Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Roth 401(k) for People Who Contribute the Max

Back in March I wrote The Case Against Roth 401(k) in which I said I think for most people the majority, if not 100%, of the contribution should go to a Traditional 401(k). I gave these reasons:

  1. Fill in lower tax brackets in retirement
  2. Avoid high state income tax
  3. Leave the option open for Roth conversion in the future
  4. Avoid triggering phase-outs and AMT

I still believe these are valid reasons in favor of contributing to a Traditional 401k instead of a Roth 401k. A few comments to that post said Roth is better because a Roth 401k lets you effectively shelter more from taxes than a Traditional 401k. That is true. My response was that the higher effective maximum comes into play only if someone actually contributes the maximum allowed, currently at $15,500 per person per year. According to a study by Vanguard, only 10% of people contribute the maximum. It's not surprising because in order to contribute the maximum, you need either a high income, a high savings rate, or both. Consider a married couple. The combined 401k and IRA maximum contributions are $41,000 per year. At 25% savings rate, this couple needs $160,000 of income. At 15% savings rate, this couple has to earn $270,000.

What if you are one of the 10%? People who read finance blogs probably earn more and save more. What is the value of the higher effective contribution limit in a Roth 401k?

It turns out that for the marginal dollar, a Roth 401k is worth about 5-10 percentage points in marginal tax rate. That is if you contribute the marginal dollar to a Roth 401k and your marginal tax rate drops 5-10 percentage points between now and retirement, you are still better off than contributing that same marginal dollar to a Traditional 401k and put the tax savings in a taxable account. Say you are down to the last $100 which you can either contribute to a Roth 401k or a Traditional 401k. If you contribute to a Traditional 401k, you also get a tax deduction. But because you already hit the max, you cannot put the tax savings into the Traditional 401k. Your only choice is a taxable account. The Roth is compared to Traditional + Taxable because the assumption is that you maxed out the contribution limit. If you are not maxing out, you can always gross up the contribution to the Traditional account.

How much exactly is a higher effective contribution limit in a Roth 401k worth depends on a number of assumptions. I made this spreadsheet on Zoho. You can plug in your own assumptions and see the result for yourself. Plug in some different assumptions and see how the results change. That's what a spreadsheet is for. Zoho is nice because it's all online. You don't need Excel or any other spreadsheet program. You don't have to register for Zoho either if you just want to use the spreadsheet.

For example, here's one set of assumptions I used.

For tax rates, I'm assuming the Bush tax cuts will expire after 2011. Dividends will be taxed as ordinary income and long term capital gains will be taxed at 20%. I also put in a factor for the cost advantage in a taxable account because 401k plans often have higher cost funds and higher admin costs. And here are the results.

Roth 401k and "Traditional 401k + Taxable" break even if the marginal tax rate at retirement is about 28%, versus the current marginal tax rate of 35%. That means the higher effective contribution limit is worth about 7 percentage points.

Here's the link to the spreadsheet again if you want to play with your own assumptions.

Traditional Or Roth 401k

Finally, please note we are still talking about the marginal dollar here. The reasons for favoring the Traditional 401k are still valid for the majority of one's retirement dollars. If you max out all your tax favored contributions, you still have to decide how much should go to traditional. Those dollars in traditional will fill in the lower brackets after you retire. They will also be converted to Roth along the way if you have a window of opportunity.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

RSU Sell To Cover Deconstructed

Ever since I wrote Restricted Stock Units (RSU) Sales and Tax Reporting, I received many questions. They all relate to sell-to-cover, which is the default, and often the only option people have for their restricted stock units (RSU). I must have not been crystal clear in my previous post. Otherwise I would not have received so many questions. I thought of a better way to explain it. So hopefully it is clear this time. For background on RSUs and tax withholding, please also read my previous post Restricted Stock Units (RSU) Tax Withholding Choices.

Let's use this hypothetical example.

100 RSUs vested on 4/20/2007. The closing price on the vesting date is $50 per share. The company sold 40 shares for taxes. You received 60 shares. Without the RSUs, your W-2 income for the year would've been $60,000, with $8,000 withheld for various taxes (federal, state, social security, medicare).

This transaction can be deconstructed into 5 steps as follows.

1. The company gives you a cash bonus. In our example, the bonus is $5,000, which is the closing price on the vesting date ($50) times the number of RSUs vested (100). The company adds this cash bonus to your W-2. If your W-2 income without the RSUs is $60,000, your W-2 income with RSUs now becomes $65,000. After the end of the year, they will issue you a W-2 showing $65,000 in box 1.

2. You use the cash bonus to buy shares. $5,000 bonus buys 100 shares at $50 a share. Buying shares by itself does not trigger any taxes. Your cost basis in these 100 shares is $50 a share, for a total of $5,000.

3. The company sells some shares on your behalf. In our example, they sell 40 shares on your behalf. You must report sales of stocks on Form 1040 Schedule D. There can be a few variations here.

3a. The company does not use a broker. The shares are sold on the vesting date at the same closing price. You report on your Schedule D:

Description 40 Shares XYZ Corp.
Date Acquired 4/20/2007
Date Sold 4/20/2007
Sales Price $2,000
Cost Basis $2,000
Gain or Loss $0

3b. The company uses a broker. The shares are sold on the next day after vesting at a different price. Suppose the sale price is $50.60 and the broker's commission is $20. The net proceeds of the sale is $50.60 * 40 - $20 = $2,004. You report on your Schedule D:

Description 40 Shares XYZ Corp.
Date Acquired 4/20/2007
Date Sold 4/21/2007
Sales Price $2,004
Cost Basis $2,000
Gain or Loss $4

If the shares are sold at a lower price, you show a loss instead of a gain. The loss can offset capital gains elsewhere. After that, it can offset up to $3,000 of your ordinary income. If you still have more losses, the remainder is carried over to the next year, offsetting any gains you have next year and up to $3,000 of your ordinary income again next year.

4. You hand over the money from the stock sale to your employer. Your employer remits the money to the federal and state tax authorities. They add the taxes paid to the withholding numbers on your W-2. If your tax withholdings without RSUs would've been $8,000, your tax withholdings with RSUs now become $10,000. After the year end, the W-2 you receive from your employer shows $65,000 of income (step 1) and $10,000 in withholdings.

