Overcontributing To Your 401(k)

 

One of the accountants had a question for me:

A:               I added up the W-2s, but the wages per the software does not agree to my number.

CTG:          Is your number lower?

A:               Yes.

Let’s talk about 401(k)s. More specifically, let’s talk about 401(k)s when one changes jobs during the year. It can be an issue if one is making decent bank.

You are under age 50. How much can you defer in a 401(k)?

For 2021 you can defer $19,500. The limit increased to $20,500 for 2022.

You change jobs during 2021. Say you contributed $14,000 at your first job. The second job doesn’t know how much you contributed at first job. You contribute $12,000 at your second job.

Is there a tax problem?

First, congrats. You are making good money or are a serious saver. It could be both, I suppose.

But, yes, there is a tax problem.

The universe of retirement plans is divided into two broad categories:

·      Defined benefit

·      Defined contribution

Defined benefit are also known as pension plans. Realistically, these plans are becoming extinct outside of a union setting, with the government counting as union.

Defined contribution plans are more commonly represented by 401(k)s, 403(b)s, SIMPLES and so forth. Their common feature is that some – maybe most – of the dollars involved are the employee’s own dollars.

Being tax creatures, you know that both categories have limits. The defined benefit will have a benefit limit (the math can be crazy). The defined contribution will have a contribution limit.

And that contribution limit is $19,500 in 2021 for someone under age 50.

COMMENT: If you google “defined contribution 2021” and come back with $58,000, you may wonder about the difference between the two numbers. The $58,000 includes the employer contribution. Our $19,500 is just the employee contribution. This difference is one of the reasons that solo 401(k)s work as well as they do: they max-out the employer contribution – assuming that the income is there to power the thing, of course.  

Let’s go back to our example. You deferred $26,000 for 2021.

Are you over the limit?

Yep.

If you add your two W-2s together, is the sum your correct taxable wages for 2021?

Nope.

Why not?

Because a 401(k) contribution lowers your (income) taxable wages. You went $6,500 over the limit. Your taxable wages are $6,500 lower than they should be.

 What do you do?

There are two general courses of action:

(1)  Contact one of the employers (probably the second one) explain the issue and request that the W-2 be amended by the deadline date for filing your return – that is, April 15. Rest assured, you have just drawn the wrath of someone in the accounting or payroll department, but you have only so many options. 

BTW the earnings on the excess contributions are also taxable to you. Say that you earned 1% on the excess. That $65 will be taxable to you, but it will be taxable the following year. 

In summary,

§  Your 2021 W-2 income goes up by $6,500

§  You will report the $65 earnings on the excess contribution in 2022.

    It is a mess, but the second option is worse.

(2)  You do not contact one of the employers, or you contact them too late for them to react by April 15.

Your 2021 W-2s show excessive 401(k) deferral.

Your tax preparer will probably catch this and increase your taxable W-2 totals by $6,500. This is what created the accountant’s question at the beginning of this post.

Oh well, you say. You are back to the same place as option one. No harm, no foul – right?

Not quite. 

First, your employer may not be too happy if the issue is later discovered. This is an operational plan issue, and there can be penalties for operational plan issues. 

Second, once you go past the time allowed for correction, the money is stuck in the plan until you are allowed take a distribution (or until the employer learns of the issue and corrects the plan on its own power). 

Say you never tell them. Let’s not burn this bridge, right? 

Problem. Take a look at this bad boy: 

                 Section 402(g)(6)  Coordination with section 72 .

For purposes of applying section 72 , any amount includible in gross income for any taxable year under this subsection but which is not distributed from the plan during such taxable year shall not be treated as investment in the contract.

What does this assemblage of mostly unintelligible words mean?    

It means that you will be taxed again when the 401(k) finally distributes the excess contribution to you. 

Yep, you will be taxed twice on the same income. 

That $6,500 got expensive. 

Upon reflection, there really is no option 2. You have to tell your employer and have them correct the W-2.      

Taxpayer Fail On Discharging Taxes Through Bankruptcy

I have an IRS notice sitting on my desk. I meant to call the IRS about it on Friday, but it got away from me. I will call on Monday. It disgruntles me, as I have already called and considered the matter resolved.

There you have why practitioners get upset with the IRS about hair-trigger or bogus notices: one has only so much time.

My partner brought in this client. They were chronic nonfilers, and we prepared the better part of a decade’s worth of returns for them. I lost humor with them when the husband insulted one of my accountants. Granted, it is unlikely that a younger accountant would know what I know, but the incident was uncalled for. The husband and I had a very different and blunt conversation.

They spoke with my partner about discharging the taxes through bankruptcy, which is one reason I was brought in.

Short answer: forgetaboutit, at least for a while.

There are four basic requirements to discharging taxes in bankruptcy. I have not often seen the fourth reason, but I was recently reading a case involving that elusive fourth.

Here are the four requirements:

(1)  The taxes were due at least three years ago. Obtain an extension and you must include the extension period in the three years.

(2)  Fail to file and the taxes are not dischargeable until at least two years after filing.

(3)  The IRS must have assessed the taxes at least 240 days before filing for bankruptcy.

(4)  The return must not be fraudulent, and the taxpayer(s) cannot willfully have attempted to avoid the tax.

Let’s go through an example.

(1)  Let’s say we are talking about your 2016 tax return. If you filed on April 15, 2017, the first rule gives you a minimum date of April 15, 2020.

(2)  Let’s say you filed that 2016 return on July 21, 2018. The second rule gives you a minimum date of July 21, 2020.

(3)  Let’s say the IRS posted (that is, assessed) the 2016 return shortly after filing – perhaps July 31, 2018. There is no problem with the 240-day rule.

(4)  Let’s also say there was no attempt to evade tax. It was irresponsible not to file, but there is nothing there other than irresponsibility.

Seems to me that the earliest you can file for discharge via bankruptcy would be July 22, 2020 – the latest of the above dates.

Let’s talk about a case involving the fourth requirement.

There is a doctor. Her husband was a CPA – he lost his license after a conviction for tax evasion.

She let her husband prepare the returns for years 2004 through 2014.

I would not have done that, but - to me – a CPA losing his license for tax evasion is a HUGE dealbreaker, husband or not.

The entered into a payment plan. They missed some payments.

Like night follows day.

They were living the high life. They had an expensive house (Newport), but they wanted a more expensive house (Dwight). They bough Dwight on a land contract, hoping to sell Newport.

They then carried two houses, as Newport did not sell.

Now they were tight on cash, and they fell behind with the IRS.

Mind you, that did not stop them from sending their kids to a private school, racking up $325,000 in the process. They also took trips to Mexico and Puerto Rico, as well as parking a Jaguar and a Lexus in the driveway.

Newport was foreclosed.

In 2016 we have the bankruptcy.

The IRS moved to exercise its lien on the Dwight property.

Husband came up with a brilliant scheme.  He sold Dwight for a swan song to a former client.  He would pay the IRS the few dollars that came his way from the “sale,” and he and his wife would rent the Dwight property back from the former client.

Puuhleeeese, said the IRS.

The Court agreed with the IRS. It spotted a willful attempt to evade or avoid, thereby nixing any discharge of taxes although the couple had filed for bankruptcy.

Why? They failed the fourth requirement.

The case for the home gamers is re Harold 2020 PTC 58 (Bankr. E.D. Michigan 2020)

Tax Break For Wealthy (Federal Government) People

Let's talk about a tax break; some may even call it a gimmick. It will never affect your or me, unless we go into the federal government.

