by Mat Sorensen | Jan 12, 2016 | UBIT & UDFI Tax
The most common asset class for self-directed IRA accounts is real estate. Real estate investments for self-directed IRAs come in various forms from simple single-family rentals owned 100% by the IRA to LLC or LP investment partnerships with multiple investors in larger commercial or multi-family properties.
Given the changes in federal securities laws that now allow investment sponsors and real estate syndicators to raise capital more easily, many self directed IRA investors have considered investing their IRAs into these offerings. Crowdfunding sites such as Realcrowd are already offering Crowdfunding type investment opportunities for investors under SEC Rule 506(c). This rule and those investments are currently only available to accredited investors and have no restriction on the investment amount that may come from the accredited investor. These offerings have traditionally been known as private placements or “PPMs” but can now be marketed and there is no requirement that they be “private” so long as the offering company only accepts accredited investors.
For those who are not accredited investors, “true” Crowdfunding under Title III of the JOBS Act goes into effect in May of 2016. Under these Crowdfunding offerings everyone will be able to invest into Crowdfunding opportunities and the investment amount will be based on the investor’s income and assets. These new Crowdfunding rules were enacted in Title III of the JOBS Act and were put into final regulations by the SEC in late 2015.
Before investing your self-directed IRA into a real estate Crowdfunding offering, you must first learn and understand one very important tax called UBIT tax that may apply to your self-directed IRA’s income.
Will My IRA Be Subject to UBIT Tax?
Unrelated Business Income Tax (“UBIT”) applies to an IRA that receives non-passive income. UBIT is a hefty tax and has a maximum rate of 39.6%. IRC § 511. The tax table is copied below.
2016 UBIT Tax Rates
| If taxable income is: |
The tax is: |
| Not over $2550 |
15% of the taxable income |
| Over $2550 but not over $5950 |
$375 plus 25% of the excess over $2550 |
| Over $5950 but not over $9050 |
$1225 plus 28% of the excess over $5950 |
| Over $9050 but not over $12300 |
$2107 plus 33% of the excess over $9050 |
| Over $12400 |
$3179 plus 39.6% of the excess over $12400 |
Although not shown on the table, the first $1,000 in UBIT gross income is exempt and you receive an automatic $1,000 deduction.
UBIT will apply to your self-directed IRAs real estate investment in two scenarios. First, it will apply if the income to the IRA is ordinary. And second, it will apply if the offering company uses debt to acquire its properties.
Step One: Is the income passive?
First, UBIT will apply if the investment is an ordinary income producing business. An ordinary income business in real estate investing would include investing into an LLC or LP that conducts new construction, real estate developments held for sale, or other activities that are deemed business activities. Passive income investments, on the other hand, are specifically exempt from UBIT and include real estate rental income, capital gain income, interest income, and dividend income from a c-corp. IRC § 512(b). The vast majority of real estate Crowdfunding offerings are structured to obtain passive income such as rental income while the property is held and capital gain income when the property is sold. Typical real estate offerings where UBIT can be due include offerings to fix and flip properties or offerings for new construction or real estate development where the investment strategy is to buy properties to then immediately sale.
If you have an investment offering that is ordinary income (e.g. a fix and flip fund), then the income to the IRA from the fund will be subject to UBIT tax and the IRA will be required to file and pay the tax each year by using IRS Form 990-T. This responsibility to file the return each year is on the IRA account owner and not the investment sponsor or the IRA custodian so IRA owners need to know for themselves whether the IRA is subject to UBIT or not. So for example, let’s say that a self-directed IRA invested into a Crowdfunding offering that was a real estate development with properties held immediately for sale and that the income was ordinary income. Let’s further assume that the self-directed IRA received a K-1 for profits to the IRA for the year of $10,000. Based on the UBIT tax table, the IRA would owe UBIT tax in the amount of $2,420. This amount is due from the IRA to the IRS and is reported and payable using form 990-T.
If you’ve determined that the Crowdfunding offering income is passive (e.g. rental, capital gain), then you may still be subject to UBIT if the LLC or LP offering company is using debt to leverage and acquire its properties.
Step Two: Will the investment be leveraged with debt?
Second, UBIT will apply to profits returned to your IRA from a Crowdfunding real estate offering (and really any real estate owned by your IRA) if the offering company uses debt to leverage its acquisition of properties. For example, let’s say the offering company raises $1M in cash to buy a $4M multi-family property. There will be $1M of cash invested into the property and $3M of debt. The property will therefore be leveraged 75% with debt.
