In addition to allowing upper-income investors to convert from a traditional IRA to a Roth, the 2006 tax-law change included another beneficial provision. You'll still have to pay ordinary income taxes on any deductible contributions and investment earnings when you convert from a traditional IRA to Roth, but if you make the conversion in 2010, you'll be able to spread the tax hit over the subsequent two years, 2011 and 2012.Advantages to Conversion
It may be hard to get excited about paying taxes now, as you would if you made the conversion, versus letting the assets sit in your traditional IRA and paying taxes later. Traditionally, the calculus about whether to convert from a traditional IRA to a Roth required you to project whether your income would be higher or lower in retirement than it is now, a question that's very difficult to answer if you have more than a few years until retirement.
However, I think the odds are excellent that tax rates across the board are currently low relative to where they could be in the future. If you share that view, you'll want to take advantage of every means you can to pay taxes now rather than waiting until later.
For that reason, I strongly prefer the Roth IRA to a traditional IRA for most savers, and I'm also a fan of the Roth 401(k)
for many individuals. The Roth 401(k) works much like a Roth IRA; you contribute aftertax dollars but qualified withdrawals are tax-free.
The Roth IRA also gives you more flexibility than you'll have with a traditional IRA. Notably, you won't be required to take mandatory distributions from a Roth at age 70 1/2, as is the case with traditional IRA assets. That's a huge boon if you don't expect to need your IRA assets during retirement; you can allow those investments to grow and pass on a greater amount to your heirs.
And while it's never ideal to tap your retirement savings prior to retiring, the Roth is a much better option than a traditional IRA should you need to do so. If you convert to a Roth and five years have elapsed since you made the conversion, you can withdraw the converted amount, plus any additional contributions, prior to age 59 1/2 and you won't have to pay taxes or penalties.
The other compelling argument for an IRA conversion is that you may take less of a tax hit by converting within the next year or two than you might when the market goes back up. That's because you'll pay tax on any deductible contributions and any investment earnings. If your portfolio has taken a big hit over the past year, the investment-earnings component of your IRA is way down, which in turn reduces the taxes you'll owe. (If you have a loss in your IRA, it's possible to claim a loss, but it's not the same as taking a loss in your taxable accounts. You must withdraw all assets from that IRA type, and IRA losses can't be used to directly offset ordinary income or capital gains. Instead, IRA losses are part of the miscellaneous itemized deductions you claim on schedule A of your form 1040. These deductions must amount to 2% of your adjusted gross income or they won't be usable. This article
details the ins and outs of taking a tax loss in your IRA.)Prime Candidates
The "Conversion" tab of Morningstar's IRA Calculator
can help you determine whether you should convert to a Roth IRA. In general, the younger you are, the more beneficial a conversion will be. That's because you'll have more years to recoup the tax hit. That's not to say a conversion should automatically be off the table if you're nearing or even in retirement, though. If it's fairly early in your retirement, longevity runs in your family, and you won't need to put your hands on your IRA assets for five years or even more, a conversion may well be worth it because you'll have a good shot at recouping the tax hit. Moreover, if you're already retired and taking Social Security, converting to a Roth could reduce the tax you pay on your Social Security income. Although the conversion could bump up the amount of Social Security benefits that are taxable in the year you do the conversion, the conversion could reduce your Social Security tax in subsequent years. That's because Roth distributions don't factor into the calculation that the IRS uses to determine which Social Security benefits are taxable.
You're also a good candidate for a Roth conversion if you've primarily made nondeductible contributions in the past, because you won't owe taxes on those nondeductible contributions--only your investment earnings and deductible contributions will be taxed upon conversion.
You should also look at an IRA conversion if you have amassed a large estate. There are a few reasons why. First, as I noted earlier, the Roth doesn't require mandatory distributions, thereby allowing your assets to compound and increasing the amount you can pass to your spouse or heirs. The second key reason relates to estate tax. Because you've already paid tax on Roth assets, the overall nest egg that you pass to your heirs will be smaller under the estate tax system, and therefore could help to reduce your estate-tax liability. The traditional IRA assets, by contrast, will be included in your estate-tax liability, even though your heirs will have to pay taxes on those assets. (Of course, the estate tax is another issue that will probably be revisited in Washington in the coming years.)
Finally, if you're unemployed or your income is currently appreciably lower than it normally is, it can also be advantageous to convert at this juncture. Provided you have the cash to pay the tax bill, your taxes related to the conversion will be lower than they would be if your income were higher.