Here is Code section 1043:

Sale of property to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements 

(a) Nonrecognition of gain

If an eligible person sells any property pursuant to a certificate of divestiture, at the election of the taxpayer, gain from such sale shall be recognized only to the extent that the amount realized on such sale exceeds the cost (to the extent not previously taken into account under this subsection) of any permitted property purchased by the taxpayer during the 60-day period beginning on the date of such sale.

(b) Definitions

For purposes of this section -

(1) Eligible person

The term "eligible person" means -

(A) an officer or employee of the executive branch, or a judicial officer, of the Federal Government, but does not mean a special Government employee as defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code, and

(B) any spouse or minor or dependent child whose ownership of any property is attributable under statute, regulation, rule, judicial canon, or executive order referred to in paragraph (2) t a person referred to in subparagraph (A).

Let's say that you are pulling down several million dollars a year from your day job. You have the opportunity to head-up the EPA or the National Park Service. It is almost certain that your paycheck will shrink, and the Congressional committee investigating you may request you sell certain investments or other holdings to avoid conflict of interest concerns.

Folks, this is an uber-elite tax problem.

To ease your decision, the tax Code will allow you to sell your investments without paying any tax. To do so you are required to buy replacement securities within 60 days, and the non-taxed gain will reduce your basis in the new securities.

OBFUSCATION ALERT: To say it differently, your "basis" in the old securities sold will carry-over as your basis in the new securities.

By way, it is not necessary to have Congress to tell you to unload your investments. There is a more lenient "reasonably necessary" standard that might work for you. I am reasonably certain I could come up with some necessary argument so I would not pay tax.

While sweet, Section 1043 is not a complete escape clause. If you think about it, all you have done is delay the taxable gain until you sell the new securities. I suppose an escape clause is to die without selling, but I generally do not consider dying to be a viable tax strategy.

The numbers can add-up, though. It is estimated that Paul O'Neill, a former Treasury Secretary, sold approximately $100 million of Alcoa stock when he took the position. I do not know what the gain would have been (as we do not know the cost), but the tax he deferred must have been eye-opening.

By the way, you can get the same break by drawing a judicial appointment.

I do have a question: do you wonder why the politicos never mention Section 1043 whenever they rail against "tax breaks" used by wealthy people?

Nah, there is no wonder at all.

IRS Income Statistics For 2011 Are Out

IRS statistics are out.

• The top 1% of all filers paid approximately 35.1% of all federal income taxes. It takes adjusted gross income (AGI) of at least $388,905 to make the top 1%
• The top 5% paid 56.5%, with AGI of $167,728
• The top 10% paid 68.3%, with AGI of $120,136

The bottom 50%? They paid 2.9% of all federal income taxes. 

One should include the obligatory caveat that above statistics refer to federal income taxes and do not include social security taxes. It is questionable whether that adjustment would make any significant difference, though.

Suit Against Subsidies Could Derail ObamaCare

Did you hear about the court decision in Halbig, et al v Sebelius? The suit was brought by six businesses against the employer mandate under ObamaCare. The federal District Judge, Paul Friedman, refused a preliminary injunction against the government, but he did say the case would be decided on an expedited basis.  That court joins Pruitt v. Sebelius, a case from Oklahoma. There is yet another suit to be heard by month-end in Richmond, Virginia.

What is going on?

They are suing over the employer penalty under ObamaCare - the $2,000 or $3,000 penalty, depending upon whether the employer offers insurance and whether the insurance meets politically correct criteria. The employer penalty triggers when an employee qualifies for a subsidy on the public exchange (the “Marketplace”). One qualifies if one’s income is below 400% of the federal poverty line and meets other criteria. The employer would then be required to subsidize some of the cost through that $2,000/$3,000 penalty.

What does it take to qualify for an individual subsidy?

Let’s do something that Congress apparently did not do when this passed this law: let’s read it:

Let’s start with Section 1311(b):

          Sec 1311(b) AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an ‘‘Exchange’’) for the State that…

We read that each state is to establish an Exchange.

What if the state fails to establish an Exchange?

