Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

For Catch and others...

edited May 2013 in Off-Topic
Greetings!
Thanks for the "heads-up" about the spousal IRA. I called my tax guy and he assures me that if we file jointly, it would not be necessary to open a separate IRA for her and put the money into an IRA in HER name---because she is the one earning income, as opposed to my pension. . One tax form covers the two of us, we are taxed jointly. That's the logic. We report our income together. We're both in the same picture. I trust him, but does that not sound kosher to you?

Comments

  • The law allows you to fund an IRA if the family income is sufficient. but IRA is personal account. You cannot simply take her contribution and your contribution and put all in one account. Yours need to go into your account, hers needs to go to her account. I think you misunderstood your tax guy or he misunderstood you and gave an incomplete or confusing reply. Excess contributions will create quite a bit of problem with IRS and you would be asked to withdraw excess money and pay penalties. Do the right thing. Contribute his and hers.
  • OK, then. Will do.
  • edited May 2013
    ....But...I just did---at last--- come across this precise wording from the IRS source that Catch22 offered me a day or two ago:
    "Contributions can be made to your traditional IRA for
    each year that you receive compensation and have not
    reached age 70 and a half. For any year in which you do not work,
    contributions cannot be made to your IRA unless you re-
    ceive alimony, nontaxable combat pay, military differential
    pay, or file a joint return with a spouse who has compen-
    sation
    . ........That final phrase puts me at ease about LAST year's return. And it clearly will not be necessary to open an IRA for wifey, as long as she's working.....Why does this crap have to be so complicated? I trust what you guys are advising for me, but then I read THIS thing... "What's a mother to do?" JEEZ.
  • Max

    So you have an IRA and the wife does not? Maybe she does not qualify for an IRA does she at least have a ROTH?

    Art
  • edited May 2013
    Reply to @Art: Hello, Art. Yes, I'm the one with the IRA. (Traditional.) My wife is 40 and qualifies, but does not have an IRA (yet) of either type--- Traditional or Roth....She only came to the USA in 2003, and we have kept things simpler by not having two IRA accounts. We could never afford to contribute the maximum into my own IRA until last year, when I came into some inheritance money. And we are absolutely certain of a bond which will mature at exactly $6,000 on July 1st. I had intended to put that full amount into my IRA, but now am worried about doing that... But better safe than sorry.

    So, I suppose based on that excerpt further up the page from the IRS Publication, the $6,000 we put into my Trad. IRA for 2012 is permitted. My tax guy didn't think anything of it. He saw the documents, all the 1099s, etc.

    I worked for taxable wages just ONE DAY in 2012. Other than that, I have a very small pension. Now, it is my wife who makes the money. (I retired officially and started collecting my pension as of 1/1/2012.) She is working full time hours, and is moonlighting at another job, but her status at the job is not yet full-time, even though it's been promised to her. They love her work. She has the paperwork to be included in their DEFINED CONTRIBUTION ANNUITY retirement plan, but has not yet filed those papers. I believe the reason is that she just hasn't been convinced that waiting so long to get her money back (no earlier than age 59 and a half) would be WORTH the WAIT. I have tried and tried to tell her. But anyhow, she is right now still part-time officially. Working 30+ hours per week.

    I spoke to her and of course she's willing to start an IRA. But she's still not 50 years old yet, and so it looks like we would miss out on the $1,000 difference between the $5,000 the government would allow HER and the $6,000 the government HAD (?) allowed ME, in prior years. In prior years, we did well if we could manage to throw $1,000 into the IRA each year.

    Our income is so low that I don't bet we'll ever leave the 10% bracket. And that's where we've always been. If we open a ROTH for her now, the tax on it is due right away, each year, rather than tax-deferred. What's the advantage to choosing ROTH for her? Why pay uncle Sam before we are required to do it, I'm wondering? We will not be dropping into a lower tax bracket in the future.

    Thanks for stopping and listening. (But honestly, based on the IRS excerpt above, why would it be necessary to open an IRA for her? The "unless" phrase DOES apply to me, since I'm married, filing jointly, and my spouse works for taxable wages.)

    I need to make sure to get this right. I don't need to call my tax guy AGAIN about the same thing. It would be just as easy to open an IRA for my wife and put the money in there. But we could sure use the tax deduction, going with a Traditional IRA.