5. Finally, your employer gives you the remaining shares. You bought 100 shares in step 2. They sold 40 shares on your behalf in step 3. You have 60 shares left.

Now, when you file your tax return,

  • Enter the income and taxes paid from your W-2 as-is. The RSU related income and tax withholdings are already included on your W-2. You don't have to do anything else with them. Do not add more income. Do not add more taxes paid.
  • Report the stock sale on Schedule D as shown in step 3. If the company does not use a broker and sells the shares at the same price as the closing price on the vesting date, you should have a zero gain/loss for that sale. Others might have a small gain or loss depending on the sale price and brokerage commission if any.

Your cost basis in the remaining shares stays at $50 a share. In our example it's $50 * 60 = $3,000 in total. Whenever you sell these shares, you have to remember this cost basis. If you sell them for more than $50 a share, you have a capital gain. If you sell them for less than $50 a share, you have a capital loss. You will report the gain or loss in the year you sell these remaining shares. The gain/loss will be a short-term gain/loss or a long-term gain/loss depending on your holding period after the vesting date.

I hope this post addresses all the questions. If you break up the RSU vesting and sale this way, it's not that complicated.

Related Posts:

Monday, April 07, 2008

Mortgage Interest and Property Tax Deduction for Homeowners Who Don't Itemize

The New York Times reported that Senate Democrats and Republicans reached a tentative deal on the new housing bill. Among the various provisions is a federal income tax deduction for property tax paid by taxpayers who don't itemize deductions. Single taxpayers get a $500 deduction. Married taxpayers filing a joint return get $1,000. Presidential candidate senator Barack Obama also proposed a "universal mortgage credit" which gives a refundable tax credit to taxpayers who pay mortgage interest but don't itemize deductions.

The rationale behind these proposals is that the mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction benefit only the well-off. They say people who don't itemize their deductions don't get those deductions. From Obama's Tax Fairness Plan:

"Owning a home is the culmination of the American dream that so many Americans work so hard for. The tax code is supposed to encourage home ownership with a mortgage interest deduction, but it goes only to people who itemize their tax deductions. Like so much in our tax code, this tilts the scales toward the well-off. The current mortgage interest deduction excludes nearly two-thirds of Americans who do not itemize their taxes."

Is that so? On the surface, yes. If you don't itemize your deductions, you use the standard deduction, which in 2008 is $5,450 for single and $10,900 for married filing jointly. If you pay mortgage interest and/or property tax, but if they are not large enough, you still use the standard deduction. That's why by definition Americans who don't itemize their deductions don't show a mortgage interest deduction on their tax return.

However, to say that those Americans don't benefit from the mortgage interest deduction or the property tax deduction is a misunderstanding of how taxes and math work. The tax law says everybody is allowed to itemize their deductions. Everybody starts out listing their mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, plus any other deductions they are allowed. Say for a married couple filing jointly, those deductions add up to $6,000, then the IRS tells them

"Guess what, you are lucky. We are going to let you deduct even more than what you've already got here. Would you like us to top off your deductions to $10,900?"

Now they can take up on the offer from the IRS or say "no thanks" and stick to their original list of deductions, which include their mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, and everything else. In reality, when one has less in deductions than the standard deduction, nobody declines the sweet offer from the IRS because they get to deduct all the deductions they are allowed, plus a bonus deduction offered by the IRS.

Now tell me who's better off? The taxpayers who don't itemize their deductions but end up deducting even more than their deductions, or the taxpayers who itemize their deductions? The non-itemizers get to deduct everything they are allowed plus a bonus deduction they receive from the IRS. Itemizers don't receive such bonus. The non-itemizers are already better off than the itemizers. If we allow a new property tax deduction under the proposed housing legislation or a new "universal mortgage credit" under Obama's tax plan, the non-itemizers will deduct their mortgage interest and property tax twice, plus taking a bonus deduction from the IRS. Does that sound like fair to you?

I'm afraid our legislators and presidential candidates don't understand how taxes and math work because they don't do their own taxes. 

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Case Against Roth 401(k)

To Roth or not to Roth, that is the question. Starting in 2008, like many other employers, my employer also started offering the Roth 401k option in our 401(k) plan. This question of whether one is better off with contributing to the Traditional 401k or contributing to the Roth 401k has been the subject of a lot of debate. Although there is no one-size-fits-all answer, I think for most people the majority, if not 100%, of the contribution should go to a Traditional 401(k). I will state my case against Roth 401(k) in this post.

The basic premise of a Roth 401(k), and to some extent a Roth IRA, is that of prepayment. You are prepaying the tax now so you don't have to pay tax later. This prepayment concept is not uncommon. For example, buying a season ticket is prepaying for the individual events. Buying a timeshare is prepaying for vacation accommodation. Whenever we deal with a prepayment scheme, we have to assess whether prepaying is "worth it." The same paradigm also applies to Traditional versus Roth 401(k). There are several factors that make prepaying the taxes now not worth it.

1. Fill in lower tax brackets in retirement. I showed in a previous post Commutative Law of Multiplication that if the marginal tax rate at retirement is the same as it is now, the Traditional and Roth 401(k)'s are equivalent. If the marginal tax rate is higher now than in retirement, one is better off contributing to a Traditional 401k. If the current marginal tax rate is lower, one is better off contributing to a Roth 401k. But that applies only to the marginal dollar, which is the last dollar you can shift between Traditional and Roth 401(k). It is not necessarily the case for the entire contribution or the average dollar. The tax system in the United States is progressive and it will probably stay that way. That means that income is taxed at increasing rates as it goes higher. Even if you think the marginal tax rate in the future will be higher, there will still be lower brackets and these lower brackets should be filled with money from a Traditional 401(k).

This chart below illustrates what the tax brackets are in 2008 for a married couple earning $218,200 between the two of them if they file jointly using the standard deduction (click on the chart to see it in full size).

* Source: Tax Policy Center

The first $17,900 of income is not taxed because it's taken up by deductions and exemptions. The next $16,050 is taxed at 10%, the next $49,050 at 15%, the next $66,350 at 25%, so on and so forth. Because the way a Traditional 401(k) works, the dollars they contribute come off from the top, in the highest tax bracket for their income. After they retire, the dollars they receive from their Traditional 401(k) fill in from the bottom. Even if we assume their marginal tax bracket in retirement will be higher due to tax increases, a large portion of the 401(k) withdrawal may still be taxed at a lower rate than what it was when they contributed the money. This is the same argument raised by a reader on the AllFinancialMatters blog.

Until you know you can generate from your Traditional 401(k) enough income to fill the lower brackets, it doesn't make sense to contribute to a Roth 401(k). For people without a traditional defined benefit pension plan, it means the majority of the retirement savings should go to a Traditional 401(k), not Roth.

If you have a defined benefit pension plan and/or you expect to have a large balance in Traditional 401(k)/IRA, large enough to fill the lower brackets every year, then contributing to Roth makes some sense.

2. Avoid high state income tax. Many people work in high tax states like California and New York today. They work there because there are a lot of well-paying jobs in those states. They won't necessarily retire there because the high taxes take away a significant portion of their retirement income. States popular with retirees like Florida and Texas have no state income tax. If you are working in a high tax state today but there is a chance you will retire in a no/low tax state, contributing to a Traditional 401(k) lets you avoid paying the high state income tax on the contributions. Prepaying the high state income tax now is a dead loss.

3. Leave the option open for Roth conversion in the future. When you leave your employer, you can rollover the Traditional 401(k) to a Traditional IRA, which then can be converted to a Roth IRA at a later time when it is advantageous to you. A Roth 401k or IRA on the other hand can never be converted back to Traditional. With a Traditional 401k, you hold the option, which has value. If you contribute to Roth, you give up that valuable option. You can decide to convert and pay the tax whenever you are in a lower tax bracket than where you are now. Good times for conversion include:

  • going back to school for a career change;
  • becoming unemployed due to layoffs or burn-out;
  • starting a business (not as much income in the first few years);
  • two-income couple having one parent stay at home or work part-time for a few years after they have kids;
  • a high-income single person marrying a lower-income spouse;
  • taking early retirement;
  • moving from a high tax state to a no/low tax state;

Unless you are sure that your marginal tax bracket will never be lower throughout your career, you should leave the option open by putting money in a Traditional 401(k) and then convert to Roth when an opportunity comes.

4. Avoid triggering phase-outs and AMT. Because contributing to a Roth 401k does not reduce your gross income, you appear to be richer than you otherwise are if you contributed to a Traditional 401k. There are all kinds of income-based eligibility cutoffs and phase-outs in the tax code. When your exceed the income threshold, your tax benefits from those programs are either reduced or eliminated. Some of these tax breaks include:

  • child tax credit;
  • Hope credit;
  • Lifetime Learning credit;
  • itemized deductions;
  • personal exemptions;
  • eligibility to contribute to a Roth IRA;
  • eligibility to contribute to a Coverdell ESA

Think for example the tax rebate from the 2008 economic stimulus package. If a single person earned $90,000 in 2007 but contributed $10,000 to a Roth 401k, he/she is not eligible for the $600 tax rebate. If he/she contributed $15,000 to a Traditional 401(k) instead, he/she is eligible. When your income appears to be "too high," not only you lose tax benefits, you may even trigger the AMT. Contributing to a Traditional 401(k) will help you qualify for tax benefits and escape or reduce the impact of AMT.

With so many disadvantages, whom is Roth 401(k) good for then? Roth 401(k) is good for people in low paying jobs now but expect to have high paying jobs later. Medical doctors in residence programs fit that description very well. They are paid very low while they are in residency but their income is expected to rise substantially higher when they finish the program. Their income will stay high in their career and they will receive a high income after they retire. Prepaying tax now makes sense because they are prepaying at a low rate now and they will avoid paying a higher rate later. College students working part-time jobs or recent graduates working in entry-level jobs are also good examples for taking advantage of a Roth 401(k) while their income (and their tax rate) is low. Roth 401(k) is also good for people who are already in the top tax bracket and expect to be there forever. If they don't see any chance of being in a lower tax bracket, prepaying tax now will lock in the tax rate so they won't have to worry about future tax increases.

What about the idea of tax diversification? Some advocate doing both Roth 401k and Traditional 401k because the tax rates in the future are uncertain. Diversification is good in general but it doesn't mean automatic 50:50. Just like investing in emerging markets provides diversification, but it doesn't mean you should invest 50% of your money in emerging markets. You still have to decide how much you should allocate your retirement savings between Traditional and Roth just like you allocate a portfolio between developed markets and emerging markets. Tax diversification also doesn't mean you have to do it right now if you are in your peak earning years. There might be better times coming up in the future.

For myself, I'm 100% in Traditional 401(k). Prepaying tax now is just not worth it.

See also: Roth vs Traditional 401K on Bogleheads Forum.

[Update on May 16, 2008]: There is a follow-up to this post, Roth 401(k) for People Who Contribute the Max, which includes an online spreadsheet that calculates the value of having a higher effective contribution limit in a Roth 401k.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Schwab AMT Tax-Free Money Market Funds

Charles Schwab started offering AMT tax-free money market funds. I read about it in the spring 2008 edition of Schwab's On Investing magazine. AMT tax-free money market funds are good for investors who are in a higher tax bracket due to the Alternative Minimum Tax, especially those who also face high state income tax.

Previously Fidelity is the only place I know that offers this kind of funds. Schwab now offers one national and four state-specific (CA, MA, NJ, and NY) AMT tax-free money market funds. The national fund and the NY fund also have two share classes with different expense ratios. The Value Advantage share class is cheaper but you can't use them for automatic sweeps. Investors in MA and NJ only have the more expensive Sweep Shares version, while investors in CA only have the non-sweep version. Like the comparable Fidelity funds, these AMT tax-free money market funds all require a $25,000 minimum initial investment.

