Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: TMFPixy Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 19380  
Subject: Re: Converting to Roth IRA (cont.) Date: 11/19/2001 6:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Janicedowden writes:

Badger & Pixl - would both of you please read my inquiry in Retired Fools titled "Converting to Roth IRA", and give me YOUR opinion(s)?

I posted that in this down market, it should be a good idea to convert all down-in-value (worth less than original contribution) after-tax IRA's to a Roth IRA with no current tax outlay.

I received comment that ALL IRA's would have to be combined, and after-tax and pre-tax proportioned, in converting any amount to Roth. The assumption was that a given IRA did not stand alone for conversion purposes.

This seems to relate to your conversation "Combining IRAs". This would seem to be a major discussion point - whether ALL of a person's IRA's (after-tax & pre-tax) have to be lumped together and treated proportionately when amounts are withdrawn and/or converted.

Would appreciate any comments.


A conversion to a Roth IRA is treated as any other distribution from a traditional IRA, which means you would have to pro rate your basis across all your IRA to see how much of your conversion would be taxable. The conversion uses the procedures found starting on page 26 of IRS Publication 590 found at http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/forms_pubs/pubs.html.. If you want additional assurances my interpretation is not out of line with current thinking, see Kay Thomas's excellent tax site at http://www.fairmark.com/rothira/partial.htm.

Surprisingly, though, you won't find The Badger and I disagreeing on his interpretation of the Tax Code itself. I think his approach is reasonable, albeit highly aggressive given the published IRS guidance. I believe -- and he obviously doesn't -- that using a "specific account identifcation" approach can and almost certainly will be challenged by the IRS in the absence of a PLR allowing it. Someone who does so and then gets challenged may very well find themselves spending literally hundreds (if not thousands given the complexity and value of the conversion) defending an action taken without prior approval through a PLR. Is the tax savings you might enjoy big enough to justify that expense? If so, go for it. If not, don't invite the aggravation. IMHO most of the time the savings just won't be big enough to justify the cost of the defense. It would have to be a really big conversion to produce the desired tax savings (at least enough to pay the cost of defense)to justify it in my mind.

Regards..Pixy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Pencils of Promise - Back to School Drive
"Pencils of Promise works with communities across the globe to build schools and create programs that provide education opportunities for children."
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement