• nj.com_

    Biz Brain: The best way to take Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs)

    By Karin Price Mueller/The Star-LedgerThe Star-Ledger Follow on Twitter on April 21, 2013 at  6:21 PM
    Q. In January 2014 my father will be required to start taking Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) from his two annuities. My dad says he doesn’t need the monthly income. We’re wondering what the tax implications will be, and what’s the most efficient way to withdraw the funds? Is it better to take the money monthly, semi-annually or annually, or as one lump sum. His income is about $40,000 a year, and he doesn’t own a home but rents an apartment.– CJA. Kudos to you and your dad for trying to plan ahead.We’re going to assume these annuities are in Individual Retirement Accounts, or IRAs, which is why your dad has to take the RMDs.If it was just an annuity that was not held as an IRA, your dad would not have to take any money out, said Alan Meckler, a certified financial planner with Cornerstone Financial Group in Succasunna.

    “The RMD value is calculated on the last day of the year, Dec. 31,” he said, and you can choose to take the distribution in all the ways you mentioned.

    Most people do take the distributions annually, he said, but that’s really based on personal preference.

    “The distribution will be taxed to your father as ordinary income — there is no way around that,” Meckler said. “It will be taxed at whatever tax bracket he falls into.”

    The taxes are the big problem for tax-deferred accounts, said Jerry Lynch, a certified financial planner with JFL Total Wealth Management in Fairfield.

    “They are great accumulation vehicles but terrible on distributions as they are all taxable,” he said. “Failure to make the appropriate distribution after you hit 70½ results in a 50 percent penalty, then ordinary income taxes on the total amount of the required minimum distribution.”

    Lynch said there are a few tax-saving options your dad may want to consider.

    First, he can give his distribution directly to a charity and that would reduce his Modified Adjusted Gross Income, which could help reaching the threshold for deducting some of his medical and miscellaneous expenses a little easier.

    He could also consider a Roth conversion.

    “If has the cash outside his IRA to pay the taxes, he can convert to a Roth and never have to take RMDs anymore,” Lynch said.

    If the distribution amount from one of the annuities in large enough, Lynch said it may be able to cover both RMDs, allowing the other annuity to continue to grow. This is because the RMD is calculated based on the total of all accounts, not per IRA account.

    Finally, if he does take the RMD, Lynch says he could invest in something that’s tax-efficient, such as an index fund.

    “There are no perfect products and you need to understand the limitations of the product before you put your money into it,” he said. “That being said, if you have to take out the money, have a little fun with it!” E-mail your questions to askbiz@starledger.com

    © NJ.com. All rights reserved.

    Securities offered through Comprehensive Asset Management and Servicing, Inc. (“CAMAS”), Member FINRA/SIPC. Investment Advisory services offered through Comprehensive Capital Management, Inc. an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. (JFL Total Wealth Management is independent of CAMAS.)

    For the full length article, please visit: http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2013/04/biz_brain_the_best_way_to_take.html

  • nj.com_

    By Karin Price Mueller/The Star-LedgerThe Star-Ledger
    on April 14, 2013 at 8:15 AM, updated April 14, 2013 at 8:16 AM

    Q. I have three accounts with a financial adviser totaling about $900,000. While preparing my taxes, I realized that I paid my “adviser” approximately $11,000 to “manage” my accounts. Our adviser has done little or no trading of these funds over the past four years with the exception of the end of the last year. Is it necessary for me to keep the services of my financial adviser?

    — What am I paying for?

    A. How often your adviser trades in your account is not necessarily going to tell you much.

    The Brain just hopes you’re getting more than investment advice in your adviser. If that’s all you’re getting, it’s time to start shopping.

    In the past several years, the market has been going up, so that could be the reason for little activity in your account, said Jerry Lynch, a certified financial planner with JFL Total Wealth Management in Fairfield.

    He said the investment component of the advice you receive should consist of small changes over time, not radical changes.

    Lynch said he generally tells the people who pay him for services to “keep them PRETI (pretty).” That means several important things:

    1) Protections: Are you better protected than when you first came to the adviser?
    2) Retirement: Do you have a better plan for retirement?
    3) Estate: Has the adviser reviewed your estate plan, spoken to your attorney and made sure that the beneficiary designations match up with the estate plan?
    4) Taxes: Has the adviser walked you through your tax returns, spoken to your CPA and shown you ways to reduce your tax liability during the year?
    5) Investment: Is the adviser managing your investments under a fiduciary standard?

    Lynch said a good adviser will meet with you at least two to four times per year to review all these areas, and the adviser will have a systematic way of approaching your plan.

    “If you are only getting someone who does your investments and rarely meets with you, I think that you can do much better,” he said.