Here's the complete list of Schwab's AMT-free money funds*:

Fund Expense Yield Comparable
Fidelity Fund
Schwab AMT Tax-Free Money Fund - Value Advantage Shares (SWWXX) 0.45% 2.80% 0.43% / 2.83%
Schwab AMT Tax-Free Money Fund (SWFXX) 0.63% 2.61% N/A

Schwab CA AMT Tax-Free Money Fund - Value Advantage Shares (SNKXX)

0.45% 2.42% 0.30% / 2.76%
Schwab MA AMT Tax-Free Money Fund - Sweep Shares (SWDXX) 0.65% 2.64% 0.30% / 2.72%
Schwab NJ AMT Tax-Free Money Fund - Sweep Shares (SWJXX) 0.65% 2.64% 0.30% / 2.95%

Schwab NY AMT Tax-Free Money Fund - Value Advantage Shares (SWYXX)

0.45% 2.68% 0.30% / 2.95%
Schwab NY AMT Tax-Free Money Fund - Sweep Shares (SWNXX) 0.65% 2.47% N/A

* Expense ratios and effective yields for the Schwab funds were from Schwab's web site: sweep funds, purchased funds. Expense ratios and effective yields for the Fidelity funds were from Fidelity's web site. All data were retrieved on Saturday March 8, 2008.

Except for the national fund, Schwab's AMT tax-free money market funds all have a substantially higher expense ratio and a lower yield than the comparable Fidelity funds. But if you prefer to keep your money at Schwab, now you have some new options for your short-term cash.

Related posts:

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Want to Encourage Savings? Simplify the Tax Rules

It has been reported that the savings rate in the United States is negative. I've heard arguments saying it isn't really negative but I think it's fair to say that the savings rate is very low. Everybody wants to encourage people to save, which is great. We already have a hodgepodge of tax favored programs. In this election year, politicians are coming up with even more tax incentive proposals of different stripes. I think they are missing the point entirely.

Right now we already have these programs:

  • 401k/403b/457, Traditional IRA, SEP IRA, SARSEP IRA, SIMPLE IRA: If you save for your retirement, you can defer taxes.
  • Roth IRA: If you save for your retirement, you can avoid tax on your gains.
  • 529 plan, Coverdell ESA: If you save for a child's education, you can avoid tax on your gains.
  • FSA, HSA: If you save for medical expenses, you can avoid some tax.

Can anybody say with any confidence that they know all the eligibility, phase-out and qualified distribution rules on all of these programs? You wonder why the average consumer is confused? When they have a number of choices which they don't know much about, they either (a) don't do anything for fear of doing something wrong; or (b) give up and hand themselves to a financial service "professional" who happily charge them a neat fee.

You think a 529 plan is simple enough? Find an aged-based portfolio, dollar cost average, and you are done? No. Every state has a different plan. Some states have more than one plans. You need a big web site just to keep it straight. Is it any surprise that nearly 80% of the 529 plan sales went through a financial advisor? Source: SmartMoney article.

We don't need more programs. We need simpler rules. When people are not worried about doing something wrong, they will save. The Canadians are smarter in this regard. They trust their people. The Canadian government recently legislated a new program called Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA). I think it serves as a good example for how a simple program really creates the incentive to save.

Simply put, in a TFSA,

  • Everybody over 18 can save 5,000 Canadian dollars a year. No income qualification. No phase-outs.
  • If you don't have money to contribute now, the contribution room carries forward, forever. That way when you have more money later, you can catch up. Most U.S. programs are use-it-or-lose-it.
  • Contributions are not tax deductible but earnings grow tax free (like a Roth).
  • Money can be withdrawn at any time, for whatever purpose, tax free. No 59-1/2, no expense qualification, no questions asked.
  • If you had to withdraw from your TFSA for whatever reason, you can make up for the withdrawal later without reducing your contribution room. In a US tax favored plan there's no way to put money back once it's withdrawn (except for limited 60-day rollovers).

If we have a program like Canada's TFSA, what excuse can anybody have for not using it? You save whenever you want, for whatever you want. Whatever you buy, the earnings are tax free. We are so into limiting people on the way in and locking the money up once they are in. That's the wrong approach. If you want to encourage people to save, let them save without so many restrictions. Obama, Clinton, McCain, are you listening?

Friday, March 07, 2008

TFB's Stumbles: Week Ending March 7, 2008

Here are some of the interesting articles I came across this week.

Gore Invests $35 Million for Hedge Funds With EBay Billionaire (Bloomberg) - Entrepreneur Al Gore increased his networth by at least 30 fold in 8 years (from $3 million to over $100 million). What about you?

Carlyle Fund Misses Margin Calls (New York Times) - A $21 billion hedge fund with 99 percent of AAA-rated US agency mortgage securities could not meet $37 million margin calls. That's what happens when you invest with borrowed money.

Study: Mortgage Intervention Programs Distribute Costs Unfairly (FreedomWorks.org) - Wharton professor writes about the inequality of the mortgage intervention programs. No good deeds go unpunished.

A Great Bargain or a Big Rip-off? Consumers Perceptions of Price Fairness in the U.S. and China (Knowledge@Wharton) - Are you upset if you find out others paid a lower price than you did for the same purchase? Charging different prices to different customers for the same thing and still keep all of them happy is an art.

Series I Savings Bonds vs the stock market (Savings Bond Advisor) - An equal amount invested monthly into I-Bonds in the last 10 years beats the same investment into S&P 500. Surprised?

Banking Fees Are Rising And Often Undisclosed (Washington Post) - Undercover agents from the Government Accounting Office posing as customers couldn't get all the info on fees from the banks. Nor are the fees on many banks' web sites. The banks said the agents spoke to the wrong people.

Knee Deep in Turbid Tax (The Financial Engineer) - Blogger Kristin raised doubts over Obama's proposal to have the IRS fill out the tax forms for you. Who fills out the tax form isn't the problem. The problem is with the complex rules. Politicians either don't think or don't bother thinking about the details.
 

Have a great weekend!

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

How $2,000 Became $20 And What To Do With It

In my foolhardy days, I bought WorldCom stock when it dropped from $60 a share to $4 a share. I thought it was a "buying opportunity." When it dropped more from $4, I thought I had only a "paper loss." You know the rest of the story. WorldCom went bankrupt. I lost $2,000.

Later, some plaintiff attorneys filed class action lawsuits on behalf of all the deceived investors like myself. I filled out the claim forms they sent to me and waited. Finally last week I received a check, for $20.46. The letter that came with the check says it's the second distribution from the settlements but I don't remember receiving a check from them before or what I did with it if I did receive one. $20 is better than nothing and I thank the attorneys. Their hard work recovered more than $6 billion for the investors. For some strange reasons, the attorneys are not seeking attorney's fees from the recoveries. I'm not sure who's paying them.

