So, apparently I can recharacterize some of my IRA contributions from last year, amend my return, and get an additional $400 back from the IRS.... It would also result in an account maintainance fee of $10/year for the next few years, most like, and then I'd have to deal with having both a traditional IRA and a Roth... So, question is, do I want to go through the bother, or would I rather have all my money be tax free?
Page Summary
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2005-08-31 06:57 pm (UTC)Roth IRA, the money grows tax free, and distributions would be tax free as well. Traditionals are only tax-defered, so I'd pay taxes on the money I withdraw after I'm 59 1/2.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-31 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 08:54 am (UTC)I decided to not amend, and keep the money in the Roth.
Mostly, it was just because of the hassle: First, I'd need to contact Vanguard and do the paperwork to set up a Traditional (which I will need to do eventually, when I roll over my profit sharing from MarketLine Research, but still...), recharacterize $1000 of the Roth, amend my Federal tex return, and possibly my Minnesota returns also. Then, after I've eventually rolled over the PS stuff from MLR next year, I would get to convert the (then) $2k or so back into a Roth IRA, and get taxed on it all over again.
So, I figured, meh. I'll roll over the one when it becomes necessary, and not give myself the added hassle.
Make sense?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 09:04 am (UTC)Although I should check and see if there's a five-year rule or something like that for conversions from Traditionals to Roths. Even if so, it still would have ended up as a Roth, it just might not have been until 2010.