Picking on Mitt: Calls for IRA Reform in the Wake of GAO Statistics on Large IRAs May Be MisguidedSubmitted by Financial Planning Hawaii on October 29th, 2014
NOTE: this article was originally published on NerdWallet here.
On September 16, 2014, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released a report on IRA balances. The report indicated that, as of the 2011 year-end, 43 million taxpayers had socked a total of $5.2 trillion in IRAs. 99% of these IRAs had balances of less than $1 million with the mean balance coming in at just under $100,000. However, the figure in the report that garnered the most attention was the GAO’s estimate that as many as 314 Americans hold IRAs worth north of $25 million.
In a September 19th opinion piece entitled “How to shelter hundreds of millions in an IRA account [sic] – That’s what the wealthy do, even though it violates the spirit of the law,” WSJ MarketWatch Assistant Commentary Editor Rex Nutting seized on the large IRA statistic as an example of how the wealthiest 1% are able to dodge taxes in ways that ordinary Americans cannot. In the piece, Nutting cited Mitt Romney as the poster child for such abuse noting that, in his 2012 presidential campaign disclosure documents, he listed his traditional IRA value between $20.7 and $101.6 million. The thesis of Nutting’s piece is summarized in a quote he included from Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, “Something is out of Whack. The IRA was never intended to be a tax shelter for millionaires.”
While debates over social equity and class division in America are all well and good, what struck me from reading the piece was that, amid the author’s condemnation of Romney’s alleged “sweetheart” business deals and populist rallying cries for IRA reform, no consideration was given to the possibility that having large sums of money tied up in an IRA might actually represent a financial boon to the federal government and a burden to the wealthy account holder. As a financial planner, based upon the current federal income and estate tax code, that possibility seems intuitively obvious and may be illustrated using Mr. Romney’s circumstances.
As cited in the article, Romney ostensibly accrued his IRA millions by participating in private equity deals during his time at Bain Capital. Purchasing shares in distressed companies at pennies on the dollar clearly produced monstrous gains when their fortunes turned. The question that begs asking, however, is whether Romney’s net worth would have been even better served by making these deals outside of his IRA. Had Romney done so, he would have experienced the same monstrous gains. These gains would have been tax-deferred until the positions were sold, and, assuming a holding period of longer than 1 year, would be subject to a maximum long term capital gains tax rate today of just 20%. Further, if Mr. Romney were to hold some of these positions indefinitely, upon his death, capital gains tax might be avoided entirely as his heirs would receive a step-up in basis.
In contrast, while it is true that Mr. Romney can buy and sell in his IRA to his Republican heart’s delight without incurring any capital gains tax, in three years, when Mr. Romney turns 70 ½ he will be required to make the same required minimum distributions from his IRA as every other American who reaches that milestone. These distributions will be subject to ordinary income taxes, which based upon both his reported ordinary income and the size of the RMDs, will likely be taxed at the highest marginal federal rate of 39.6% - almost exactly double the long term capital gains rate. Even if Romney leaves his IRA to his progeny and they take advantage of IRS-permitted stretch provisions, it is reasonable to assume that the size of the RMDs to the IRA beneficiaries will still likely result in the distributions being taxed at the highest marginal income tax rate. Further, upon his death, if Mr. Romney’s estate does not have enough liquidity to pay federal estate tax (40% in 2014) on the portion of his estate over 10.68 million, distributions from his IRA may be subject to both estate and income tax in the same year, resulting in a veritable windfall for Uncle Sam. The tax planning challenges of accumulating disproportionate wealth in one’s IRA are well known among estate planning attorneys , CPAs, and financial planners, and the potential pitfalls of Romney’s particular IRA strategy were previously referenced in a Wall Street Journal piece entitled Romney’s Unorthodox IRA that came out shortly after Romney’s 2012 campaign disclosure.
In sum, the social equity debate over whether Mr. Romney had unfair access to so-called “sweetheart deals” is entirely unrelated to the issue of large IRAs. If one considers the issue from the perspective of what is best for Uncle Sam, creating incentives for investors to accumulate large sums in traditional IRAs may actually be more of a tax trap than a tax shelter. It is entirely possible that calls to limit wealth accumulation in IRAs by Senator Wyden and other social reform-minded legislators might actually result in less tax revenue collected. Whether such revenue is better spent by the government or its citizens is a debate for a different day.
The information contained herein is general in nature. Neither Financial Planning Hawaii nor J.W. Cole provides client specific tax or legal advice. All readers should consult with their tax and/or legal advisors for such guidance in advance of making investment or financial planning decisions with tax or legal implications.
Securities offered through J.W. Cole Financial, Inc. (JWC) member FINRA/SIPC. Advisory services offered through Financial Planning Hawaii and J.W. Cole Advisors, Inc. (JWCA). Financial Planning Hawaii and JWC/JWCA are unaffiliated entities.
Fee-Only Financial planning services are provided through Financial Planning Hawaii, Inc., a separate Registered Investment Advisory firm. Financial Planning Hawaii does not take custody of client assets nor do its advisers take discretionary authority over client accounts.