With my $20 check comes the puzzle on what to do with it and how to report it on my tax return. The letter says:

The WorldCom, Inc. Settlement Funds are "Qualified Settlement Funds", as defined in Treas. Reg. Section 1.468B-1 through 5. IRS regulations provide in part that "whether a distribution from a Qualified Settlement Fund is included in the claimant's gross income is generally determined by reference to the claim in respect of which the distribution is made and as if the distribution were made directly by the transferor."

Do you understand it? I don't. And I'm not going to consult a tax advisor about a $20 check, thank you very much. My best interpretation is because the money lost was in my IRA, I'm supposed to treat this $20 as if it came as a distribution from the IRA. Because I'm under 59-1/2, distribution from an IRA is taxable and it carries a 10% early withdrawal penalty. But wait, I have 60 days from the date of receiving the distribution to roll it over to an IRA and avoid the tax and the penalty. Therefore I'm going to send it to the IRA with a rollover form.

Invest; don't speculate. A "buying opportunity" isn't as obvious as it looks. A "paper loss" is a real loss too. These are expensive lessons for which I paid good money. Live and learn.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Restricted Stock Units (RSU) Sales and Tax Reporting

RSU stands for Restricted Stock Units. It's the new form of stock-based compensation that has gained popularity after the employers are required to expense employee stock options. The biggest difference between RSUs and employee stock options is that RSUs are taxed at the time of vesting while stock options are usually taxed at the time of option exercise. The employer is required to withhold taxes as soon as the RSUs become vested.

In a previous post, Restricted Stock Units (RSU) Tax Withholding Choices, I wrote about what I chose among the three tax withholding choices -- same day sale, sell to cover, and cash transfer -- and why. This time I'm writing about how to account for taxes on the tax return, especially if you use tax software like TurboTax or TaxCut.

I'm going to use this simple example:

Suppose you had 100 RSUs vested on October 31, 2007. The closing price of the stock on that day is $50, and the tax withholding rate is 40%.

Regardless of which choice you made for tax withholding -- some employers don't give you a choice and sell to cover is your only option -- your employer will include on your W-2 as wages the total value of the vested RSUs. In our example, it's $50 * 100 = $5,000. They will also withhold the same amount of taxes regardless of your choice. In this example it's $5,000 * 40% = $2,000. How you account for taxes on your tax return for the rest will depend on your tax withholding choice.

1. Same Day Sale. If you make this choice, you sell everything. Let's say on the day after the vesting date the shares are sold at $50.10 per share, less a $20 commission and $1 SEC fee. You total proceeds before tax withholding is $50.10 * 100 - $20 - $1 = $4,989. The employer withholds $2,000. You are left with $2,989. At tax time, you will receive a 1099-B from your broker listing the stock sale proceed of $4,989. You enter in TurboTax or TaxCut, or on Schedule D of Form 1040:

Description: 100 shares XYZ, Inc.
Net Proceeds: 4,989
Date of Sale: 11/01/2007
Cost Basis: 5,000
Date Acquired: 10/31/2007

Your cost basis is the amount your employer included on your W-2, which is the closing price on the vesting date times the number of shares vested. In this example, you will show a short-term loss of $11 on your tax return because of the brokerage commission and the SEC fee. The income and the associated tax withholdings are already included on your W-2. Use those numbers as-is.

2. Sell to Cover. [Update on April 9, 2008: I wrote a follow-up post RSU Sell To Cover Deconstructed to clarify this option. Jump ahead to that post if you'd like.] If you make this choice, or if you don't have a choice, your employer sells just enough shares to cover the tax withholding. Using the same numbers as in same day sale, they sell 41 shares. The SEC fee is a bit less, say $0.40. You receive from the sale $50.10 * 41 - $20 - $0.40 = $2,033.70. The employer takes away $2,000 for tax withholding. You are left with $33.70 in cash and the remaining 59 shares. At tax time, you will receive a 1099-B from your broker listing the stock sale proceed of $2,033.70. You enter in TurboTax, TaxCut, or on Schedule D of Form 1040:

Description: 41 shares XYZ, Inc.
Net Proceeds: 2,033.70
Date of Sale: 11/01/2007
Cost Basis: 2,050
Date Acquired: 10/31/2007

Once again, your cost basis for the shares you sold is the amount your employer included on your W-2 for those shares, which is the closing price on the vesting date times the number of shares you sold for tax withholding ($50 * 41 = $2,050). After the sale, you show a short-term loss of $2,050 - $2,033.70 = $16.30 because of the brokerage commission and the SEC fee. Again, the income and the associated tax withholdings are already included on your W-2, and you just use those numbers as-is.

For the remaining 59 shares, you keep a cost basis of $50 per share ($50 * 59 = $2,950). You have to remember this number until you sell the remaining shares. Whenever you sell them, you enter in TurboTax, TaxCut, or on Schedule D of Form 1040:

Description: 59 shares XYZ, Inc.
Net Proceeds: whatever you sell them for, copy from 1099-B
Date of Sale: your date of sale
Cost Basis: 2,950
Date Acquired: 10/31/2007

You will show a short-term or long-term gain or loss for these remaining shares depending on your date of sale and the sale price.

3. Cash Transfer. If you make this choice, you give your employer cash for the tax withholding and keep all the shares. You can sell the shares either immediately or keep them for however long you like. The tax accounting is the same as if you bought the shares at the closing price on the vesting date. Whenever you sell them, you enter in TurboTax, TaxCut, or on Schedule D of Form 1040:

Description: 100 shares XYZ, Inc.
Net Proceeds: whatever you sell them for, copy from 1099-B
Date of Sale: your date of sale
Cost Basis: 5,000
Date Acquired: 10/31/2007

You will show a short-term or long-term gain or loss for these shares depending on your date of sale and the sale price. The income from RSU vesting and the associated tax withholdings are already included on your W-2, and you just use those numbers as-is.

That's all. Hope this is helpful to someone looking for info on the tax treatment and implications of RSU sales.

Related Posts:

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

TurboTax and TaxCut 2007 Compared Side By Side

Because I'm switching from TaxCut to TurboTax this year, I have a unique opportunity to compare the two desktop tax software side by side.

