Roth IRA Conversion Can Help Maximize Wealth Transfers

Roth IRA conversions may offer estate-planning advantages, according to a new paper by Vanguard.

Converting pre-tax assets, such as those in a traditional individual retirement account (IRA) or a 401(k) plan, into a Roth IRA can offer advantages for clients in a variety of financial circumstances. 

According to a new Vanguard analysis, Roth conversions can help individuals avoid required minimum distributions (RMDs), for example. Depending on the individual client needs, there are a few ways to achieve this. 

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

First, the firm says some investors can benefit from converting pre-tax assets into a Roth IRA through a tax-exclusive option. This means that the investor pays taxes due on conversion with assets outside the IRA or 401(k). “This is often the preferred strategy as it transfers the entire pre-tax IRA balance to the Roth account, essentially increasing its after-tax value,” Vanguard notes.

Obviously, paying these taxes with assets inside the account through a tax-inclusive method leads to a smaller opening balance and potential for growth, but often this may be the only choice. 

Vanguard explains how the tax-exclusive conversion can support beneficiaries inheriting these assets using a hypothetical 65-year-old investor with a taxable account balance of $28,000, a traditional IRA balance of $100,000, and a 40-year-old non-spouse beneficiary. Both are in the 28% tax bracket and the following calculations assume no estate taxes are due at the account owner’s death and the income tax rate for both parties remains constant over time.

In the first scenario, the account owner maintains the $100,000 traditional IRA and the $28,000 taxable account, reinvesting all income and dividends. She begins taking RMDs at age 70.5 and reinvests the after-tax proceeds in her taxable account. Upon inheriting the IRA, her beneficiary begins taking RMDs according to his life expectancy and reinvests them, net of taxes, into the taxable account.

In the next scenario, the account owner converts the entire traditional IRA to a Roth IRA and pays the conversion taxes from the IRA while maintaining the taxable account (a tax-inclusive Roth conversion), leaving her with a $72,000 Roth IRA and a $28,000 taxable account. She does not take any withdrawals from the Roth IRA during her lifetime. Upon inheriting the Roth IRA, her beneficiary takes RMDs (income-tax free) based on his life expectancy and invests them in the taxable account.

The next scenario is identical to the last one, except the account owner pays the conversion taxes using the money in her taxable account (a tax-exclusive Roth conversion with the full balance converted), leaving her with $100,000 in her Roth IRA and no balance in her taxable account.

Vanguard’s calculations determine the account balances to be as follows after 30 years from conversion: $536,850 for the first scenario; $572,903 for the next scenario; and $602,461 for the last one.

NEXT: Estate-planning advantages

Vanguard also offers insight into how conversion into a Roth IRA can offer several estate-planning advantages. If an estate is large enough to incur estate taxes, the beneficiaries are required to pay them on all assets that don’t exceed the exemption point. This includes tax-deferred assets, traditional IRAs, 401(k)s and other retirement plans. Furthermore, they must pay income tax on any withdrawals form these accounts leading to double taxation.

“Thus, it is generally more advantageous to pass assets that do not have an embedded income tax liability, such as a Roth IRA or taxable assets,” Vanguard argues.

The firm also says “the estate can be reduced by the conversion taxes paid and any future appreciation of those dollars. Even if the reduction isn’t large (and many individuals are not subject to estate tax at all), using this method does not reduce the owner’s gift/estate tax exemption. However, because the investor’s estate will include the Roth IRA (and its potential growth), a Roth conversion may increase a taxable estate over time, possibly beyond the savings achieved by converting. For those with sizable estates, it is especially important to consider all of the implications before making a decision.”

The advantages of investing into a Roth IRA largely depend on tax expectations, which can be extremely difficult to determine. Generally speaking, a Roth IRA is potentially most useful for investors who predict their income tax obligations would increase as they approach retirement, because taxes avoided upon distribution would be larger than those levied while making contributions to the account. The matter can become more complex when planning across generations, highlighting the importance of analyzing an individual’s particular goals for a retirement account,

For further guidance, access “Roths Beyond Retirement: Maximizing Wealth Transfers” by Vanguard.  

