IRA Aggregation Rules Interpretation
As a preface to my question, I have a retired client sge 70 1/2, who is about to roll over her 401(k) from her former employer. Her 401(k) account breakdown is as follows:
Pre-Tax account balance: $402,201
After-Tax account balance: 334,140
Pre-1987 After-Tax: 271,391
Company Match: 957,997
Pre-87 After-Tax Basis: 14,420
Post 86 After-Tax Basis: 56,832
My Question: I had planned to take her After-Tax basis (both pre and post) and transfer these to a taxable brokerage account; not part of her rollover. My client has mentioned that someone in the HR Department of her former employer had metioned that she could transfer her after tax basis to a non-deductible IRA and then convert it to a Roth.
Don’t the new aggregation rules effectively eliminate the benefits of the Roth by forcing her to withraw, pro-rata, the percentage of her non-deductible IRA that would be converted?
Thank you for any consideration you can provide me with.
Jim Clark, ChFC
Permalink Submitted by Alan - IRA critic on Wed, 2013-12-11 03:21
Permalink Submitted by James Clark on Thu, 2013-12-12 04:29
Alan: The breakdown cost basis given was exactly as stated on the client’s 401(k) statement. As I understand it, Pre-87 at one time was allowed to be withdrawn separate from any rollover without tax. Post 87 withdrawals required one dollar of Pre-Tax withdrawal for each dollar of After-Tax withdrawn. If this client can withdraw her Pre-87 After-Tax amount free of any taxes and roll it to a Roth, that is exactly what I wanted to confirm before proceeding. She will take her RMD as well.My interpretation of the aggregation rules led me to believe that such a Roth rollover would be rendered almost useless because her tax free treatment % would be confined to the ratio of her After-Tax basis to the total value of all IRA accounts.Thanks.
Permalink Submitted by Alan - IRA critic on Thu, 2013-12-12 16:21
The pre 87 after tax contribution amount is apparently 14,420. This can still be distributed separately upon specific request and is not subject to pro rating. If the other post tax amount of 56,832 is kept in a separate sub account, that also could be distributed separately in some plans, but the plan administrator would have to clarify if that is possible. If so, that would satisfy the RMD, but not leave much in excess of the RMD to be rolled to a Roth IRA. There would be no need to do a direct rollover of totally after tax amounts because withholding would not apply, so client could do the Roth rollover herself. Then the remaining pre tax balance in the plan could be distributed in a separate direct rollover later on. In your last sentence I think you meant the “total value of the plan” rather than IRA accounts.