Retirement Taxes Can Derail DC Plan Participants’ Progress

“There are strategies of rolling some amount of traditional 401(k) dollars over into a Roth IRA that are potentially advantageous, especially if you have a couple of years where your income is lower,” observes Angie O’Leary, head of wealth planning at RBC Wealth Management. “Having tax diversification available down the line is really helpful in building that paycheck in retirement.”

As more American workers are expecting to rely on defined contribution (DC) plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to fund their retirement years, concerns are growing about how to best manage lifetime income streams.

As part of this effort, according to Daniel D’Ordine, founder of DDO Advisory Services, late- and even mid-career retirement savers should start doing a lot more advanced planning about minimizing income taxes in retirement. Depending on where they live and how they structure their retirement income, retirement savers may find themselves paying unexpectedly high amounts of taxes each year to both the federal and state governments, D’Ordine warns.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Should an individual’s retirement income stream stem mostly from Social Security, it would be unlikely for the retiree to pay a great deal of income taxes, D’Ordine says. However, if the individual has accumulated other significant sources of income, such as a 401(k) or defined benefit (DB) plan, then taxes will be assessed on what is commonly described as “combined income.” Depending on how the public and private sources of income are structured, the federal government can assess taxes on up to 85% of Social Security benefits, contingent on combined income and other factors, such as marital status. 

At the state level, taxes on retirement income will also vary considering the participant’s sources of annual income. Currently, 13 states issue their own taxes on Social Security. These are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia. Based on the source of income and the state’s legislation, DC and DB plan participants can also expect to pay (or be exempted from) taxes on military retirement income or pension income. Northern states are known to have higher property, income and sales taxes, generally speaking, D’Ordine adds.  

“Generally speaking, states in the south tend to have lower taxes than states in the north. That’s why a lot of people like to move to Florida—there is no income tax there,” notes Sandra Block, senior editor at Kiplinger. Of course, retirees shouldn’t have to move unless desired. If employees understand the tax obligations they will face throughout retirement and appropriately respond, moving between states can be a choice, not a necessity.

Diversifying to minimize tax obligations

There are many planning opportunities to take advantage of today from a tax-optimization perspective, even for those in their 20s, 30s and 40s, the experts agree.

The first step to mitigating future tax expenses, according to Angie O’Leary, head of wealth planning at RBC Wealth Management, is to consider diversification with respect to account types and their prospective tax requirements. Employers, for their part, can establish a Roth IRA option.

“There are strategies of rolling some amount of traditional 401(k) dollars over into a Roth IRA that are potentially advantageous, especially if you have a couple of years where your income is lower,” O’Leary explains. “Having tax diversification available down the line is really helpful in building that paycheck in retirement.”

According to D’Ordine, participants often have questions about the tax burden associated with annuities. Those who buy a lifetime annuity with a lump sum of money are guaranteed to receive a set, predictable payment throughout retirement, but how will this be taxed?

“Annuities add some security and take a bit of the pressure off,” D’Ordine says. “Much of the monthly payment in this case will be considered return of premium, but the rest of it will be taxable. There is a lot to consider.”

For participants retiring earlier on, who may need additional income before claiming Social Security benefits, D’Ordine mentions the possibility of purchasing a limited term annuity, say five years, where a majority of the money received monthly is considered return of premium.

“A lot of people don’t understand annuities. A lot of people buy them to guarantee income in retirement, but how those are taxed depends on how you bought them,” Block warns. “If you bought them with after-tax income, you’ll only pay taxes on the annuity earnings, but if you bought an annuity with your money from an IRA that has not been taxed, then all of the annuity payouts are probably going to be taxable.”

Also notable is that health savings accounts (HSAs) provide a triple-tax benefit for participants, according to O’Leary. When available, HSAs can and should be used in concert with other accounts to minimize overall tax burdens. “You put in the tax dollars, it grows tax-deferred, and if you use it for medical expenses it’s tax-free,” she says.  

