|
#4
| |||
| |||
| Rich Carreiro wrote: - quote - > "Default User" <defaultuserbr[at]yahoo.com> writes:
Correct. In the absence of qualifiers, I always assume 401(k) to mean> > The thing you have to be aware of is that any after-tax > > contributions that were made post-1986 will bring a share of > > taxable earnings with them. > Unless the "after-tax contributions" in question were > Roth 401(k) contributions. "tax-deferred", but this is a valid point. - quote - > If so, those can be rolled
How very Zen.> straight into a Roth IRA and don't carry any taxable > earnings with them (in fact, the earnings they carry > with them also have the Roth nature). Brian ------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| "Default User" <defaultuserbr[at]yahoo.com> writes: - quote - > Ron wrote:
[snip]> > My broker tells me that after tax 401k assets may be rolled directly > > to a Roth IRA, with no tax consequence now or ever - ie. future > > earnings would be tax free. I'd appreciate a pointer to an official > > explanation/confirmation of this assertion. - quote - > The thing you have to be aware of is that any after-tax contributions
Unless the "after-tax contributions" in question were> that were made post-1986 will bring a share of taxable earnings with > them. Roth 401(k) contributions. If so, those can be rolled straight into a Roth IRA and don't carry any taxable earnings with them (in fact, the earnings they carry with them also have the Roth nature). -- Rich Carreiro rlc-news[at]rlcarr.com ------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| Ron wrote: - quote - > > The thing you have to be aware of is that any after-tax
It makes things trickier, but can be beneficial as the total amount you> > contributions that were made post-1986 will bring a share of > > taxable earnings with them. So you can't designate only after-tax > > contributions in that case, and if you go directly to a Roth you'd > > have to pay the taxes (but not penalty) on the earnings portion. > They didn't tell me that part! can roll over (at any age) is larger. - quote - > The "broker" is Fidelity, and since they administer the 401k (via
See if the online statement has a withdrawal guide that shows a> Netbenefits), I figured they know how this works. I guess I need to > get finer granularity from them. Most of my after-tax contributions > are pre-1986, but not all. The online statement breaks the assets > down by "source," including "after-tax," but not further into pre and > post 1986. breakdown of available pots of money. If so, the after-tax one should reflect the amount of contributions plus earnings. That's the way mine did it. - quote - > So far IRS pub 575, p. 29 is as close as I've found to the official
Also look at Pub 590. That's the IRA guide, and has some of the> pronouncement. roll-over rules. Brian ------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| - quote - > The thing you have to be aware of is that any after-tax contributions
They didn't tell me that part!> that were made post-1986 will bring a share of taxable earnings with > them. So you can't designate only after-tax contributions in that case, > and if you go directly to a Roth you'd have to pay the taxes (but not > penalty) on the earnings portion. The "broker" is Fidelity, and since they administer the 401k (via Netbenefits), I figured they know how this works. I guess I need to get finer granularity from them. Most of my after-tax contributions are pre-1986, but not all. The online statement breaks the assets down by "source," including "after-tax," but not further into pre and post 1986. So far IRS pub 575, p. 29 is as close as I've found to the official pronouncement. I also finally located (online) some detail of my 401k plan that corroborates the distribution requirement for post-1986 after tax contributions. Thank you for the detailed and clear response! Ron ------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. |
| | |||
| |||
| Ron wrote: - quote - > My broker tells me that after tax 401k assets may be rolled directly
If your plan allows rolling over after-tax contributions, and it allows> to a Roth IRA, with no tax consequence now or ever - ie. future > earnings would be tax free. I'd appreciate a pointer to an official > explanation/confirmation of this assertion. rolling directly to a Roth, then maybe. If your contributions were made prior to 1987, you are good to go and can ignore the rest of this message. The thing you have to be aware of is that any after-tax contributions that were made post-1986 will bring a share of taxable earnings with them. So you can't designate only after-tax contributions in that case, and if you go directly to a Roth you'd have to pay the taxes (but not penalty) on the earnings portion. Your plan should be able to give you a breakdown of how much taxable money will get dragged along. If you can handle paying the tax on the earning, you can stop once again. Don't pay it out of the IRA itself though. There is a way to extract only the non-taxable portion, but it's more roundabout. You can also roll money from a traditional IRA to a qualified plan. However, the law states that only taxable funds can go. This is an explicit exception to the pro-rata distribution rule for traditional IRAs. Here's an example. Suppose you have $5000 in after-tax contributions, which have $3000 in associated earnings. 1. Roll over all after-tax contributions to a TIRA. You end up with $8000 in it. You must must must file IRS Form 8606 to establish the non-taxable cost basis. 2. Roll $3000 back to your 401(k). Now you have $3000 taxable back there, and $5000 non-taxable (the basis) left in the TIRA. Now you can transfer this to a Roth or convert the TIRA to a Roth, whichever works best with your situation. 3. If your plan allows rolling over roll-over contributions (mine does) you can further roll that $3000 taxable back out into a TIRA. Then you could convert parts each year if you wanted or leave it as as tax-deferred. This is useful if your plan isn't that great or if there are things like TIPS that you can't get in it. Brian ------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| My broker tells me that after tax 401k assets may be rolled directly to a Roth IRA, with no tax consequence now or ever - ie. future earnings would be tax free. I'd appreciate a pointer to an official explanation/confirmation of this assertion. The link below appears relevant, but is focused on a "Designated Roth Account, apparently newly defined by the IRS from 2007 on. My situation relates to after tax contributions to a 401k made years ago. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/articl...html#rollovers Thanks for any help. -Ron ------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. |
| Tags |
| 401k, accumulations, ira, roth, tax |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| Roth 401k vs. Roth IRA vs. 401k dan: I think the rule of thumb has always been, fund the 401k up to the employer match, then stop and fund the Roth IRA, then go back to the 401k,... | Financial Planning | 8 | 01-11-2007 12:50 AM | |
| Roth 401K? rg: I have the opportunity to contribute to a Roth 401K starting this year instead of (or blended with) a regular 401K. Should I? Conventional wisdom... | Financial Planning | 22 | 01-05-2007 04:42 AM | |
| Roth &401K vs. IRS joe: Are the following notions correct for BOTH Roth and 401K: 1. The distributions from the mutual funds that they are invested in will NEVER have... | Taxes | 6 | 11-11-2005 06:07 AM | |
| Roth 401k ? Winter: What is the status of the Roth 401k? Is it definitely coming and only a matter or time or is it in the proposal stage and needs to be approved by... | Financial Planning | 3 | 03-24-2005 02:35 PM | |
| 401K or Roth??? Injun Joe: I can no longer afford to put money in both my 401K and my Roth IRA due to medical expenses for my wife. My 401K has absolutely no match from the... | Financial Planning | 15 | 03-08-2005 09:14 AM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |