Delaware Sen. William Roth gave his name to this type of retirement benefit. It’s simple, sort of. You don’t get a tax deduction when the contributions are made, but you don’t pay taxes when the account is distributed at retirement. You give up a current tax saving in exchange for a greater one later. Is this a good deal? The answer is definitely, sometimes.

If you knew that you would pay a higher tax rate in retirement, Roth tax treatment would clearly be better. Conversely, if you knew that your tax rate would be much lower in retirement, it might be better to stay with the traditional method of planning: a deduction up front and taxation later. Opinions vary on this subject, and studies have been made to try to determine when and whether one method is superior to the other. There are some unknown elements: not only your own tax rate but tax rates in general. Who can predict what income tax rates will be 10 or 20 years from now? Or that Roth treatment will still be in effect?

For now, here are two situations in which Roth treatment makes sense. First, if you have a child who has a summer job, it makes sense that the child have a Roth IRA. In most cases, kids with summer jobs have little or no income tax liability anyway, so a deduction for an IRA contribution is of no value to them. Then, they will have many years in which the Roth IRA can grow tax-free. When the funds are distributed, perhaps 50 years later, the small contributions from summer jobs could be a large amount.

Here’s another possible benefit: Roth IRAs do not have minimum distribution rules, unlike standard IRAs and qualified plans. If an individual has other assets such that he or she won’t need the Roth money, the balance can be left in for the rest of the individual’s life and be paid out only in the next generation. This extremely long-term accumulation period, followed by no tax on distribution, can make Roth a valuable planning benefit.

People with standard benefits can convert them to Roth benefits by paying taxes on them now. After that, any distributions will be free of tax. The ability to convert is limited to those with income below certain levels, but that restriction will end by 2010. At that time, anyone will be able to convert to Roth treatment. This opens up the possibility of interesting estate planning with Roth benefits, which we’ll discuss in another blog.

Republished with permission of The Legal Intelligencer.

What bills do I have to pay? Will I have enough income to cover my expenses now that my spouse is gone? Will I have to sell my home? Or, will I have enough to make gifts to children and grandchildren during my life? These kinds of questions, which arise frequently in estate planning and administration, demonstrate the need for a kind of planning that incorporates knowledge of retirement plans, financial planning, elder law and estate-planning concepts. Lawyers practicing trusts and estates have most of these skills and need to understand the importance of having a wider view of the planning client’s requirements.

I have discussed with clients the preparation of a template during the lifetime of the financial spouse, setting forth what expenses need to be met and how they are paid:

• Bills paid every month, such as telephone, other utilities, car payments.
• Bills paid on a regular but not monthly basis, such as auto and homeowners insurance, life and disability insurance premiums.
• Bills paid as expenses are incurred or are chosen to be paid, such as credit cards, contributions, medical and dental expenses, veterinarian (if you live at my house), car repair, home repairs.

A second part of the template is things to do during the course of the year:

• Car inspections.
• Home inspections.
• Medical and dental checkups.
• Memberships in various organizations, such as ambulance services, that are useful to families.
• Required distributions from retirement plans, depending on the survivor’s age.
• Filing tax returns and paying any required estimated taxes.

A third part of the template is a list of the people to contact for assistance:

• Lawyer (always the top of the list).
• Accountant.
• Insurance agents.
• Home service and repair people.
• Car repair services.
• Other specialized assistance.

And, finally, it’s important to have good organization of the information. There’s no point in assembling information if the survivor can’t find it. I’ve had some clients who went a little overboard on this (”walk three paces to the left”), but it is important that the survivor know where things are. As the large Baby Boom Generation moves toward retirement and beyond, it will be important to help them plan these practical aspects of the balance of their lives.

Republished with permission of The Legal Intelligencer.

Dagwood began as the heir to an industrial empire, the Bumstead Locomotive Works. He fell in love with Blondie Boopadoop, whom his family considered beneath him socially. When he insisted on marrying Blondie anyway, his father disinherited him. Thus ended his future of becoming an executive in a large industrial concern, and he turned instead to more than 70 years of wage slavery, carpools, running into the mailman, etc. He seems to have become stuck as the equivalent of a third year associate. Meanwhile, Blondie started her own business, and the Bumstead Locomotive Works has disappeared. Perhaps Dagwood could have saved the company and redirected its business to defense contracting or microchips.