    Investor has offered a clear, short and sweet reply already, above. Please, any of you: please "chime in" here if you have any input. Thanks. The IRS regulations are a confusing, confounding pile of smelly, rotten feces. ..."Your tax dollars at work!"
  • Reply to @MaxBialystock: it is ok. What I was warning is this: You can contribute to your own account up to the limit w/o problems if are filing jointly and wife has enough earned income. It is the exceeding of limit that would open you to penalties. So if you contributed 6000 for you and added 3000 more for your wife to the SAME account owned by you, it would be problem. But you can put 6000 for yourself in your account and 3000 in her account it would be ok if you file jointly and have that much earned income to cover both.

    It is best if you can put money in both accounts. Take full advantage of the opportunity. Since you are in low taxable brackets it makes much more sense to put the monies to Roth accounts for you and wife rather than traditional IRA.
  • edited May 2013
    Reply to @MaxBialystock: if you only have $6000 to put, I would put $5000 for her in her IRA (Roth preferably) and put $1000 in yours. It is only fair that she gets the first in line since it is her job that is making it possible for both of you.

    Ideally I want prefer you guys put the max you are entitled. $5000 for her and $6000 for you. If you do not have enough I understand but you can do some part time job somewhere to earn a few thousand dollars to make it possible.

    Btw, 2013 contribution limit increased to $5500 for standard contribution and plus $1000 additionsl for catchup if you are over 50. So, you have opportunity to contribute more this year.
  • Reply to @MaxBialystock:
    Please see publication 590 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/
    and pose questions on Fairmark.com, where questions are answered by CPAs, enrolled agents, and others.
  • Max

    Investor says what I think but would not say. If a divorce were to happen you would split the IRA no matter whose name it is in. What we do is put an equal amount for my wife and I in our Roth's. While the Roth contributions have been taxed it is like a savings account as the money can be gotten without penalty(original contribution's only) in case of an emergency.

    Another advantage of a Roth is no RMD's or Required Minimum Distributions. When you reach age 70-1/2 you will be required to remove some of your IRA and pay taxes regardless if you need the money or not. Depending on your age the money you put in this year may not stay in the IRA long. I would open a IRA for your wife and a ROTH for you. Control your money, don't let the U.S. Government do it for you.

    Art
  • I truly appreciate the replies! Thanks, everyone. The information is like a blessing.
  • If she doesn't have to contribute to the "defined contribution annuity" at work I wouldn't have her do it.

    Since you're not currently maxing out an IRA, I think she'd be better off putting whatever money she would have put in the annuity program into a Roth instead...No taxes on the way out, no RMD and more importantly, better investment options and I'm sure MUCH lower fees.
  • OK, we can skip the annuity. Stinky option, anyway. The hospital (she's working for a hosp.) puts money into it FOR the employee in the Spring of each year AFTER any year that the employee worked enough hours to qualify for the hospital's contribution. It's done once per year, in one big slug. I suppose we'll be receiving SOMETHING from that in years to come. But we won't contribute to it. There are some mutual fund options and some short-term options. I looked, and it appears that the mutual fund options are "R" or "Z" shares, and so the front-load is waived. I could be mistaken..... When I called the hosp. for some answers, they hardly wanted to talk to me, because I'm not the employee. Another reason they didn't want to talk to me is because they don't know shit about their own Plan. They advised me to Call Mass. Mutual instead, because MM is the plan sponsor. Of course, the hosp. chooses the safest, least risky default option if you yourself do not choose a destination for that money.

    I suppose for others, the decision to go with Roth or Trad. IRA is simpler and clearer. We'll be more comfortable once I'm drawing SS. But all along, we're helping family back in Asia. The Trad. IRA tax deduction smells attractive to us, in the 10% bracket. I actually don't mind the RMD. We might very well be living cheaply in the Philippines by the time I get to 70 and a half, if my health holds up. That particular aspect of things is already less than ideal. There's 19 years between us, too. When I'm out of the picture, she says she will want to be living in The Philippines. I don't blame her....
  • Reply to @Investor: I really can't work. Too much pain. I'm not officially disabled, but realize at the same time that the f****** government will never grant disability: I'm not a bricklayer or lumberjack whose physical problem "prevents me from working." My time out of work has been extended now, so I'll never get hired. Life's not fair, and I get that. I'm trying to be useful, get out of the house, language-tutoring... FISHING. Yes, THAT is very appealing. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.