    E-mail your questions to askbiz@starledger.com

    © NJ.com. All rights reserved.

    For the full-length article, please view: http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2013/04/post_264.html

     

    Securities offered through Comprehensive Asset Management and Servicing, Inc. (“CAMAS”), Member FINRA/SIPC. Investment Advisory services offered through Comprehensive Capital Management, Inc. an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. (JFL Total Wealth Management is independent of CAMAS.)

     

     

     

  • executive-insight-featured image size

     

    A Taxing Situation

    Few understand complexities of behemoth U.S. tax system.

    By Jerry Lynch

    Posted on:April 5, 2013

    “Dear IRS, Please take me off your mailing list.”

    I like that line but very few people can tell you who came up with it. Actually it was from Charles Schulz and his classic Charlie Brown, with Snoopy banging the typewriter keys on his doghouse. Makes a good point.

    At this time of year we have had taxes on our mind and everyone has their views on what is wrong with the system: “The wealthy pay too little”.”50% of the population pays no taxes”.”U.S. corporate tax rates are the highest in the world”.”U.S. corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes.”  These are just some of the comments that I hear on a regular basis which indicates to me how often people really have no idea of what they are talking about. 

    A tax system is needed by every country to provide a system of carrots and sticks to guide citizens on what is good for society and bad for society.  For example: good tax policy.

    Incentives

    • Tax Credits for things like education, improvements in your home, adopting a child, and other similar credits are things that give us incentives to do things that we see as being positive.
    • Muni Bonds are generally federally and state tax exempt. Generally the issuer of these bonds pays a lower rate due to the favorable tax treatment for the bond holder, and that reduces the cost of borrowing at a local level.
    • Deductions for things such as property taxes, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions give incentives for people to do things that are good for society.

    Disincentives

    • Sin Tax on things like alcohol, tobacco and other things that generally is not good for you. These taxes are used to help offset the cost of care needed for people who do this in excess.
    • Short Term Capital Gains have higher tax rate versus long-term capital gains and is used to provide a disincentive against speculation.

    In the U.S., there is a tremendous amount of taxes that people really do not understand or take into consideration when they think about their “average tax rate.” For example, there are FICA (7.65%), sales taxes (varies), property taxes, sin taxes, capital gains taxes, estate and inheritance taxes, excise taxes, just to name a few. The federal tax code is around 80,000 pages and very few people really understand it. Then you have 50 states and Washington, DC, which have their regulations as well. If, for example, you play professional basketball in all 50 states, you would have to file tax returns in all 50 states. This is way too intricate.

    With the issues that we are having with the national deficit – and those at a local level as well – we are hearing two things: Tax rates have to be increased, and spending needs to be decreased. I’m not sure if I agree with that. First, I think that tax revenues, not necessarily tax rates, need to be increased. Also, spending needs to decrease as a percentage of revenues, not necessarily in overall dollars if our revenues are increasing. This is done by increasing the revenues that we receive from income taxes and social security, by adding more jobs in the U.S., and leveling the expenses.

    Our current tax system is way too complex, does not provide incentives for companies to hire more employees, and is simply not very fair on many levels. We do not have to have the lowest rates in the world but we do need to be competitive. Companies and individuals work by the rules that we establish and then we blast them for working within these rules. Companies that leave money offshore and bring funds back into the U.S. is too expensive. If the rates were reasonable, they would bring the money back! We blast high-income earners for getting tax-free money for investing in muni bonds or getting tax credits, but that helps us lower our local costs and is helping our communities. They are playing within the rules.

    So what is my point here? Let’s stop pointing fingers at other people and blaming them for the problems that we have. Let’s accept that we all have a problem and that the solution to this problem involves many difficult decisions that will be costly to all of us. More important, we need to focus on job creation in the U.S. in areas in which people can earn a good wage, and then we can be competitive as a nation.

    A “fair” tax policy will have everyone upset and unfortunately nobody in Washington has the guts to stand up and do the right thing. Maybe someday someone will.

    To view this article on Executive Insight, please visit http://healthcare-executive-insight.advanceweb.com/Columns/Finance-and-Investment/A-Taxing-Situation.aspx

    Jerry Lynch is president of JFL Total Wealth Management and has over 25 years in insurance and financial planning. He has been a regular guest on CNBC, Fox, WABC and does regular articles for the Star Ledger, USA Today, CNBC, ExecutiveInsight, and many other publications. He was recently named as a 2013 Multi Year Top Wealth Manager by NJ Monthly Magazine and has been listed in the Consumers Research Counsels “Guide to America’s Top Financial Planner” since 2004.   