The two products being compared are TaxCut Premium 2007 Federal + State and TurboTax Deluxe 2007 Federal + State, both for Windows. Both let you prepare the federal return plus one state return. Both do not include eFile. I tested using the same data on two different days a week apart. My tax return isn't overly complex but it does include a good number of elements. I have

  • salary on W-2
  • self-employment income (for my $150 ad revenue from this blog)
  • interests, both taxable and tax-exempt
  • investments: dividends, both qualified and non-qualified; short-term and long-term capital gains distributions; sales with short-term losses; foreign tax credit; capital loss carryover
  • non-qualified stock options exercise and ESPP non-qualified dispositions
  • mortgage interests
  • property taxes
  • charity donations
  • IRA contributions
  • Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

So I think it's a good test.

Installation: Typical software installation experience. No problems. Although I noticed that TaxCut installed a PDF software pdf995 without asking. That's not nice.

Update: The software that came on the CD for both program is just a stub. It's incomplete because by the time they shipped the software, the IRS forms were not finalized yet. You have to get the latest update and perhaps updating a few more times before you file the returns. Updating was pretty smooth for both programs. Just follow the prompts.

Launch: TaxCut requires logging in as an administrator. TurboTax does not. I already mentioned this before. This is the reason I'm switching to TurboTax. Both programs show the software registration screen but you don't really have to register. Just skip directly to a new return.

Import last year's data: Both imported my file from last year (in TaxCut format). TaxCut has an advantage here because the data format is its own. TurboTax still imported most of my data. The only thing it missed was the state tax I owed last year. It didn't include it automatically in the taxes paid number. Instead it asked me whether I paid state tax for 2006 in 2007 with the box defaulted to unchecked.

Import W-2, 1099, etc.: TurboTax offered to import my W-2 and 1099s from payroll providers and financial institutions. I didn't use that feature due to privacy and data security concerns. TaxCut did not have this feature. Importing probably will save some time if it's done accurately. I didn't mind typing them. It wasn't too bad.

Interview and Data Entry: I don't see any major difference between the two. Both ask a bunch of questions. Both present the W-2 and 1099 tax forms almost exactly as the printed form. There isn't any ambiguity for where the number should go. Both have a topic list which lets you jump ahead or jump back. The topic list also shows you the completed steps with checkmarks. Both programs let you open a form directly. TaxCut did one thing better. When I entered tax-exempt interest, it asked me right away how much of it is also exempt from state tax. With TurboTax, I had to split the single 1099 into two separate 1099s -- one exempt from state tax, the other one not. Clumsy.

Finding Deductions: Both programs bundle a deduction finding module. I didn't use or test either one.

Built-in Help: I am familiar with the tax ramifications of my transactions. I didn't really use or test much of the built-in help in either program.

Refund Calculation: My returns from both programs turned out identical, except for rounding a dollar here and a dollar there. TaxCut rounds every entry to the whole dollar. TurboTax keeps the cents on the worksheets and then rounds the total to the whole dollar for entering into the form. No big deal either way. The result being identical didn't surprise me. That's the way it should be. The software is like a fancy calculator. Given the same inputs, the result should always be the same.

Time Consumption: Both programs took me about 1.5 hours from start to finish.

Conclusion: Both TaxCut and TurboTax handled my moderately complex tax data and produced identical returns. Neither was significantly faster or easier than the other. I've seen reviews saying TurboTax is superior and TaxCut is crap or vice versa, but my actual testing does not support that allegation. I'm glad my switch from one program to another wasn't too painful.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

TurboTax Deluxe 2007 Free Download

[Update on Feb. 9, 2008]: Intuit took down the link. No more free downloads.

I saw this on FatWallet and I thought I should pass this along. You can download a free copy of TurboTax Deluxe 2007 for Windows or Mac on Intuit's website. Here is how:

  1. Follow this link (link removed, no longer working).
  2. Click on the Downloads tab on the top.
  3. Click on Buy Now under the Deluxe version.
  4. Follow the screen prompts. They ask you to register with your e-mail address, name and address, but you don't have to give out your real personal info.

This is desktop software, which I think is better than TurboTax Online. The Deluxe version includes Federal and 1 State. E-File is not free, but I'm not going to e-file anyway.

If you are interested, hurry, before they take down that link.

[Update on Feb. 29, 2008]: Related posts:

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Restricted Stock Units (RSU) Tax Withholding Choices

Ever since the companies are required to expense employee stock options, more companies started to grant the employees Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) instead of stock options. The first batch of RSUs I received will vest shortly. Unlike non-qualified stock options which are taxed at the time of option exercise, RSUs are taxed at the time of vesting. Our stock plan administrator has asked me to choose how I want to pay for the tax withholding when my RSUs vest. I have 3 choices:

1. Same Day Sale. This is the simplest. On the vesting date, I sell everything. After subtracting for tax withholding, I end up with net cash.

2. Sell to Cover. If I choose this option, they will sell just enough shares to cover the tax withholding. I keep the remaining shares and I can sell them myself whenever I want to.

3. Cash Transfer. For this option I will have to come up with cash myself to cover the tax. After that I have all the shares and I can sell them whenever I want to.

Which should I choose? Let's use an example and see the math. Suppose I will have 100 shares vested; the price on the vesting date is $50; and the tax withholding is 40%.

1. Same Day Sale. I will have $50 * 100 * (1 - 40%) = $3,000.

2. Sell to Cover. I will have 100 * (1 - 40%) = 60 shares and no cash.

3. Cash Transfer. I will be out $50 * 100 * 40% = $2,000 cash but I will keep 100 shares.

Option (2) Sell to Cover is equivalent to doing Option (1) Same Day Sale and immediately buying 60 shares with cash on the open market.

Option (3) Cash Transfer is equivalent to doing Option (1) Same Day Sale and immediately adding $2,000 from my own pocket and then buying 100 shares.

If I find my employer's stock attractive, I can buy it at any time for however many shares I want. I don't have to buy it on the RSU vesting date or buy those exact number of shares. So there is no advantage whatsoever for them to do it for me. This is a no-brainer. I chose Sale Day Sale.

Related posts:

Friday, January 25, 2008

Goodbye TaxCut, Hello TurboTax

I figure you all have read enough about the stock market yo yo these days. It's time for something else.

I wrote a mini-series on tax preparation software last year:

  1. Tax Software: Online or Desktop?
  2. Tax Software: TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxAct?
  3. Tax Software: E-File or Mail?

While my opinion on online vs. desktop or e-file vs. mail didn't change, I decided to switch from TaxCut to TurboTax this year.

I was going to continue using TaxCut like I did in the last few years. I ordered the software from Staples and I even thought I got a decent deal. Together with Microsoft Money, Norton and McAfee anti-virus software, my total cost after all rebates was going to be less than $15. Because H&R Block increased their price, the deal wasn't as good as last year when I was paid $40 after all rebates, but I thought $15 was good enough. However, after I installed TaxCut, I saw a big change this year. It requires the user to log on as a Windows administrator to run the application. This is nonsense. A user needs administrative right to install the software but the user shouldn't need administrative right just to run the software. H&R Block developers clearly took a shortcut. Writing software that runs under a limited user requires more testing. So they decided to save some money and let their customers deal with the security risk. That's not acceptable.

I decided to take them up on their 60-day money back guarantee. While I may be able to get around the problem by using "Run As ..." I think a company must feel the consequence of screwing its customers. I wrote a short letter letting H&R Block know why I'm returning the software. If enough customers protest, I hope they will think twice before they do crazy stuff like this again. A few years ago, Intuit bundled the nasty C-Dilla DRM software with TurboTax. There was an outcry from the users. Many customers defected. That was the year I switched over to TaxCut. Intuit lost me as a customer. Now H&R Block sent me back to them.

[Update on Feb. 21, 2008]: There is a follow up to this post, TurboTax and TaxCut 2007 Compared Side By Side.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

2007 Tax Year AMT Brackets

Congress passed another patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) late last year. With that, I can finally calculate the AMT marginal tax brackets for the 2007 tax year. If you are not familiar with AMT, please read my previous post, Tax Deduction Denied.

Because of an exemption phase-out rule, people whose incomes are in the middle of the AMT range pay a higher AMT marginal tax rate than people on either the low or the high end. This is relatively unknown. Many people think there are just two brackets in AMT, 26% and 28%. There are actually four brackets. In addition to 26% and 28%, there are also 32.5% and 35% brackets for people who are in the exemption phase-out range. Unfortunately many people who are hit by the AMT also fall in the phase-out range.

For each filing status, three numbers are pertinent for calculating the AMT brackets.

  Married Filing Jointly Single OR Head of Household
AMT exemption amount (E) $66,250 $44,350
AMT exemption phase-out point (P) $150,000 $112,500
28% AMT breakpoint (B) $175,000 $175,000

 

The AMT exemption amount (E) is the number congress has been increasing temporarily every year in the last few years. The other two numbers have not been changed lately. If your income is below E, you are not subject to the AMT. If your AMT Income is between E and P, your AMT marginal tax rate is 26%. The other two milestones, which I call X and Y, are given by the following formula:

X = (B + E + 0.25 * P) / 1.25

Y = 4 * E + P

For AMT Income between P and X, the marginal AMT rate is 32.5%; between X and Y, it's 35%. Once you go over Y, the AMT rate drops to 28%. If you are curious in how the formula for X and Y are derived, please read this blog post by IndexFundFan.

For 2007, using values for E, B and P in the table above, X comes out to $223,000 for married filing jointly, $197,980 for single or head of household; Y is $415,000 for married filing jointly, $289,900 for single or head of household. Here's the complete AMT rate table for the 2007 tax year:

Married Filing Jointly Single or Head of Household AMT Income QD and LTCG*
<= $66,250 <= $44,350 0% 5% / 15%
<= $150,000 <= $112,500 26% 15%
<= $223,000 <=$197,980 32.5% 21.5%
<= $415,000 <=$289,900 35% 22%
> $415,000 > $289,900 28% 15%

* QD = Qualified Dividends; LTCG = Long Term Capital Gains

First notice the marriage penalty. If each spouse earns $80,000, a married couple is in the 32.5% bracket. If they were single, they are both in the 26% bracket. That's a big difference. Throw in the state income tax and Social Security and Medicare tax, the couple's combined marginal tax bracket can reach nearly 50%. Also notice the significant penalty on qualified dividends and long term capital gains for people in the phase-out zones . Together with state income tax, the marginal tax rate on qualified dividends and long term capital gains can exceed 30%. That's a lot higher than the 15% number everybody talks about.

What do you do if you are affected by the AMT, or worse yet, if you are in the AMT exemption phase-out zone? Not much unless you are willing to move to a low/no tax state or not have kids. Know what your marginal tax bracket really is. Use an AMT-free tax-exempt money market fund instead of a regular money market fund or savings account. If you are in the phase-out zone, minimize even qualified dividends and long term capital gains.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

APR or APY, It Doesn't Matter

It's very strange. I see a lot of people reaching my blog when they search for information on converting APR to APY or vice versa. They end up on my post last year Interest Rate: APY and APR which mentioned two Excel formula: EFFECT which converts APR to APY, and NOMINAL which converts APY to APR. While it's nice to know that 5% APR is 5.13% APY and 5% APY is 4.88% APR, I think they are missing the big picture. The difference between APR and APY is not a big deal.

If someone is carrying a car loan at 4.99% APR and the interest rate on an online savings account is 5.30% APY, is this person better off keeping the money in the savings account or paying off the car loan? Do I need to convert one to the other and compare the numbers? Not really. The difference between APR and APY is so small you can pretty much ignore it. What makes a much bigger difference is taxes. You have to pay federal and state income taxes on the interest earned in a savings account. There is no tax deduction for the car loan. Therefore, before taxes, 5.30% APY and 4.99% APR are about equal; after taxes, 5.30% APY is much smaller than 4.99% APR.

So, if anyone comes to this post again searching for converting APR to APY or converting APY to APR, please stop. Forget it. It doesn't matter. Look at the effect of taxes instead.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

ESPP: What's In It for the Company?

After reading my post about ESPP, a reader David sent me an e-mail and asked

I've read a bunch of stuff about ESPP and while everyone talks about what a good deal it is for the employees who are able to participate, or the tax consequences of the various ways to sell the shares, no one talks about what is in it for the company offering the plan. Any ideas?

My colleagues and I find it hard to believe that our company would offer this without some significant benefit accruing to the company. The $25k limit makes it a drop in the bucket for the bigwigs. So perhaps there is some larger corporate tax savings?