Plan sponsors can help

Among the list of more straightforward tactics plan sponsors can implement to address retirement income taxation is to introduce targeted education programming and encourage DC plan participants to explore their options both in-plan and out-of-plan, O’Leary and D’Ordine agree.

One-on-one reviews with a financial adviser, D’Ordine says, can be crucially beneficial to participants unaware of the tax implications of their retirement income planning.

“Creating the regular paycheck in retirement is a moving target,” O’Leary notes. “Having plan sponsors think through this challenge and help educate participants around the taxability of their portfolios is so important. Before, it used to just be about your pension and Social Security, but now there’s just a lot more to manage.”

Ahead of Wednesday Meeting, Stage Set for Fiduciary Jurisdiction Test Between DOL and SEC

Experienced ERISA attorneys and retirement industry executives project some possible outcomes of the DOL and SEC conflict of interest reform process; some expect a broad new proposal could emerge as soon as this week from the SEC.

Serving today as chair of Goodwin’s ERISA and Executive Compensation Group, Scott Webster draws on more than 20 years of experience representing financial service firms and other fiduciaries, both preventing and helping to respond to disruptive litigation.

Webster’s background has included substantial work with clients responding to fiduciary breach claims regarding investment of retirement plan assets, including all manner of prohibited transaction matters. In addition, he has been extensively involved in establishing and operating collective investment vehicles, including group trusts, VCOCs and REOCs, as well as structuring and developing a variety of new investment products.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Even with all that experience, however, Webster admits he is feeling just as uncertain about the long-term future of the Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule process as the rest of us—thanks to the surprise decision last month by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the core tenants of the DOL fiduciary rule expansion. This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is set to hold a meeting on the topic of whether to propose its own regulation pertaining to the definition of what constitutes fiduciary investment advice—this news coming while the DOL is still apparently contemplating whether it will accept the Fifth Circuit ruling, whether it will ask the Fifth Circuit for an “en banc” review of the decision, or whether it will ask for a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even for an expert attorney, Webster agrees it is not easy to keep all the moving parts in order. 

“Some analysts are suggesting that the SEC is ready to reveal language for its own fiduciary rule at the meeting that is going to be held on Wednesday this week, but I don’t think that’s the case, personally,” Webster says. “It is clear they are going to talk about proposing a rule, but my speculation at this point is that, they are more or less just going to talk about a rule. I would love to see language this week, but I suspect they are not that far along.”

Webster suggests there is reason to believe that the DOL and SEC have been coordinating fairly closely on this whole matter for some time now, and he agrees that there seems to room for real collaboration and even a spirit of teamwork emerging between DOL Secretary Alexander Acosta and SEC Chair Jay Clayton.

“The DOL has had their feet put to the fire here because of the relatively short window they have to formally respond to the Fifth Circuit decision,” Webster explains. “My sense is that the DOL may even be putting some friendly pressure on the SEC, to make it at least look like that process is moving along. This would in effect give some cover to the DOL, should that regulator decide to just let the Fifth Circuit decision stand. It will be easier for them to do this, politically speaking, if the SEC says at the same time that they are going to proceed with their own rulemaking.”

Asked to reflect on how the retirement plan and broader and investment advice industries reached this point of near-total uncertainty about the regulatory future, Webster agrees it has been quite a complicated and dramatic series of events leading to this week’s SEC meeting. And the unorthodox style and outlook of the Trump Administration, as Webster describes it, only adds to the number of possible outcomes here.

“Under any previous administration, Democrat or Republican, I would have virtually guaranteed to you that the DOL would appeal the Fifth Circuit decision, simply in order to defend its own ability to put forward and enforce new rulemaking, irrespective of the substance of the rulemaking in question,” Webster explained. “Under the Trump administration this is far from a given, and in fact I think it is appearing increasingly likely that the administration will not appeal the Fifth Circuit decision. I am not trying to criticize the president; it is just a fact that defending new regulation is not a priority.”