What’s the lesson for those thinking about family business succession, which is one of the most difficult goals to achieve but one of the most satisfying when it is achieved? It’s a better course of action for the family members to discuss each of their goals and plans. Bumstead Senior should have realized the consequences of leaving no one to follow him in the business. Dagwood could have suggested that he come into the business on a lower level so that he could prove himself. Senior’s lawyer could have explained how disinheriting his son would probably put an end to the plans to have the business remain in the family and successful. But I suppose that wouldn’t make for a good comic strip; better to feature big sandwiches and funny bowties.

Here are two sources of learning on the process of business succession, very different but both helpful. One is a book titled “Estate & Business Succession Planning,” by Russell J. Fishkind and Robert C. Kautz. The second is a series of programs on succession planning that feature a theatrical performance of vignettes in the story of family businesses. These programs have been arranged by a psychologist, Dr. Scott Budge, who has spoken for PBI on business succession planning. They are presented in Philadelphia from time to time.

Republished with permission of The Legal Intelligencer.

By the way, the idea that you need to remain in the city where your law practice is located in order to continue to have an involvement in that practice is fast fading away. Just last week, a lawyer from a suburb of Detroit, who is suing one of my clients, called me from somewhere deep in the heart of North Carolina, from where he is able to be heavily involved in the frivolous litigation he is pursuing.

Why is Pennsylvania so popular among retirees, especially those in the neighboring states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland? One important reason is the taxation of retirement income, such as Social Security and retirement plan distributions. There is no income tax imposed by Pennsylvania on bona fide retirement income, which is not the case in the neighboring states. If your income in retirement consists only of Social Security benefits and amounts you withdraw from a 401(k) plan, for example, your Pa. income tax will be zero. That is not the case, again for example, in New Jersey. And if you worked in New Jersey to earn a retirement benefit, New Jersey can’t reach across the river to tax it if you move to Pennsylvania, under federal law. (But here’s a caveat: Be sure to check the Pennsylvania rules to be certain that your retirement distributions qualify. Nearly all distributions after age 59 1/2 will qualify, but check the rules anyway.)

Yes, we have a sales tax, which Delaware does not have (although there are a large number of “big box” stores suspiciously close to the Pennsylvania border) and yes, we still have the state store system (again, some really good wine stores just across the border in New Jersey and Delaware, I’m told), but Pennsylvania has a big advantage in the taxation of retirement income. That, combined with reasonable property taxes and access to a world of sports, culture and recreational activities, is why Pennsylvania has one of the largest populations of retirees of any state.

Republished with permission of The Legal Intelligencer.

The aim, they suggest, should be to move the average retirement age from 63 to 66. This will increase Social Security benefits payable, permit workers to build up larger retirement balances and reduce the period during which they must rely on retirement assets. One way of encouraging this trend might be to increase the earliest age for receiving Social Security benefits, which is now age 62.

But here’s another one, which I have suggested in earlier posts: provide income tax incentives for workers to continue working beyond age 62. For instance, for those age 62 and over, the federal income tax rate on the first $50,000 of income could be set at 10%, with a 15% rate on the next $50,000. This would surely encourage people to continue working, adding more to Social Security trust funds and delaying the payout of benefits.

This is a good time to review what deferred compensation plans and arrangements are now in effect, whether they need to be amended and how they will be amended. Deferred compensation can be a valuable tool for businesses to provide incentives to executives, but it’s important that the new law be satisfied.