         

Sec 1321 (c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

(1) IN GENERAL.—If—

(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or

(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—

(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or

(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement—

(I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or

(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;

the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not for profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.

We read that the Secretary will establish the Exchange.

How does an individual get to a subsidy?

SEC. 1401. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by inserting after section 36A the following new section:

SEC. 36B. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED

HEALTH PLAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for the taxable year.

(b) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE CREDIT AMOUNT.—For purposes of this section—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘premium assistance credit amount’ means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year.

‘‘(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT.—The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of

(A)   the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or

(B)    the excess (if any) of— ‘‘(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such month for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer, over ‘‘(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year

Whoa. If the nuns taught me how to read English, I see that the taxpayer has to be enrolled in an Exchange pursuant to Section 1311. Section 1311 requires “each state” to do something, otherwise Section 1321 kicks in.

Question: What if a state does nothing (thereby removing Section 1311) and the federal government steps in under Section 1321. Would someone in that state be receiving a subsidy as defined under Section 1401 or not?

Can the federal government be a “state?”

Let’s look at Section 1304(d):

Sec 1304(d) STATE.—In this title, the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Looks like the answer is “no.”

Considering that there are approximately three dozen states that did not set-up their own Exchange, how does the federal government propose to get an employer to pay that $2,000/$3,000 penalty despite the language in Sections 1401 and 1311?

The IRS comes to the rescue by proposing the following Regulation:

         

a taxpayer is eligible for the credit for a taxable year if . . . the taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer’s family (1) is enrolled in one or more qualified health plans through an Exchange established under section 1311 or 1321 of the Affordable Care Act . . .”

         

Good grief! Well, one thing about Tony is that he could always count on Paulie and Christopher to back him up.

Does law mean nothing to this crowd? Perhaps the law is flawed, perhaps it was poorly drafted, but it still law. How many times have I read about unintended consequences of the alternative minimum tax or about some poor taxpayer being hung out to dry because he/she did not get that “special” piece of paper the IRS wanted in order to substantiate a transaction?  How did the IRS invariably defend its position? By arguing that the law is the law and that Congress should remedy any inequity.  

In a swell of self-importance, the Administration and its enablers refuse to accept that the same law that applies to you or me also applies to them. Instead they argue that:

         

(1) Justice Roberts decided that the penalties are a tax. The Anti-Injunction Act precludes plaintiffs from challenging the imposition of a tax before it is actually assessed.

(2) The plaintiffs lack standing due to the speculative nature of any claimed injuries.

(3) Following the White House announcement of the one-year delay of the employer mandate, the court should also delay its consideration.

(4) The language around subsidies represents but one of the ACA’s many drafting errors.

(5) Congress clearly intended to have tax credits available in all the states.

Let me get this straight: their argument is that Tony did not clearly intend for me to defend myself until after I was shot, because before then any self-defense would be speculative and contingent on the actions of someone for whom English is a second language. 

Really?

Let us review history to understand how we got into this mess. The House had a bill. The Senate had a bill. The bills were different. The Senate wanted to force the states to absorb the Exchanges, but it ran into a problem with Pritz v United States (1997):

[T]he Federal Government may not compel the states to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs.’’

The Senate instead added a provision for federally established exchanges as a backup option for states that refused to set up exchanges.

Remember that bill could not obtain bipartisan support, and it was passed on a Saturday night at late hour, after the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and who-knows-what-else. The Democrats had lost their Senate 60-vote majority in January 2010, meaning they could not override the expected filibuster.  To push the bill through the Senate, Reid forced a reconciliation vote - a tactic normally reserved to limit debate on budget bills. This tactic however did not allow for a normal Senate-House joint committee process to reconcile burrs in the law. How could it? It was designed for budget and debt ceiling items, not for something like this.

Let’s see what happens in Halbig and Pruitt. Judge Paul Friedman hopes to have his opinion out by February.