The Retirement Improvements and Savings Enhancements Act (“RISE Act“) has drastic changes and provisions that effect self-directed IRA investors. From mandatory third-party valuations on all retirement account investment transactions to changing the 50% disqualified company rule to 10%, the bill has some significant changes that will negatively affect your ability to self-direct your account. There are some favorable provisions for IRA owners, however, the negatives greatly outweigh the positives.
Most Important Provisions
The bill sponsor is Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Here’s a quick run-down of the most troublesome provisions that apply to self-directed IRA investors:
- Valuation Purchase/Sale Requirement. Mandatory Valuation Requirement for Private IRA (non-public stock market) Transactions: The new proposal seeks to require gifting valuation rules and standards for IRA transactions. This rule will force IRA owners to get a valuation before making any private investment. This valuation would include real estate, private company (e.g. LLC, LP, corporation), and note investments. The gifting valuation rules were created to value gifts where no value is set between a buyer and seller. mandating those same rules on actual transactions between an IRA and another unrelated party is unrealistic and unnecessary to establish actual fair market value.
- 50% Rule is Reduced to a New 10% Rule: Changes the 50% rule that states a company is a disqualified person to an IRA when it is owned 50% or more by disqualified persons (e.g. IRA owner and certain family). The new rule makes a company disqualified when owned 10% or more by disqualified persons.
- Roth IRAs Capped at $5M: Roth IRAs will be capped at $5M. Any amount over $5M must be distributed from the Roth IRA.
- Eliminate Roth Conversions: Traditional IRA funds cannot be converted to Roth IRA funds. Roth IRAs will be allowed only if the account owner makes initial Roth IRA contributions and only when they meet the Roth IRA contribution limits, which restricts high-income earners.
- Require RMD for Roth IRAs: Roth IRAs are currently not subject to required minimum distribution (“RMD”) rules because the amounts distributed do not result in tax. This rule will change and RMD will apply to Roth IRAs when the account holder reaches age 70 ½.
These proposals will have drastic impacts on self-directed IRA investors. The valuation requirement is perhaps the most dramatic as it will require valuations before an IRA can buy an asset and before it can sell an asset. Not only will this cause administrative issues and increased costs, but it will undoubtedly replace the ability of an IRA buyer or an IRA seller from transacting their IRA at the price and value they determine to represent the actual current fair market value of their investments.
I have written a detailed analysis of the bill which I plan to share with the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation. I welcome your input as a self-directed IRA investor and plan to advocate for common-sense rules that help self-directed investors take control of their retirement. My draft bill analysis can be accessed at the link below. Please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.
A Joint Venture Agreement (aka, “JV Agreement”) is a document many business owners and investors should become familiar with. In short, a JV Agreement is a contract between two or more parties where the parties outline the venture, who is providing what (money, services, credit, etc.), what the parties responsibility and authority are, how decisions will be made, how profits/losses are to be shared, and other venture specific terms.
A joint venture agreement is typically used by two parties (companies or individuals) who are entering into a “one-off” project, investment, or business opportunity. In many instances, the two parties will form a new company such as an LLC to conduct operations or to own the investment and this is usually the recommended path if the parties intend to operate together over the long term. However, if the opportunity between the parties is a “one-off” venture where the parties intend to cease working together once the agreement or deal is completed, a joint venture agreement may be an excellent option.
For example, consider a common JV Agreement scenario used by real estate investors. A real estate investor purchases a property in their LLC or s-corporation and intends to rehab and then sell the property for a profit. The real estate investors finds a contractor to conduct the rehab and the arrangement with the contractor is that the contractor will be reimbursed their expenses and costs and is then paid a share of the profits from the sale of the property following the rehab. In this scenario, the JV Agreement works well as the parties can outline the responsibilities and how profits/losses will be shared following the sale of the property. It is possible to have the contractor added to the real estate investors s-corporation or LLC in order to share in profits, but that typically wouldn’t be advisable as that contractor would permanently be an owner of the real estate investor’s company and the real estate investor will likely use that company for other properties and investments where the contractor is not involved. As a result, a JV Agreement between the real estate investors company that owns the property and the contractors construction company that will complete the construction work is preferred as each party keeps control and ownership of their own company and they divide profits and responsibility on the project being completed together.
While a new company is not required when entering into a JV Agreement, many JV Agreements benefit from having a joint venture specific LLC that is created just for the purpose of the JV Agreement. This venture specific LLC is advisable in a couple of situations. First, where the parties do not have an entity under which to conduct business and which will provide liability protection. In this instance, a new company should be formed anyways for liability purposes and depending on the parties future intentions a new LLC between the parties may work well. Second, where the arrangement carries significant liability, capital, or other resources. The more money, time, and liability involved in the venture will give more reason to having a separate new LLC to own the new venture and to isolate liability, capital, and other resources. A $1M deal or venture could be done with a JV Agreement alone, however, the parties would be well advised to establish a new entity as part of the JV Agreement. On the other hand, if the venture is only a matter of tens of thousands of dollars, the costs of a new entity may outweigh the benefits of a separate LLC for the venture.
There are numerous scenarios where JV Agreements are used in real estate investments, business start-ups, and in other business situations. Careful consideration should be made when entering into a JV Agreement and each Agreement is always unique and requires some special tailoring.