Recent reports have raised anew concerns about the impending insolvency of the Social Security program, absent congressional action. Social Security reform has long been considered a “third rail” of American politics and understandably so — the options for heading off insolvency will inevitably cause pain for significant segments of the population. Yet some in Congress have stepped forward with proposals that aim to tackle the problem.

The impending shortfall

Social Security currently provides benefits to more than 66 million recipients. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that about 78 million people, or about 20% of the U.S. population, will receive benefits from the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund in 2032.

The CBO and the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trusts have both raised alarms about how soon Social Security will become “insolvent.” Insolvency in this context refers to the point at which the trust fund will be depleted, and payments would come solely from income generated by payroll tax and income tax on benefits.

The 2023 Trustees Report states that the OASI Trust Fund will be able to pay 100% of total scheduled benefits only until 2033, one year earlier than the trustees projected last year. The program would then be able to pay 77% of scheduled benefits.

The CBO’s forecast is even more dire. It predicts the OASI fund will be exhausted in 2032. As a result, it says, payable benefits would be 25% less than scheduled benefits.

The declining ratio of workers to beneficiaries is one reason for the trust fund’s shrinkage, and the retirement of Baby Boomers has only accelerated this trend. High interest rates and historic inflation also play a large role. Due to inflation, beneficiaries saw an 8.7% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2023, the largest such hike since 1981.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the trust fund’s depletion, whenever it occurs, would create a conflict between two federal laws. Beneficiaries would remain entitled to their full scheduled benefits under the Social Security Act. But the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would lack legal authority to pay full benefits on time.

Limited options

Congress has a limited arsenal of weapons for addressing the shortfall in the OASI fund. It generally can increase trust fund revenues or reduce benefits by taking various steps, such as:

Raising the retirement age. Retirees normally begin receiving benefits at age 66 or 67, depending on their year of birth (reduced early benefits are available at age 62). Various legislators and others have called for increasing the full retirement age. For example, some have suggested raising it to age 70 for people born in 1978 or later.

The American Academy of Actuaries (AAA) points out several potential problems with this approach, though. For example, raising the retirement age is essentially a cut in benefits, and jobs might not be available for people ages 67 to 69 who would have to keep working, particularly those who perform manual labor. A higher retirement age would disproportionately affect low-wage workers and those who have higher mortality rates. In addition, it would likely increase disability insurance costs and the costs for employer-provided insurance.

Increasing payroll tax. Workers and employers each pay 6.2% payroll taxes, for a total of 12.4% on the first $160,200 of wages in 2023. Payroll taxes could be boosted in two ways — increasing the tax rate and adjusting or eliminating the wage cap.

The AAA says that, of all the many proposals and bills for addressing the impending deficit, “raising the tax rate best preserves the current system structure.” The CBO says that trust fund balances would be sufficient to pay scheduled benefits through 2097 if the total payroll tax rate was increased immediately and permanently to 17.6% (before accounting for the effects of such changes on the economy).

Others have proposed applying the tax to greater amounts of wages. Some would apply the tax to earnings greater than a specific threshold (for example, $400,000), creating a “doughnut hole” of income not subject to the tax.

The AAA explains that, if the contribution base is increased but not the benefit base, the fund could raise revenue with no increase in benefits. The effect would be similar to increasing the tax rate, but the additional tax revenue would come only from workers with earnings in excess of the benefit base. In other words, this would negatively affect higher earners.

But the AAA says that even including the additional taxed earnings in the benefit formula would help. That’s because the additional earnings in the benefit formula would be at the high end of the earnings scale, where the benefit formula percentage is lowest. Moreover, while the additional tax revenue would begin immediately, the additional benefits would slowly phase in over time.

Changing benefits formulas. COLAs currently are based on changes to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. A different inflation index could be used to slow the annual increases. This would produce net benefit reductions as smaller benefit increases in early retirement years compound over time.

Other ideas include changing the primary formula for benefits for retirees or those for eligible spouses and dependents. For example, the basic Social Security benefit is called the primary insurance amount, based on average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) — generally, the average of a beneficiary’s highest earning years over a period of up to 35 years.

The number of averaging years included when calculating AIME could be increased, which would reduce the AIME for most workers. However, the AAA says this could have “especially adverse consequences” for workers who don’t have steady earnings, such as parents who leave the workforce to care for children.

Implementing means testing. Means testing generally refers to reducing or eliminating Social Security benefits for wealthy and/or high-income retirees whose current income or assets exceed a certain threshold. Supporters of means testing argue that the program shouldn’t benefit those who don’t have financial need.

Opponents contend that cutting or eliminating benefits for the wealthy would be unfair, as those individuals have contributed and been promised benefits just as others have. They also warn that it could undermine public support for Social Security, disincentivize work in later years and encourage consumption over saving.

Some recent proposals

Despite its third-rail status, several legislators on both sides of the aisle are working to confront the Social Security solvency crisis. For example, in February 2023, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), along with several Democratic colleagues, introduced the Social Security Expansion Act.

Among other things, it would apply the payroll tax to earnings above $250,000, without crediting the additional taxed earnings for benefit purposes. It also would impose a 12.4% tax on investment income and change the inflation index for COLAs. The SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that enactment of the bill would extend the ability of the combined OASI and Disability Insurance program to pay scheduled benefits in full and on time for 75 years. In addition, the bill would add $2,400 to beneficiaries’ annual benefits.

Sens. Angus King (I-ME) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) are heading a bipartisan coalition exploring other options. They’re reportedly discussing the creation of a so-called “sovereign wealth fund” separate from Social Security. The fund would invest $1.5 trillion or more in the U.S. economy and accrue returns over 70 years. If it fails to produce an 8% return, the maximum taxable income and the payroll tax rate would be increased to ensure solvency for 75 years. Cassidy says this approach would “solve 75% of the problem.”

A political conundrum

Both parties acknowledge the need for some type of action regarding Social Security. Generally, Democrats oppose cuts to benefits and Republicans oppose higher taxes. And the political climate isn’t favorable for reaching a compromise. We’ll follow the developments and keep you informed of any significant changes coming your way.

© 2023

The IRS has issued new guidance providing transitional relief related to recent legislative changes to the age at which taxpayers must begin taking required minimum distributions (RMDs) from retirement accounts. The guidance in IRS Notice 2023-54 also extends relief already granted to taxpayers covered by the so-called “10-year rule” for inherited IRAs and other defined contribution plans.

The need for RMD relief

In late 2019, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act brought numerous changes to the retirement and estate planning landscape. Among other things, it generally raised the age at which retirement account holders must begin to take their RMDs. The required beginning date (RBD) for traditional IRAs and other qualified plans was raised from age 70½ to 72.

Three years later, in December 2022, the SECURE 2.0 Act increased the RBD age for RMDs further. This year the age increased to 73, and it’s scheduled to climb to 75 in 2033.

The RBD is defined as April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which an individual reaches the applicable age. Therefore, an IRA owner who was born in 1951 will have an RBD of April 1, 2025, rather than April 1, 2024. The first distribution made to the IRA owner that will be treated as a taxable RMD will be a distribution made for 2024.

While the delayed onset of RMDs is largely welcome news from an income tax perspective, it has caused some confusion among retirees and necessitated updates to plan administrators’ automatic payment systems. For example, retirees who were born in 1951 and turn 72 this year may have initiated distributions this year because they were under the impression that they needed to start taking RMDs by April 1, 2024.

Administrators and other payors also voiced concerns that the updates could take some time to implement. As a result, they said, plan participants and IRA owners who would’ve been required to start receiving RMDs for calendar year 2023 before SECURE 2.0 (that is, those who reach age 72 in 2023) and who receive distributions in 2023 might have had those distributions mischaracterized as RMDs. This is significant because RMDs aren’t eligible for a tax-free rollover to an eligible retirement plan, so the distributions would be includible in gross income for tax purposes.

The IRS response

To address these concerns, the IRS is extending the 60-day deadline for rollovers of distributions that were mischaracterized as RMDs due to the change in the RBD from age 72 to age 73. The deadline for rolling over such distributions made between January 1, 2023, and July 31, 2023, is now September 30, 2023.

For example, if a plan participant born in 1951 received a single-sum distribution in January 2023, and part of it was treated as ineligible for a rollover because it was mischaracterized as an RMD, the plan participant will have until the end of September to roll over that portion of the distribution. If the deadline passes without the distribution being rolled over, the distribution will then be considered taxable income.

The rollover also applies to mischaracterized IRA distributions made to an IRA owner (or surviving spouse). It applies even if the owner or surviving spouse rolled over a distribution within the previous 12 months, although the subsequent rollover will preclude the owner or spouse from doing another rollover in the next 12 months. (The individual could still make a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer.)

Plan administrators and payors receive some relief, too. They won’t be penalized for failing to treat any distribution made between January 1, 2023, and July 31, 2023, to a participant born in 1951 (or that participant’s surviving spouse) as an eligible rollover distribution if the distribution would’ve been an RMD before SECURE 2.0’s change to the RBD.

The 10-year rule conundrum

Prior to the enactment of the original SECURE Act, beneficiaries of inherited IRAs could “stretch” the RMDs on the accounts over their entire life expectancies. The stretch period could run for decades for younger heirs, allowing them to take smaller distributions and defer taxes while the accounts grew. These heirs then had the option to pass their IRAs to later generations, potentially deferring tax payments even longer.

To accelerate tax collection, the SECURE Act eliminated the rules permitting stretch RMDs for many heirs (referred to as designated beneficiaries, as opposed to eligible designated beneficiaries, or EDBs). For IRA owners or defined contribution plan participants who died in 2020 or later, the law generally requires that the entire balance of the account be distributed within 10 years of death. The rule applies regardless of whether the deceased dies before, on or after the RBD for RMDs from the plan. (EDBs may continue to stretch payments over their life expectancies or, if the deceased died before the RBD, may elect the 10-year rule treatment.)

According to proposed IRS regulations released in February 2022, designated beneficiaries who inherit an IRA or defined contribution plan before the deceased’s RBD can satisfy the 10-year rule by taking the entire sum before the end of the calendar year that includes the 10-year anniversary of the death. Notably, though, if the deceased dies on or after the RBD, designated beneficiaries would be required to take taxable annual RMDs (based on their life expectancies) in years one through nine, receiving the remaining balance in year 10. They can’t wait until the end of 10 years and take the entire account as a lump-sum distribution. The annual RMD rule would provide designated beneficiaries less tax-planning flexibility and could push them into higher tax brackets during those years, especially if they’re working.

The 10-year rule and the proposed regs left many designated beneficiaries who recently inherited IRAs or defined contribution plans bewildered as to when they needed to begin taking RMDs. For example, the IRS heard from heirs of deceased family members who died in 2020. These heirs hadn’t taken RMDs in 2021 and were unsure whether they were required to take them in 2022.

In recognition of the lingering questions, the IRS previously waived enforcement against taxpayers subject to the 10-year rule who missed 2021 and 2022 RMDs if the plan participant died in 2020 on or after the RBD. It also excused missed 2022 RMDs if the participant died in 2021 on or after the RBD. The latest guidance extends that relief by excusing 2023 missed RMDs if the participant died in 2020, 2021 or 2022 on or after the RBD.

The relief means covered individuals needn’t worry about being hit with excise tax equal to 25% of the amounts that should’ve been distributed but weren’t (or 10% if the failure to take the RMD is corrected in a timely manner). And plans won’t be penalized for failing to make an RMD in 2023 that would be required under the proposed regs.

Final regs are pending

The IRS also announced in the guidance that final regs related to RMDs will apply for calendar years no sooner than 2024. Previously, the agency had said final regs would apply no earlier than 2023. We’ll let you know when the IRS publishes the final regs and how they may affect you. Contact us with any questions.

© 2023

The IRS recently released its audit statistics for the 2022 fiscal year and fewer taxpayers had their returns examined as compared with prior years. But even though a small percentage of returns are being chosen for audits these days, that will be little consolation if yours is one of them.

Recent statistics

Overall, just 0.49% of individual tax returns were audited in 2022. However, as in the past, those with higher incomes were audited at higher rates. For example, 8.5% of returns of taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes (AGIs) of $10 million or more were audited as of the end of FY 2022.

However, audits are expected to be on the rise in coming months because the Biden administration has made it a priority to go after high-income taxpayers who don’t pay what they legally owe. In any event, the IRS will examine thousands of returns this year. With proper planning, you may fare well even if you’re one of the unfortunate ones.

Be ready

The easiest way to survive an IRS examination is to prepare in advance. On a regular basis, you should systematically maintain documentation — invoices, bills, canceled checks, receipts or other proof — for all items reported on your tax returns.

Keep in mind that if you’re chosen, it’s possible you didn’t do anything wrong. Just because a return is selected for audit doesn’t mean that an error was made. Some returns are randomly selected based on statistical formulas. For example, IRS computers compare income and deductions on returns with what other taxpayers report. If an individual deducts a charitable contribution that’s significantly higher than what others with similar incomes report, the IRS may want to know why.

Returns can also be selected if they involve issues or transactions with other taxpayers who were previously selected for audit, such as business partners or investors.

The government generally has three years from when a tax return is filed to conduct an audit, and often the exam won’t begin until a year or more after you file a return.

Tax return complexity

The scope of an audit generally depends on whether it’s simple or complex. A return reflecting business or real estate income and expenses will obviously take longer to examine than a return with only salary income.

In FY 2022, most examinations (78.6%) were “correspondence audits” conducted by mail. The rest were face-to-face audits conducted at an IRS office or “field audits” at the taxpayers’ homes, businesses, or accountants’ offices.

Important: Even if you’re chosen, an IRS examination may be nothing to lose sleep over. In many cases, the IRS asks for proof of certain items and routinely “closes” the audit after the documentation is presented.

Get professional help

It’s prudent to have a tax professional represent you at an audit. A tax pro knows the issues that the IRS is likely to scrutinize and can prepare accordingly. In addition, a professional knows that in many instances IRS auditors will take a position (for example, to disallow certain deductions) even though courts and other guidance have expressed contrary opinions on the issues. Because pros can point to the proper authority, the IRS may be forced to concede on certain issues.

Contact us if you receive an IRS audit letter or simply want to improve your record keeping.

© 2023

High-income taxpayers face a regular income tax rate of 35% or 37%. And they may also have to pay a 3.8% net investment income tax (NIIT) that’s imposed in addition to regular income tax. Fortunately, there are some ways you may be able to reduce its impact.

Affected taxpayers

The NIIT applies to you only if modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) exceeds:

• $250,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and surviving spouses,
• $125,000 for married taxpayers filing separately,
• $200,000 for unmarried taxpayers and heads of household.

The amount subject to the tax is the lesser of your net investment income or the amount by which your MAGI exceeds the threshold ($250,000, $200,000, or $125,000) that applies to you.

Net investment income includes interest, dividend, annuity, royalty and rental income, unless those items were derived in the ordinary course of an active trade or business. In addition, other gross income from a trade or business that’s a passive activity is subject to the NIIT, as is income from a business trading in financial instruments or commodities.

There are many types of income that are exempt from the NIIT. For example, tax-exempt interest and the excluded gain from the sale of your main home aren’t subject to the tax. Distributions from qualified retirement plans aren’t subject to the NIIT. Neither are Social Security benefits. Wages and self-employment income also aren’t subject to the NIIT, though they may be subject to a different Medicare surtax.

It’s important to remember the NIIT applies only if you have net investment income and your MAGI exceeds the applicable thresholds above. But by following strategies, you may be able to minimize your net investment income.

Shifting investments

If your income is high enough to trigger the NIIT, shifting some income investments to tax-exempt bonds could result in less exposure to the tax. Tax-exempt bonds lower your MAGI and avoid the NIIT.

Dividend-paying stocks are taxed more heavily as a result of the NIIT. The maximum income tax rate on qualified dividends is 20%, but the rate becomes 23.8% with the NIIT.

As a result, you may want to consider rebalancing your investment portfolio to emphasize growth stocks over dividend-paying stocks. While the capital gains from these investments will be included in net investment income, there are two potential benefits: 1) the tax will be deferred because the capital gains won’t be subject to the NIIT until the stocks are sold, and 2) capital gains can be offset by capital losses, which isn’t the case with dividends.

Retirement plan distributions

Because distributions from qualified retirement plans are exempt from the NIIT, upper-income taxpayers with some control over their situations (such as small business owners) might want to make greater use of qualified plans.

These are only a couple of strategies you may be able to employ. You also may be able to make moves related to charitable donations, passive activities and rental income that may allow you to minimize the NIIT. If you’re subject to the tax, you should include it in your tax planning. Contact us for strategies in your situation.

© 2023