For that reason, Webster says it is “now very important to discuss what it means if and when the DOL fiduciary rule process dies out with the Fifth Circuit.”

“If the DOL rule dies in the Fifth Circuit, we return to the five-part test for determining whether advice is fiduciary in nature, and that could cause firms that have changed their practices after the DOL rule took effect in April 2016 to run afoul of the old rule,” he noted. “For example, this could happen in the case that a firm had changed its business model or perhaps just some aspects of its product set to take advantage of the Best Interest Contract Exemption, or perhaps another exemption coded into the DOL fiduciary rule. If the DOL rule goes away, of course, so will the exceptions. This actually could be fairly common, from what I have seen.”

Ultimately, during such uncertain times, Webster says the pressure is clearly on investment advice providers to monitor, more or less on a daily basis, where exactly the current regulatory framework stands. There is also the fact that multiple states are pursuing their own rulemaking regarding conflicted investment advice.

“We have been getting questions from independent fiduciaries left and right, asking whether they should be adhering today to the five part test or to the new DOL rule, and when they might have to switch again, and frankly the answer is not exactly clear at this juncture,” Webster concluded. “What is the DOL going to do? That is the question we first need to be answered. I don’t think they like the old five-part test, given that it was written decades and decades ago. You could even imagine a new rule coming out of the DOL, at some point.”  

Others expect SEC proposal to emerge imminently

Jamie Hopkins, Retirement Income Program Co-Director at the American College of Financial Services, also shared some commentary with PLANADVISER ahead of the SEC’s meeting this week. On Hopkins’ analysis, it appears “very likely” that the SEC will vote on Wednesday the 18th to release a specific new conflict of interest proposal.

“At this point, with all the talk, focus, work, and open meeting occurring that day, it would be a surprise if the proposed rule was note voted for by the committee,” he argues. “At that pace, we could see a rule on the SEC website within a week of the vote. However, this proposed rule might not end up looking anything like the final rule. Remember, the DOL proposed rule eight years ago ended up looking almost nothing like the final rule that was eventually passed and then vacated by the courts. So, expect the first proposed rule to be a starting point.”

Hopkins says he has heard some evidence that the SEC appears more willing to work with brokerage houses in “crafting a rule that does not destroy their business model or create significant backlash, but still moves the industry forward towards a more fiduciary like model.”

“But I do say ‘fiduciary like,’ as it appears that the SEC might stop a bit short of requiring everyone to adhere to a true and broad based fiduciary model,” Hopkins says. “Additionally, a SEC rule will change the landscape again, bringing a serious challenge from many interested parties. Some will likely complain the rule does not go far enough and others will challenge it as going too far. So don’t expect the proposed rule to be the end of the discussion, but merely a step towards rule making and a more-well defined fiduciary standard.”

Looking perhaps far ahead in the process, Hopkins speculates that in the end, a more unified Congress may have to weigh on the fiduciary status of financial advice before any true measure of lasting certainty can be established.

“The reality is that even the SEC’s avenue for rulemaking, while not as restricted as the DOL’s, is still restricted,” he concludes. “They will not be able to fully regulate all areas of financial advice as parts are outside their jurisdiction, so even in the broadest cast, this will result in a partial advice fiduciary rule.”

Brendan McGarry, an attorney at Kaufman Dolowich and Voluck who represents securities broker/dealers and registered investment advisers in litigation and regulatory matters, also expects language to be published soon by SEC. He says the SEC, from his vantage point, appears to be considering requiring broker/dealers to provide “what may eventually look like a simplified version of Form ADV, Part 2a, to their clients.”

“The content of such a disclosure remains to be seen,” McGarry explains, “but it appears the SEC may address purported concerns that broker/dealers and their associated persons, and their respective duties to their customers, may not always be fully understood by their customers. The SEC appears to be considering a uniform standard for broker/dealers and their associated persons in dealing with all retail customers, not just retirement investors.”

«