000 as that is the actuarial equivalent of a joint and 100% survivor annuity of $210,000 per year. The $210,000 limit would be adjusted for cost of living increases.CWF Observation. This proposal would greatly complicate the administration of IRAs and pension plans. There would be a tremendous increase in the need for actuarial and accounting services. It may well be an employee would need to inform his/her current employer what he/she has accumulated in his/her IRAs and other pension plans.
7. The proposed law would allow certain non-spouse beneficiaries who mistakenly are paid a distribution from an inherited to roll over such distribution if certain rules are met. This was also proposed in the 2015 proposal
8. The 401(k) plan rules would be changed so that an employer would have to let those employees working 500-999 hours per year for three consecutive years to be able to make elective deferral contributions. Under current law, an employer is not required allow employees who work less than 1,000 hours to participate in the plan. Although the employer would have to let such employees make elective deferral, the employer would not be required to make any contributions, matching or profit sharing, on behalf of such employees
9. The IRS and the DOL are big fans of automatic enrollment pension plans. Under current law an employer’s decision to sponsor a pension or profit sharing plan is totally voluntary. Many small and moderate size employers choose to not offer a plan due to the regulatory complexity. The IRS and the DOL don’t seem to accept why so many employers choose to not offer such plans. Their solution, change the law so an employer must offer a simplified retirement plan. An employer with more than 10 employees which has been in business for at least two years would be required to offer a payroll deduction IRA program. Employees would automatically be enrolled to have 3% of compensation withheld unless they expressly waived coverage. An employee could have a larger percentage withheld. Funds could go into either a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA. To offset some of the cost for maintaining this plan there would various tax credits extended to the small employers
10. The current tax rules applying to the taxation of net unrealized appreciation would be repealed. The general tax rule is, when a person takes a distribution from his or her IRA or 401(k) plan, such amount is combined with other wage or ordinary income for such year and taxed at the applicable marginal income tax bracket. Many times a person will move into a higher tax bracket on account of the IRA/401(k) distribution. Current law allows an employee who has been distributed employer stock to be taxed differently. He or she will include the cost basis of the stock in his or her income for the year of distribution, but is able to defer further taxation to when the stock is subsequently sold. There is no time limit by when the individual must sell the stock. It may be the government won’t see any tax revenues for 20-50 years. Example. Jane works for ABC, Inc from ages 22-38. Her employer has a profit sharing which invests in employer stock. The corporation has been very successful. The corporation contributes stock which at the time contributed had a cost basis of $45,000, but has a value of $450,000 when distributed to her. Although she has various options, she elects to have the stock distributed to her inkind. Under this method she includes the $45,000 in her income and pays tax on such amount. Now assume the stock appreciates to $600,000 and she then decides to sell the stock. She would have $555,000 of long term gain and it would be taxed at a rate of 28% under current law. That is, she will not pay any tax on the stock appreciation until she sells the stock. And at that time she will most likely qualify to pay tax at then existing capital gain rates on the stock gain. The current tax rate is 28% but there were times during 2009-2012 when the tax rate was 10%, 15% or 20%. This change would not apply to a person who was age 50 or older as of 12/31/15.
11. The current tax laws allowing a publicly traded company to claim a tax deduction for dividends paid with respect to stock held in an ESOP would be repealed. Most of the above proposals have little chance of being enacted as the Republicans for the time being control Congress. The purpose of this article is, the politicians will certainly be discussing many of these same IRA and pension topics with some modifications. CWF believes it is only a matter of time before the law is changed to reduce the distribution period applying to an inheriting IRA beneficiary. The reason, the life expectancy approach means there is too long of a time of tax deferral and the government is waiting too long time to receive the tax payments associated with these tax-deferred funds. Tax laws should be reasonable, but what one person thinks is reasonable another person does not. Compromises will be made.