Whenever an IRA’s investment is leveraged with debt, the tax code requires the IRA owner to determine what profits are attributable to the IRAs cash and what profits are attributable to the debt. The profits attributable to the cash invested is still treated as tax deferred (traditional IRA) or tax free (roth IRA) and is not subject to UBIT. The profits and income attributable to the debt, however, is called unrelated debt financed income (“UDFI”) and is subject to UBIT. IRC § 514. So, in the multi-family property example above where the property is leveraged 75% with debt, the self-directed IRA will be subject to UBIT tax on 75% of the income.
In order to calculate UBIT tax based on debt, you must first determine the leverage ratio. Once we know the leverage ratio, we can then begin to calculate how UBIT will apply. The good news is that the IRA is also allowed to take expenses against the property using the same leverage ratio and is able to take depreciation expenses which help to offset UBIT. In many situations, even where a property is cash-flowing the IRA will not be subject to UBIT because the property expenses and depreciation will offset UBIT income.
Let’s continue through this example to illustrate how this works.
Example
Property Purchase Price = $4M
Debt/Leverage = $3M
Leverage Ration = 75%
Income = $1.3M
Income at Leverage Ratio (75%) = $975,000
Operating Expenses= $1,000,000
Operating Expenses at Leverage Ratio (75%) = $750,000
Net Leveraged Income = $225,000
Depreciation Expense ($4M / 27.5) = $145,500
Depreciation Expense at Leverage Ratio = $109,125
Net UDFI/UBIT Income = $115,875
SDIRA Investor Invested $20K and received 1.5% of Company Profit/Loss
SDIRA Investor 1.5% of Net UDFI/UBIT = $1,738.
Automatic IRS $1,000 deduction = $738 subject to UBIT/UDFI
UBIT Table Rate of 15% of $738 = $110 in UBIT is Due
As the example demonstrates, given the low-level of investment from the IRA it isn’t subject to much UBIT as the net UBIT income (after expenses and depreciation) keeps the tax rate on the low end of the tax table. That being said, 990-T tax returns must be filed by the IRA investor for the IRA and the IRA will be responsible for the tax due. Factors that will cause more UBIT are higher returns and income, larger investment amounts and ownership, and more leverage.
While self-directed IRA’s are subject to UDFI and UBIT on leveraged real estate investments, it is worth noting that self-directed 401(k) and other employer based plans are exempt from UDFI on leveraged real estate investments. IRC § 514(9). Unfortunately, self-directed IRAs do not receive this exemption.
So, in short, the quick list to determine whether UBIT will be due a self-directed IRA Crowdfunding real estate investment requires analysis of two issues. First, is the offering company’s income passive or is it ordinary. If it is ordinary then it is subject to UBIT. If it is passive, then it is only subject to UBIT if the company uses debt to leverage its investments. Once you can answer these questions you know whether UBIT will apply to your investment and whether your IRA will need to report and pay tax on its income.
by Mat Sorensen | Dec 1, 2015 | News
If you are age 70 1/2 or older and if you have a traditional IRA (or SEP or SIMPLE IRA or 401k), you must take your 2015 required minimum distributions (“RMD”) by December 31, 2015. In short, the RMD rules require you to distribute a portion of funds from your retirement account to yourself personally. These distributed funds are subject to tax and need to be included on your personal tax return. Let’s take an example to illustrate how the rule works. Sally is 72 and is required to take RMD each year. She has an IRA with $250,000 in it. According to the distribution rules, see IRS Publication 590, she will need to distribute $9,765 by the end of the year. This equates to about 4% of her account value. Next year, she will re-calculate this annual distribution amount based on the accounts value and her age. Once you know how to calculate the RMD, determining the distribution amount is relatively easy. However, the rules of when RMD applies and to what accounts can be confusing. To help sort out the confusion, I have outlined some facts and fiction that every retirement account owner should know about RMDs. First, let’s cover the facts. Then, we’ll tackle the fiction.
Fact
- No RMD for Roth IRAs: Roth IRAs are exempt from RMDs. Even if you are 70/12 or older, you’re not required to take distributions from your Roth IRA. Why is that? Because there is no tax due when you take a distribution from your Roth IRA. As a result, the government doesn’t really care whether you distribute the funds or not as they don’t receive any tax revenue.
- RMD Can Be Taken From One IRA to Satisfy RMD for All IRAs: While each account will have an RMD amount to be distributed, you can total those amounts and can satisfy that total amount from one IRA. It is up to you. So, for example, if you have a self directed IRA with a property you don’t want to sell to pay RMD and a brokerage IRA with stock you want to sell to pay RMD, then you can sell the stock in the brokerage IRA and use those funds to satisfy the RMD for both IRAs. You can’t combine RMD though for 401(k) and IRA accounts. Only IRA to IRA or 401(k) to 401(k).