I like this line of thinking. There are always two sides to a coin. Many times the issue becomes very clear when you consider the other side. I do that a lot, like who pays for credit card rewards, whether investing in payday loan companies is a good idea, and what's going on with the mail-in rebate prepaid debit card.

Back to the question David asked. There are two main reasons companies set up ESPP plans. Before 2005, companies were not required to book an expense for stock options and ESPP. ESPP and, to a larger degree, employee stock options, were cost effective ways to compensate employees. Companies compete for talents. They can pay their employees either in additional cash or via ESPP and stock options. Back then a company didn't have to book an expense when they let employees buy stocks at a discount as long as their ESPP plan met the requirement of section 423 of the tax laws. Employees got a profit at no cost to the company. If the company paid the employees the equivalent amount in cash, they would've had to book an expense and negatively impact their earnings.

Companies do get a tax deduction when employees sell the shares and realize wage income, but they would get the tax deduction anyway had they simply paid more cash to the employees. So tax deduction was not the reason companies set up ESPP programs. Not having to book an expense was.

ESPP plans also create employee loyalty. When employees own stocks in the company (if they didn't sell right away), they are more likely to work harder. In management buzz words, the employees' interests are "aligned" with the company. Although employees are allowed to sell right away, many don't because of the endowment effect -- if you give them cash they won't buy the stock but if you give them stock they won't sell it for cash -- or because they wanted to gamble for the favorable tax treatment.

The accounting rules changed in December 2004 when the Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) issued FAS 123(R). Now companies are required to book an expense for their ESPP unless the discount is no more than 5% and the program doesn't have a look-back[1] provision. As a result, many companies discontinued or scaled back their ESPP plans. Many of them reduced the discount from 15% to 5% and removed the favorable look-back provision in order to comply with FAS 123(R) and keep the ESPP off their income statement.

For competitive reasons, some companies chose to keep their program as-is at an increased cost. Count yourself lucky if your company still offers the 15% discount with a look-back feature. A 5% discount to the purchase price at the end of the period reduces the annualized return from about 90% to about 20%. It's still profitable, but it's not nearly as nice.

 [1] The look-back provision allows the employees to buy stocks at a discount to the stock price at the beginning date or the price at the end date, whichever is lower.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

$10,000 Lesson On Variable Universal Life (VUL)

Variable Universal Life insurance or in short VUL is sold by insurance agents as a smart investment to unsuspecting people. The pitch usually goes like this:

You invest in VUL. The money in the policy grows tax deferred. You get to choose what you invest in, stocks, bonds, international, you name it. It's like a super IRA, only way better. When you need money after you retire, you can first withdraw what you put in, then borrow from it, all tax free. When you die, your beneficiaries receive money tax free.

Sounds good? Tax deferred investing plus tax free income after retirement. Who wouldn't go for it? If you'd like to read the full pitch, here's an example: Variable Universal Life: Flexibility at Its Best by New York Life, whose slogan is "the company you keep." It's very enticing but you will see the real story at the end of this post.

VUL appeals to people who hate taxes (who doesn't?), especially to people who have higher income and therefore in higher tax brackets. After you hear about this wonderful clever way of avoiding taxes on your investment, you go "sign me up!" Uh oh, big mistake. Let's take a look at a real life example, from this thread on the Bogleheads forum.

Poster John and his wife each bought a VUL policy from a "friend" who works as a financial "advisor" at a "well known financial planning organization" (I'm guessing it's Ameriprise or formerly American Express Financial Advisors). After 9 months into their policies they put in about $5,000 each for a total of $10,000. Now they realize that their VUL policies have high fees and expenses, to the tune of $1,100 a year. But, if they get out before 5 years, they will lose ALL of the $10,000 they paid into the policies (?!?!) because the first $8,300 in each policy goes toward a "surrender charge" or better put, early termination fee like that on a cell phone contract. In other words, if John and his wife put $3,300 more into each policy, the policies will still suck it all in like a black hole with nothing coming out. They paid $10,000 into two policies but they only filled a little more than half way up the big hole that the VUL policies dug for them.

Despite all the help from other posters on the forum, John's options are still limited because the policies are designed to trap them in good with high fees and various charges. John and his wife can:

  1. Keep paying into the policies and get plucked by high fees (not good); or
  2. Cancel the policies now and receive nothing back (not good); or
  3. Stop paying premiums and let the policies wind down by themselves (not good)

None of the three options is good. The 3rd option is perhaps the least of all evils. Basically they will let what they already paid pay for the insurance and whatever is left over stays in some mediocre investment options with high fees. Every month more money is deducted from the investments part towards the insurance part and fees. After the 5-year surrender period is over, I doubt there will be anything left. Their policies may end even before 5 years because all the money will have been depleted by insurance charges and fees. That $10,000 is gone. They won't ever see it again. What an expensive lesson!

I feel really sorry for John and his wife. Having this done to them by a "friend" is even more sad. This VUL saga plays out over and over. It's almost always the same story. I personally know a small business owner who was sold a VUL policy by his "financial advisor" who is also an insurance agent. The "advisor" has nice sounding credentials like CLU and ChFC. The business owner was quite mad at the "advisor" after I pointed out the fees and expenses printed in black and white in the prospectus. Of course he didn't read the prospectus because he was busy running his business and he trusted that his so-called "advisor" would act in his best interest. The same "advisor" also sold him load funds, an expensive 401(k) plan for his business, limited partnerships that were impossible to get out of ... -- altogether the "advisor" cost him more than $200k.

Now let's get back to the wonderful VUL policies New York Life sells. Here's the 80-page prospectus (PDF, 476kB) of their NYLIAC Variable Universal Life 2000 product. Fees and expenses start on page 9.

  • 4.5% - 6% charge up front for each deposit, like a load; plus
  • $120 a year contract fees; plus
  • 0.5% - 0.7% a year for M&E and admin charges; plus
  • ~0.8% a year for expenses on investment options

Does it look like a good way of investing money? I like what poster ole meph said [1] on the Bogleheads forum:

"The only way you can benefit from this product is by dying fairly soon."

Oh wonderful. I'm sure the clients didn't want to pursue that route when they bought into the VUL policies.

[1] ole meph has been a veteran insurance agent and manager himself for over 40 years.