Measured Use of 12b-1 Fees Will Continue

Advisers will certainly have heard questions from clients about the use of 12b-1 fees moving forward under the new DOL fiduciary rule; what are the experts saying?

Some experts believe retirement plan sponsors shouldn’t offer any mutual funds with 12b-1 revenue-sharing fees in their investment lineups; on the other hand, other experts maintain that by crediting revenue back to the plan, funds with 12b-1 fees can actually cost less than those without such fees.

In either case, given their strict fiduciary responsibility, defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors have a duty to compare funds with these fees to those without—and to decide which fits best for their participants’ individual circumstances.

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

According to data from the Investment Company Institute, retirement plans have been moving away from funds with 12b-1 fees; in 2015, 16% of 401(k) mutual fund assets had 12b-1 fees, down from 26% in 2010.

The trend towards the levelizing of compensation, combined with the 2012 fee disclosure rules and the pending fiduciary rule make a strong case for why plan sponsors should not offer funds with 12b-1 fees, believes Chad Parks, CEO and founder of Ubiquity Retirement and Savings in San Francisco. “Adviser fees should be known and signed off contractually, not paid through the mutual fund,” Parks says. “Third-party administrator and recordkeeping fees should also be known and negotiated as hard-dollar costs. I see no reason why a plan sponsor would use a 12b-1 fee.”

Eric Endress, vice president and senior investment consultant at CBIZ Retirement Services in Cleveland, agrees. Even prior to the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) 2012 fee disclosure rules, there was a trend among retirement plans to move towards funds with institutional share classes with no revenue-sharing, he says. “We are seeing a best practice among our clients to move to all institutional share classes and add on the fees for outside services such as recordkeeping and advisory services separately, so that there is clear transparency to the participants,” Endress says.

Brian Menickella, managing partner and head of the financial services division at The Beacon Group of Companies in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, is adamantly opposed to retirement plans using funds with 12b-1 fees. “The current system under fire by the Department of Labor and its fiduciary rule is a system created by the broker/dealer establishment to disguise how and how much they get paid,” Menickella says. “There is no reason for revenue sharing. There are simpler methods for 401(k) plans to display costs as line items for every vendor. If, following the fiduciary rule, a plan sponsor elects to work with a broker/dealer on a commission-based 12b-1 revenue-sharing platform under a best interest contract (BIC) exemption, they face additional risks from the DOL.”

NEXT: When 12b-1 fees actually result in lower costs

Rick Skelly, client executive at Barney & Barney in San Diego, encourages plan sponsors to work with experts who can help document the comparison of share classes with 12b-1 fees against those without.

Whatever choice a plan sponsor goes with, robust documentation and proof of deliberation will be essential in responding to a Department of Labor or Internal Revenue Service audit, or even an employee lawsuit.

“Not every fund will be net lower cost even with favorably structured 12b-1 fees. Some will be the same, but we believe few, if any, would be higher,” Skelly says. “Each fund share class has to be looked at independently of the others to determine which is the most efficient pricing option for a given plan population.”

Babu Sivadasan, group president with Envestnet Retirement Solutions in Sunnyvale, California, agrees with that assessment. “It is important to highlight the fact that there are circumstances where the net cost of a fund with a 12b-1 fee can actually be lower than another share class. You can’t look at the expense ratio alone to make this determination. You have to look at the net investment cost and do so on a case-by-case basis.”

Furthermore, there are some plan sponsors who prefer the bundled fee because “they think employees would ask questions if they saw too many separate fees on their statements,” Endress says.

Subsidizing small retirement plans with $10 million of assets or less through 12b-1 fees can also make sense, says Fred Reish, a partner with Drinker Biddle & Reath in Los Angeles. “The recordkeeper can collect the 12b-1 fees and sub-transfer agency fees to pay for the recordkeeping and compliance costs. Then, any money left over could be paid into an expense recapture account and used to pay a level fee to the plan’s adviser,” Reish says.

Given the experts’ split opinions on whether or not it makes sense for retirement plans to offer funds with 12b-1 fees, it is clear that plan sponsors, with the help of their advisers, need to do the math.

«