- 50% Excise Tax Penalty: There is a 50% excise tax penalty on the amount you failed to take as RMD. So, for example, if you should’ve taken $10,000 as RMD, but failed to do so, you will be subject to a $5,000 excise tax penalty. Check back next month where I will summarize some measures and relief procedures you can take if you failed to take required RMD.
- 401(k) Account Holder Still Working for 401(k) Employer: If you have a 401(k) with a current employer and if you are still working for that employer, you can delay RMD for as long as you are still working at that employer. This exception doesn’t apply to former employer 401(k) accounts even if you are otherwise employed.
Fiction
- RMD Due by End of Year: You can make 2015 RMD payments until the tax return deadline of April 15, 2016. Wrong! While you can make 2015 IRA contributions up until the tax return deadline of April 15, 2016, RMD distributions must be done by December 31, 2015.
- Roth 401(k)s are Subject to RMDs: While Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s are both tax-free accounts, the RMD rules apply differently. As I stated above, Roth IRAs are exempt from RMD rules. However, Roth 401(k) owners are required to take RMD. Keep in mind, you could roll your Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA and thereby you would avoid having to take RMD but if you keep the account as a Roth 401(k) then you will be required to start taking RMD at age 70 ½. The distributions will not be subject to tax but they will start the slow process of removing funds from the tax-free account.
- RMD Must Be Taken In Cash: False. Required Minimum distributions may be satisfied by taking cash distributions or by taking a distribution of assets in kind. While a cash distribution is the easiest method to take RMD, you may also satisfy RMD by distributing assets in kind. This may be stock or real estate or other assets that you don’t want to sell or that you cannot sell. This doesn’t occur often but some self directed IRA owners will end up holding an asset they don’t want to sell because of current market conditions (e.g. real estate) and they decide to take distributions of portions of the real estate in-kind in order to satisfy RMD. This process is complicated and requires an appraisal of the asset(s) being distributed and partial deed transfers (or partial LLC membership interest transfers, if the IRA owns an LLC and the LLC owns the real estate) from the IRA to the IRA owner. While this isn’t the recommended course to satisfy RMD, it is a potential solution to IRA owners who are holding an asset, who have no other IRA funds to distribute for RMD, and who wish to only take a portion of the asset to satisfy their annual RMD.
The RMD rules are complicated and it is easy to make a mistake. Keep in mind that once you know how the RMD rules apply in your situation it is generally going to apply in the same manner every year thereafter with only some new calculations based on your age and account balances each year thereafter.
Click here for a nice summary of the RMD rules from the IRS.
by Mat Sorensen | Nov 17, 2015 | News
Distributions from a 401(k) to its owner are subject to a 20% withholding tax whereas distributions from an IRA are not subject to a withholding tax. As a result, any amounts distributed from a 401(k) to its owner will be reduced by 20% and that 20% will be sent to the IRS in expectation of the taxes that will be due from the account owner for the distribution. Any amounts distributed from an IRA, however, are not subject to the 20% withholding as the IRA owner can elect out of withholding. The discrepancy in the rules is one advantage of using an IRA in retirement as opposed to a 401(k) since the amounts distributed from the IRA can be received in their entirely. Keep in mind, the tax owed on a distribution from an IRA or 401(k) is the exact same. The difference is when you are required to pay it. In both instances you will receive a 1099-R from your custodian/administrator but in the 401(k) distribution you are required to set aside and effectively pre-pay the taxes owed.
The 401(k) Withholding Rule in Practice
Let’s walk though a common situation that outlines the issue. Sarah is 64 and has a 401(k). She would like to distribute $100,000 from the 401(k). She contacts her 401(k) administrator and is told that on a $100,000 distribution they will send her $80,000 and that $20,000 will be sent to the IRS for her to cover the 20% withholding requirement. Since this 20% withholding requirement does not apply to IRAs, Sarah decides to roll/transfer the $100,000 from her 401(k) directly to an IRA. Once the funds arrive at the IRA, Sarah takes the $100,000 distribution from the IRA and there is no mandatory 20% withholding so she actually receives $100,000 in total. Keep in mind, Sarah will still owe taxes on the $100,000 distribution from the IRA and she will receive a 1099-R to include on her tax return. That being said. Sarah has given herself the ability to access all of the amounts distributed for her retirement account without the need for sending withholding to the IRS at the time of distribution.
