Dow+30.69up+0.29%
10,464.40
Nasdaq+6.87up+0.32%
2,176.05
S&P+4.98up+0.45%
1,110.63

MSN Money video

Video on MSN Money
This video player requires the installation of the free Adobe Flash Player
Mroe video on MSN Money . . .
Time to convert to a Roth IRA? © Image Source/Getty Images

The Basics

Best time to convert to a Roth IRA?

Federal law will make 2010 a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to convert your traditional IRA, financial advisers say. But is that the right move for you?

By MarketWatch

Roth IRA conversions are about to become a big deal for people saving and investing for retirement. Under the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, or what some lovingly refer to as TIPRA, all taxpayers will be able to convert all or some of their traditional IRAs into Roth IRAs, regardless of income.

This is a game-changer, some are saying. So much so that companies and experts are fast at work training legions of advisers on the ins and outs of Roth IRA conversions. And soon these advisers will start pelting you with phone calls, e-mails and snail mail asking to schedule an appointment with you to talk about your IRA and the opportunity of a lifetime -- the chance to pay taxes now as a way to avoid paying more taxes later.

"The time to start clients planning is now as advisers look for practical and actionable strategies to address today's unprecedented market conditions," wrote Kevin O'Fee of Lincoln Financial Group in a recent article.

"TIPRA is reason to re-engage with those high-income clients by challenging the traditional rules of retirement, legacy planning and asset allocation. As such, advisers and clients alike will be well-served by evaluating the potential benefits of a Roth IRA conversion," O'Fee said. Read the article here.

We also think you'd be well-served with answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about Roth IRA conversions -- before those advisers take O'Fee's advice and come a-callin'.

1. When do you report the income?

Prior to 2010, the amount converted would be reported as income on that year's tax return. Under TIPRA, however, conversions done in 2010 don't have to be reported on your 2010 tax return. Instead, you get to report the income on your 2011 and 2012 tax returns, said Barry C. Picker, a certified public accountant and financial planner with Picker, Weinberg & Auerbach, CPAs, and the author of "Barry Picker's Guide to Retirement Distribution Planning."

Thus, if you converted a $100,000 IRA in 2010, you would report $50,000 in ordinary income in 2011 and $50,000 in 2012. In the parlance of advisers, you get to split the income.

If you do a Roth IRA conversion in 2011 or later, you don't get to spread the income or tax bill over two years. And that's why folks in the industry are salivating over this one-year-only bargain.

2. When do you pay the taxes?

If you split the income, you have to pay the taxes due on your 2011 and 2012 tax returns.

3. Do you have to split the income?

No. If you think splitting the income will create a larger overall tax bill, you can opt out of splitting the income over two years, Picker said.

4. If you elect out of the two-year split, is it all or nothing, or can you do it piecemeal?

According to Picker, it's an all-or-nothing election.

5. What happens if you convert to a Roth IRA when there is basis (the original amount invested) in the traditional IRA but it's worth less?

According to Picker, there is no official guidance on this question.

"There appear to be two possibilities, but in any event if the account is worth less than the basis, there will be no income on the conversion," Picker said. "In one possible scenario, the taxpayer could take a miscellaneous itemized deduction for the loss in value, similar to the situation where the taxpayer had cashed out the entire account. In that scenario, the basis in the Roth IRA would be the value at the time of conversion," he said.

"The other possible scenario is that there would be no loss recognized on the conversion, but in that case the basis in the traditional IRA would carry over to be the basis in the Roth."

Continued: The 5-year rule

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 31
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:38:01 AM
Please crawl back in your bunker. We are the gov't. and we can make changes through our vote. For those of us that are counting on our IRA's to carry us into our golden years, this sounds very good.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:31:28 AM
This is my first experience with one of these people who are either very very gullible and easily influenced, or else just lying and trying to create chaos.  pdlenter, I kind of hope you are just lying, because it would be heartbreaking to think you actually believe what you are saying.  Stop being fooled by the health care bill propaganda, and think more before you decide to share your opinions, please.  Cheer up, things are going to get better.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:31:44 AM
does not mention filing status.  Is the IRS ever going to get rid of the gay rule that prevents married filing separately to fund a roth IRA. 
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:40:10 AM
There are now free rides on taxes but, assuming you're original investments increase in value in your Roth IRA, this may be as close as you'll ever get. I would not ignore this particular opportunity if you want to maximize the amount of money you'll have in retirement.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:43:57 AM
pdlenter...... you have been listening to Rush again.  There is no "great conspiracy" out there that is going to get you.  Grow up and think for yourself for once.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:01:43 AM
if you still have to pay the taxes now as opposed to retirement age to convert, then I don't see that this is any real advantage.  You still have to pay taxes just like you would any other year, with the only exception being you can put it off for a year or two.  That's like the retailers pushing 'no payments or interest til 2010'.........but ultimately, you still DO have to pay---
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:16:49 AM
No need for a conspiracy..The government giveth and the government taketh away.  Don't forget the golden rule also.  So even without a conspiracy those that are skeptical about what the rules are going to be when the government owes about $50 trillion (current liabilities) and all the tax payers have died on the new healthcare (or left the country) have legitamate concerns.  We can always fall back on the cry "Let them eat cake!".  I'm skeptical too.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:19:29 AM
Hmmmm..... can someone explain to me why the whole Roth IRA thing isn't just a government scheme to tax you up front at your current tax bracket??  I mean, with a normal IRA, you get to pay taxes at retirement when you withdraw, at a time when your tax bracket will probably be LOWER than what it is now.  Moreover, you would have been building wealth on a larger base with a normal IRA, provided you are also investing the amount you would have been taxed with a Roth.  Bigger base = bigger earnings when the market increases.  The opposite it true, of course, but it may be worth the risk.  Your thoughts?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:02:30 AM
pdlenter - your an idiot!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:26:06 AM
Unfortunately pdlenter is closer to the truth then I wish. The socialization of America and the process of running us so deep into debt that we never can crawl out is real. It is not pdlenter but the others who need to wake up and immediately stop drinking the Kool Aid. The new Rev. Jim Jones aka Pres. Obama is slowly turning up the heat as you slowly boil to death. His goal is to empower himself and other liberals to make us beholding to them for everything including our right to life.
1 - 10 of 31
To add a comment, pleasesign in