     

  • nj.com_

    Get With The Plan: Young couple started young, now want to stay on track

    karin njBy Karin Price Mueller/The Star-LedgerThe Star-Ledger on March 10, 2013 at 7:03 AM, updated March 10, 2013 at 7:07 AM

    The Situation: Ling, 38, and Tanya, 34, are huge savers. The parents of two young children save about 30 percent of their income towards goals including retirement and college. They’re considering buying a multi-family investment property to add more income to help them retire before age 65.

    The Way Out: The Mercer County couple is on the right track by saving so much and living below their means, but there are areas they can improve. They need more estate planning documents and they should move out of individual stocks and build a more diversified portfolio. They also need to do their homework before buying a multi-family investment property.

    Ling, 38, and Tanya, 34, know that starting young is important for financial freedom. The parents of two young children have a to-do list that’s run by their finances.

    “My wife and I maintain simple lifestyle,” Ling said. “My goals are to pay off the mortgage as soon as possible, save enough for retirement and fully fund my kids’ college education.” Ling said.

    The couple is also interested in another investment property, and when they retire someday — Ling hopes at age 60 — they’re thinking about a warmer climate.

    The couple, whose names have changed, have saved $274,000 in 401(k) plans, $122,000 in IRAs, $155,000 in a cash balance plan, $58,000 in a brokerage account, $143,000 in a money market, $18,000 in savings and $6,000 in checking. They’ve also set aside $59,000 for college.

    The Star-Ledger asked Jerry Lynch, a certified financial planner with JFL Total Wealth Management in Fairfield, to help the couple make the most of their resources.

    “Anyone who saves more than 30 percent of their income is going to do just fine,” Lynch says. “They have done very well saving and are definitely going in the right direction.”

    There are several items working in their favor.

    First, Ling has a stable income and he doesn’t expect that to change for at least the next few years. Tanya’s job is less stable, but she’s working, so that’s good.

    Ling’s potential pension is also important. He can take monthly payments or a lump sum upon retirement — something many of Lynch’s clients who retire younger than age 65 have in common.

    “This is a great benefit to have; however, I would expect that it may change over time as most companies hate the liability associated with them,” he says. “Any benefit that you have accrued is guaranteed under ERISA — the law that governs retirement plans — and if the company goes insolvent, the benefit is guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp up to certain limits.”

    The couple is also very focused on saving and investing, which Lynch says is critical to any good financial plan. They’re saving 30 percent of their income for retirement, college and other savings accounts.

    They also live below their means, and they have no credit card debt.

    Still, there are items that the couple could improve.

    They have a will, but it could be better, Lynch says. Importantly, they don’t have other critical estate planning documents such as living wills, powers of attorney and medical directives. They should see an estate planning professional to make sure they have all the documents they may need for any contingency.

    The couple also needs to re-examine the beneficiaries named in their accounts.

    “Minors cannot own assets so it is critical that you establish a trust that can accept the life insurance and IRAs,” he says. “Even if they could, at age 18 either they, or one of their crazy friends, will talk them into doing something stupid.”

    Lynch says most major assets — retirement plans and insurance policies — do not go through a will unless you direct the assets to do that. It’s essential to set up the beneficiary designations correctly.

    Looking at Ling’s and Tanya’s investments, they own a lot of individual securities and have a lot of cash.

    “Ling indicated that he was looking to get out of individual stocks and move more into Exchange Traded Funds — ETFs — and move his cash ‘at the right time,’ indicating that he thinks he can time the market,” Lynch says. “I have not seen anyone who can successfully do that on a regular basis. It is not about timing the market, but rather time in the market.”

    Lynch also took a look at their tax situation. The couple is in the marginal 33 percent federal tax bracket and around 6 percent for New Jersey.

    “The marginal rate is what happens to every additional dollar that you add into your plan,” he says. “Each additional dollar gets taxed at 39 percent from the Feds and state of New Jersey.”

    Additionally, Ling and Tanya are subject to the new health care tax on income of over $200,000 for single and $250,000 for family — when you count in Ling’s bonus. Lynch says this adds an additional .9 percent on earned income and an additional 4.4 percent on investment income such as interest, rental income and capital gains. This raises the marginal tax rate on investment income to around 44 percent, Lynch says.

    “With a tax rate this high, they need to be aware of the tax implications of every investment that they do,” he says. “They also have an issue with the alternative minimum tax which impacts his ability to deduct certain things.”

    Ling and Tanya are considering the purchase of more investment real estate.

    But Lynch says their consideration of buying a 10-family rental property — compared to the current condo they rent out — is like “moving from investing in an index fund to trading derivatives — extremely different.”

    Lynch says multi-family properties may require local and state inspections, and subject the couple to a host of regulations that they are not subject to with a single condo unit.