It’s that simple. Don’t take distributions from a 401(k) and subject yourself to the 20% withholding tax when you can roll/transfer those 401(k) funds to an IRA and receive the entire distribution desired without a 20% withholding.
by Mat Sorensen | Jun 29, 2015 | Prohibited Transactions
A recent Bankruptcy Court decision dealt with prohibited transaction claims against a self directed IRA owner who was using their IRA to flip real estate for profit. The claims were brought by a bankruptcy trustee who argued that the protected IRA was no longer an IRA because it engaged in a number of prohibited transactions. If the trustee is successful in disqualifying the retirement account because of a prohibited transaction, then the funds and assets held in such retirement account are no longer protected from creditors and may be used to pay debtors involved in the bankruptcy. While most prohibited transaction cases arise in Tax Court, I’m seeing more cases on prohibited transactions in Bankruptcy Court as trustees are becoming more aggressive and as self directed IRAs are becoming more popular.
The case in question is known as In re Cherwenka, Case 13-57592-MGD (Bankr. N. D. GA 2014). The case included two important prohibited transaction analysis that are helpful to IRA owners.
Court Rules No Prohibited Transaction When Managing IRA Investment Properties Without Compensation
The first significant ruling from the Court was that there was no prohibited transaction when the IRA owner completed the following tasks related to the IRA owned property.
- Research and identified properties to buy
- Appointed and approved work on the properties
- Oversaw payments on the property for work from the self-directed IRA.
The Court reasoned that these actions do no constitute a “transaction” as defined in IRC § 4975 and as a result they cannot constitute a prohibited transaction. The Court further stated that, “…self-directed IRAs as qualified IRAs, necessarily implies that a disqualified person (the owner as fiduciary) will make investment decisions regarding the plan. The Court distinguished this case from In re Williams, 2011 WL 10653865 (Bankr E.D. Cal 2011) a similar case in which the self-directed IRA owner was managing properties owned by the IRA because in Williams the IRA was paying the self-directed IRA owner for the services. The court stated that it was the payment from the IRA to the IRA owner in Williams that caused the prohibited transaction and not the mere provision of managing the IRAs investment owned by the IRA.
Court Ruled That No Prohibited Transaction Occurred When IRA and Owner Invested Into Property Together
The second significant ruling from the Court was that there was no prohibited transaction when the IRA owner and the IRA co-invested into a property together. The property in question was owned 45% by the IRA and 55% by the IRA owner. The Court rejected the bankruptcy Trustee’s argument that such co-investment purchase resulted in a prohibited transaction and stated that the interests appeared to have been treated distinctly and that the HUD documents from the sale of the property show that the IRA and the IRA owner’s proceeds from the sale were treated separately and that they were apportioned properly. As a result, the Court concluded that no prohibited transaction occurred since there was no evidence of un-fair benefit between the IRA owner and his IRA. In its reasoning, the Court referenced DOL Opinion 2000-10A which addressed an IRA and the IRA owner co-investing into a partnership. In the Opinion the DOL states that, “a violation of section 4975 (c)(1)(D) or (E) will not occur merely because the fiduciary [IRA owner] drives some incidental benefit from the transaction involving IRA assets.” The Court referenced this opinion and stated that unless there is evidence of some un-fair benefit that no prohibited transaction occurred merely because of co-investment into the same property.
There are two key take-away’s for self-directed IRA investors from this case.
First, never take compensation or payment from the IRA for services rendered. It is clear that the Courts will find a prohibited transaction if you do and that you will no longer have an IRA.
Second, if you are buying property or others assets (e.g. LLC interests) between your IRA and yourself personally (or another disqualified person) those interests must be carefully calculated and treated such that there is no benefit going unfairly between the IRA and the disqualified person (e.g. IRA owner). In sum, get advice and plan carefully as there are many land-mines you could encounter when investing IRA funds with your own personal funds. Bottom line, it can be done but it can easily be done incorrectly.
by Mat Sorensen | Feb 13, 2015 | Investing
Comprehensive Webinar: Buying Real Estate with Your IRA and a Non-Recourse Loan Mat Sorensen from Mathew Sorensen on Vimeo.
Your IRA can buy real estate using its own cash and a loan/mortgage to acquire the property. Whenever you leverage your IRA with debt, however, you must be aware of two things. First, the loan your IRA obtains must be a non-recourse loan. And second, your IRA may be subject to a tax known as unrelated debt-financed income tax (UDFI/UBIT). This comprehensive webinar explains the non-recourse loan requirements, as well as the non-recourse loan options, and goes into detail on how UDFI tax may be applied and how it is calculated. Below are the slides from the presentation as well as the recorded video presentation of the webinar. Note that page 27 in the pdf slides below was up-dated from the webinar as I made a calculation mistake on the debt owed. The final tax numbers were still correct though. Thanks to Roger St.Pierre, Sr. VP at First Western Federal Savings Bank for co-presenting the topic with me.