• Federal estate tax: This discussion has been going on for several years, with much misinformation being spread about. (Read “Wealth and Our Commonwealth” by William H. Gates and Chuck Collins for a good review of this debate.) But there will be changes in our federal estate tax system in the future because leaders in both parties agree that the tax must be revised to include only the truly wealthy, not those who bought a home in a good neighborhood. There might be relief for small businesses and farmers, but in general the tax should be one that allows people to pass on some of the fruits of their life’s work without destroying the incentive of the next generation to take part in life’s struggle.
• Federal income tax: The reductions in income tax rates that were enacted in 2001 are scheduled to phase out in a few years. One solution is to extend indefinitely, but this easy answer has to be balanced against the colossal budget deficits that have resulted, in part, from those tax reductions. The view that those budget deficits can go on forever and will somehow be resolved or will disappear as a result of future growth is now classified with bedtime stories.
• Alternative minimum tax: Whose idea was this anyway? In the past few years, we’ve had small bandages applied to this gaping wound in our tax system. Some have suggested just repealing it, which would only result in even larger budget deficits. But reducing its effect to those who are perceived as not paying a fair share of taxes, which was the original intent of the law, will require that some difficult choices be made. Doing nothing (which is a skill of both political parties): not an option.
• Social Security taxes: Someone will have to finally accept that this problem also can’t be ignored or magically wished away with private accounts, and that higher taxes will only be acceptable to a limited degree. As last week’s blog indicated, you can either increase revenues or reduce benefits; there’s no third way.

All of these problems will have to be addressed by our next president, either John or Barack. In the course of resolving them, many provisions of our tax laws will be placed on the table: taxation of life insurance, employee benefit taxation, relief for older taxpayers and those with children. Many constituencies will be contending for their interests. It’s important for all of us to know what’s happening, and to plan for change, for us and for our clients.

Republished with permission of The Legal Intelligencer.

But this problem isn’t going away, nor is the Medicare problem on the verge of resolution. Both of these programs face long-term funding challenges and waiting another few years to think about them again isn’t going to make their solution any easier.

An interesting Web site is maintained by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, and included on the Web site is a publication called the “Social Security Fix-It Book.” There are only a certain number of possible solutions to these problems, and the center has summarized them in 52 clearly written and entertaining pages. The publication begins with basic facts about how Social Security works and then makes the following fairly simple statement: The only two ways to fix the problem are to cut benefits or increase revenues. There is no magic formula that will painlessly make Social Security financially solvent for the indefinite future.

There are a couple of ways to cut benefits:

• An across the board percentage benefits cut that affects everyone, including those now receiving benefits.
• Raising the normal retirement age for full benefits, as has already occurred.
• Freezing the purchasing power of benefits, which means that future benefit amounts would be lower than under the current law.
• Freezing the purchasing power, but to a lesser degree for lower income earners.
• Changing the cost of living adjustment for benefits.
• Doing nothing and cutting benefits all at once in 2040

And, there are a couple of ways to increase revenues:

• Increasing the payroll tax rate today.
• Raising the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes.
• Financing Social Security with revenues from the federal estate tax.
• Transferring Social Security’s startup costs (from benefits paid in the early years of the program) to general revenues.
• Increasing the rate of return on assets held in the Social Security Trust Fund.
• Waiting until 2040 to raise taxes.

What to do? The publication ends by asking these three questions, the answers to which will determine how to fix Social Security:

• Do we want to keep benefits about where they are now? If so, how should the burden be shared?
• Do we want to keep taxes about where they are now? If so, how do we cut benefits?
• Finally, should each generation pay about the same tax and get about the same benefits?

Republished with permission of The Legal Intelligencer.

The father had decided to make his estate planning easy. “I’ll just buy CDs in my name and in the names of each of my children. That way, when I die, each of them will have a CD now in his or her sole name.” So, to carry out this idea, the father bought one CD with Child No. 1’s name on it in addition to his, a second in the name of Child No. 2 and the father all the way up to five children. The trouble was, he forgot how much he had purchased for each child, so the amounts were uneven. One child would get $100,000, another $10,000.

But Dad planned how to solve that problem. In his will, he wrote: “If any of the CDs I bought aren’t equal among my children, I ask them to straighten it out.” What do you think happened? Wrong, they did straighten it out. In one of those unusual family situations, the children who got more recognized their obligation to the others and entered into a family settlement. Sometimes it snows in April.

It’s important to remember that a will isn’t the only document that determines how assets are distributed. Life insurance beneficiary forms, retirement plan beneficiary designations and joint title on assets are all forms of testamentary dispositions; that is, they are all wills. Most people don’t know where these forms of wills are, sometimes can’t remember what they say and usually haven’t put them together so that they understand what their estate plan is. But it’s important to do this, because not every family (and, in fact, very few) is as close and understanding as the one described above.

Republished with permission of The Legal Intelligencer.