    The location of this property is another issue. They’re considering two different areas, but both are far from their home.

    “They are thinking about hiring a management company to help them, but I would say closer is preferable,” Lynch says. “Every once in a while you have to drop everything to deal with a problem and driving three hours each way, is really a lot of time.”

    He recommends they build a stable of advisers, including a certified public accountant, a real estate attorney, a certified financial planner, lenders, realtors and insurance specialists — before they make a purchase so they can understand all the issues.

    To view the article on NJ.com, please select the following link:

    http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2013/03/get_with_the_plan_young_couple.html

  • executive-insight-featured image size

    Executive Non-Qualified Compensation Plans

    With the increase in taxes on incomes starting at $200,000, paying an executive more compensation results in many receiving less than 50 cents on the dollar. Maybe we should compensate the executive with more employer-contributed funds.

    With the increase in taxes on incomes starting at $200,000, paying an executive more compensation (after you consider state, federal and sometimes city taxes) results in many receiving less than 50 cents on the dollar. This is not cost effective.  And once those funds go into that executive’s back account, you as an employer no longer have control — often that added pay is used to negotiate more money from another employer.

    Jerry Lynch HeadshotInstead, maybe we can compensate the executive with more employer-contributed funds in their 401(k) or 403(b) plan.  Employees this year can defer up to $17,500 plus another $5,500 if they are over age 50. On top of that, employer contributions can bring them to a total of $51,000 or $56,500 if they are over age 50. So why not do that?  In general, these plans are not created for executives — which creates unique problems in trying to help them save for retirement:

    • Testing — there are “fairness” tests in these plans that limit the ability to focus benefits on executives.  While you can give more to executives, generally that means that you have to give more to core employees.
    • Cost – since you have to include all eligible employees in the contributions, cost vs. benefit may not be justified with too little money actually getting to the executive.
    • Control – after an executive serves six years (sometimes less), all employer contributions are 100% vested and they can leave at any time after that with all of their (rather, your) money.
    • Funding — you cannot contribute enough money for a high income employee.  A 45-year-old executive making $100k can put 17.5% of their income into a retirement account. Yet that same person, making $500k, can only put away 3.5% … they cannot save enough in this plan.

    When an employer asks me, “What can we do for executives in their qualified retirement plan?” generally my answer is “it depends.”  Clearly the tactic does not work perfectly.

    So, if this is not the perfect solution in all situations, what else is there?  Let’s take a look at executive non-qualified compensation plans. These plans are designed and set up exclusively for top executives in the company. And almost any request that the employer has from a design or contribution standpoint, can be answered with a resounding “yes!”  For example:

    • Can I exclude certain employees and give more benefits to others? Yes!
    • Can I  put virtually unlimited dollars into the plan? Yes!
    • Does the executive defer taxes until a later date that we decide in advance? Yes!
    • Can I set it up so that I get all my money back if the executive leaves earlier  than we mutually agreed? Yes!
    • Can I set it up so I recover all of my cost for doing this? Yes!

    So what is the catch?  First, the money left in the company is an “unsecured promise to pay,” so if the company has a problem (think Enron, Lehman Brothers, etc.), then the funds are at risk.

    Second, someone must take a tax hit today, which they recover when the benefit is paid out.  Here’s an example. if I set aside $100k in this plan for an executive, that will count as earnings left in the company that the company pays taxes on.  In “S” corporations or LLC’s that are flow-through tax entities, this may mean that the owner gets hit with the tax liability personally. This is not lost however; when the benefit is paid out in the future, they get a full deduction on all the money paid to the executive plus the growth of that money as well. I call this “warehousing a tax deduction.”

    Please understand that this is an incredibly basic summary of a non-qualified plan and you need to understand that in the right situation, these programs work amazingly well — yet in the wrong situation, not so much. They can be powerful tools in retaining top talent in your organization and are even more important as tax rates continue to rise. This may not be perfect, but it does work really well.

    To view on the Executive Insight website, please follow this link: Executive Insight Magazine

    Jerry Lynch, president of JFL Total Wealth Management, has over 25 years in insurance and financial planning. He was recently named as a 2013 Multi-Year Five Star Wealth Manager by NJ Monthly Magazine and has been listed in the Consumers Research Counsels “Guide to America’s Top Financial Planners’ since 2004. Contact: jerry.lynch@jflconsultinginc.com, (973) 439-1190.

« Previous Entries   

Recent Comments

  • Is the conference for Saturday, November 3rd, still happenin...
  • Publication 555 page 8 addresses the death of a spouse in a ...
  • I'd really be interested to know your authority for the stat...
  • Thank you for this very useful information.