Part time job (20h/wk) - how to shield income from taxes?

[sunny_socal]

My wife has been a SAHM for 15 years. Prior to that she was an HR rep for about 15 years (generalist, immigration, recruiting etc.) She's attempting to get back to work but it is proving challenging due to her 'gap.'

She has found a part-time opportunity that provides 20h/week @ $20/hr. It's a modest start but least she'll be gaining some relevant experience as she searches for something more substantial.

The position does not provide a 401k. With a 401k my plan would have been to send all her income into the account and thus shield it from taxes. Now she'll be getting it all as cash and I expect that income will be taxed heavily when we file our joint return.

Any approaches we can take to mimic a 401k? Thanks.

[Jack FFR1846]

Is your combined income low enough to qualify for tax advantaged traditional IRA contributions?

[greg24]

If you aren't already maximizing your 401k, do it now.

[KlangFool]

OP,

Is she on 1099? If yes, you could start an individual/solo 401K for her.

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Solo_401(k)_plan

KlangFool

[runner540]

Are you already maxing HSA, 401k and 2 IRAs? If not, those are your first steps.

[retiredjg]

Your joint income might be low enough for her to deduct an IRA contribution. Have you checked?

Are you filling your 401k?

Are you filling 2 IRAs already? Which kind?

What does "taxed heavily" mean? Are you in a high tax bracket?

[renue74]

OP,

Is she on 1099? If yes, you could start an individual/solo 401K for her.

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Solo_401(k)_plan

KlangFool

+1. And Vanguard provides a solo 401(k) for fairly cheap fees.

I got rid of my employees in 2019 and will be switching from a Simple IRA to a solo 401(k) in January.

[fyre4ce]

Is your combined income low enough to qualify for tax advantaged traditional IRA contributions?

It wouldn't matter in this case, because she doesn't have access to a retirement account at work. She will gross 20*52*$20=$20,800, and a tIRA will allow her to shelter $6000 (29%) or $7000 (34%) of the income from taxes - not bad. This would be the best plan if she's paid on a W-2.

If she's paid on a 1099, go open a Solo 401k and she can put in $19,000 or $25,0000, so all or nearly all of the earnings.

[sunny_socal]

I make 200k/year. I max my own 401k and HSA.

Given that, what are the options for her?

[retiringwhen]

I make 200k/year. I max my own 401k and HSA.

Given that, what are the options for her?

The key question above needs to be answered. Is she on W-2 or 1099? Two very different paths./

[retiredjg]

Is your combined income low enough to qualify for tax advantaged traditional IRA contributions?

It wouldn't matter in this case, because she doesn't have access to a retirement account at work.

It does matter if her spouse is covered by a plan at work and the joint MAGI is greater than $193k.

I guess we are all assuming that the original poster is covered at work and that the income is high.

[KlangFool]

I make 200k/year. I max my own 401k and HSA.

Given that, what are the options for her?

sunny_socal,

You did not answer the question of whether she is paid with 1099. If yes, she can open her own individual/solo 401K regardless of how much you earn.

KlangFool

[retiredjg]

I make 200k/year. I max my own 401k and HSA.

Your $200k and her $21k = $221k

Subtracting your $19k 401k contribution does not get you under the $193k MAGI for her contribution to tIRA to be deductible. That eliminates that approach.

[fyre4ce]

Is your combined income low enough to qualify for tax advantaged traditional IRA contributions?

It wouldn't matter in this case, because she doesn't have access to a retirement account at work.

It does matter if her spouse is covered by a plan at work and the joint MAGI is greater than $193k.

I guess we are all assuming that the original poster is covered at work and that the income is high.

You're correct; my mistake for leaving out that caveat. Much higher chance they'll be under the income threshold, though.

[fyre4ce]

I make 200k/year. I max my own 401k and HSA.

Your $200k and her $21k = $221k

Subtracting your $19k 401k contribution does not get you under the $193k MAGI for her contribution to tIRA to be deductible. That eliminates that approach.

Also subtract $7,000 for HSA, and possibly other above-the-line deductions like health insurance premiums. It could be close.

[retiredjg]

I make 200k/year. I max my own 401k and HSA.

Your $200k and her $21k = $221k

Subtracting your $19k 401k contribution does not get you under the $193k MAGI for her contribution to tIRA to be deductible. That eliminates that approach.

Also subtract $7,000 for HSA, and possibly other above-the-line deductions like health insurance premiums. It could be close.

I didn't know about the HSA, but it makes me think about health insurance premiums paid through work - I believe that comes off the top as well (for this purpose).

So maybe a traditional IRA is not out of the question after all. It could clog up the works later for back door Roth contributions, but that might be managed.

[sunny_socal]

I make 200k/year. I max my own 401k and HSA.

Given that, what are the options for her?

sunny_socal,

You did not answer the question of whether she is paid with 1099. If yes, she can open her own individual/solo 401K regardless of how much you earn.

KlangFool

I don't know how she'll get paid. She hasn't accepted the position yet.

[KlangFool]

I make 200k/year. I max my own 401k and HSA.

Given that, what are the options for her?

sunny_socal,

You did not answer the question of whether she is paid with 1099. If yes, she can open her own individual/solo 401K regardless of how much you earn.

KlangFool

I don't know how she'll get paid. She hasn't accepted the position yet.

sunny_socal,

She can ask before she accepted the job. It should be stated in the offer. In your case, it makes a significant difference. You should negotiate this to be 1099 if possible.

KlangFool

[irdgas66]

You are not really shielding them from anything, but only postponing it to a later date. Gov will get their taxes one way or another.

[sunny_socal]

You are not really shielding them from anything, but only postponing it to a later date. Gov will get their taxes one way or another.

Pretty sure most people would disagree

Sounds like our only attractive option is a solo 401k IF she's paid via 1099.

[surfstar]

Cart
Horse

Its almost November - you won't have to worry about 2019 "tax shielding"
2020 is a full year - I feel like if she's actively looking for a different / full-time position, what's the chance she actually stays in this 20hr/week job for a full year?

Seems like all this worry about paying taxes, isn't likely to be as big a deal as you'd think.
Enjoy the weather - that's why we pay so much to live in California!

[sunny_socal]

Cart
Horse

Its almost November - you won't have to worry about 2019 "tax shielding"
2020 is a full year - I feel like if she's actively looking for a different / full-time position, what's the chance she actually stays in this 20hr/week job for a full year?

Seems like all this worry about paying taxes, isn't likely to be as big a deal as you'd think.
Enjoy the weather - that's why we pay so much to live in California!

She hasn't worked for 15 years, likely she'll be in the job for 1-2 years.

I don't like paying any more tax than necessary.

[runner540]

Cart
Horse

Its almost November - you won't have to worry about 2019 "tax shielding"
2020 is a full year - I feel like if she's actively looking for a different / full-time position, what's the chance she actually stays in this 20hr/week job for a full year?

Seems like all this worry about paying taxes, isn't likely to be as big a deal as you'd think.
Enjoy the weather - that's why we pay so much to live in California!

She hasn't worked for 15 years, likely she'll be in the job for 1-2 years.

I don't like paying any more tax than necessary.

You've gotten some answers about options to reduce total taxes on your joint income. Marginal taxes on household income is what it is. Think of all the taxes you didn't have to pay when she wasn't working outside the home!

[sunny_socal]

Cart
Horse

Its almost November - you won't have to worry about 2019 "tax shielding"
2020 is a full year - I feel like if she's actively looking for a different / full-time position, what's the chance she actually stays in this 20hr/week job for a full year?

Seems like all this worry about paying taxes, isn't likely to be as big a deal as you'd think.
Enjoy the weather - that's why we pay so much to live in California!

She hasn't worked for 15 years, likely she'll be in the job for 1-2 years.

I don't like paying any more tax than necessary.

You've gotten some answers about options to reduce total taxes on your joint income. Marginal taxes on household income is what it is. Think of all the taxes you didn't have to pay when she wasn't working outside the home!

With that line of thinking, why work? Then I wouldn't have to pay any tax at all!

Will continue to search for a job with a 401k.

[mickeyd]

Now she'll be getting it all as cash and I expect that income will be taxed heavily when we file our joint return.

Is it not her obligation to pay the correct amount of taxes on the income she earned? The rest of us pay our taxes.

[fyre4ce]

Will continue to search for a job with a 401k.

Want to make sure a key point doesn't get missed here - if she gets paid on a 1099, she can open a Solo 401k and put away $19,000 (assume under age 50) plus 20% of net business income. This should be a question that could be easily answered by talking to the potential employer/recruiter, even well before the employment contract is signed.

If it's a W-2 job with no 401k, it looks like a partial or full deductible Traditional IRA might be an option, depending on the exact details of your tax situation. That would still let her tax-defer a good chunk of the $20k in income.

If the job is W-2 with no 401k, and you can't deduct even a partial Traditional IRA contribution due to MAGI, then you won't be able to defer taxes on this money, but I would still encourage you guys to not let the tax tail wag the job dog. If it's a job she likes and has good pay, I wouldn't sweat the lack of 401k; it's only about 10% of your household income. If she can find a very similar job she likes and pays just as much and also has a 401k, then obviously take it.

[fyre4ce]

Now she'll be getting it all as cash and I expect that income will be taxed heavily when we file our joint return.

Is it not her obligation to pay the correct amount of taxes on the income she earned? The rest of us pay our taxes.

I don't think he was proposing tax evasion, just deferring taxes to a time when their bracket is lower, and/or are living in a lower-tax state than California. That's standard Bogleheads advice, and completely legal.

[sunny_socal]

Will continue to search for a job with a 401k.

Want to make sure a key point doesn't get missed here - if she gets paid on a 1099, she can open a Solo 401k and put away $19,000 (assume under age 50) plus 20% of net business income. This should be a question that could be easily answered by talking to the potential employer/recruiter, even well before the employment contract is signed.

Yes, that's useful information and we'll check on it. I've never held a part-time job and had no idea what a 1099 is.

If it's a W-2 job with no 401k, it looks like a partial or full deductible Traditional IRA might be an option, depending on the exact details of your tax situation. That would still let her tax-defer a good chunk of the $20k in income.

If the job is W-2 with no 401k, and you can't deduct even a partial Traditional IRA contribution due to MAGI, then you won't be able to defer taxes on this money, but I would still encourage you guys to not let the tax tail wag the job dog.

I doubt we'll qualify.

If it's a job she likes and has good pay, I wouldn't sweat the lack of 401k; it's only about 10% of your household income. If she can find a very similar job she likes and pays just as much and also has a 401k, then obviously take it.

Tend to agree on both points.

I don't think he was proposing tax evasion, just deferring taxes to a time when their bracket is lower, and/or are living in a lower-tax state than California. That's standard Bogleheads advice.

Exactly! From some of the responses it sounds like some people aren't using retirement accounts or deducting anything. (Hey - why not pay some extra into the public treasury while you're at it!)

[oldfatguy]

I've never held a part-time job and had no idea what a 1099 is.

A 1099 is issued to an independent contractor (self-employed). The IRS has criteria to determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understand ... esignation

[fyre4ce]

I've never held a part-time job and had no idea what a 1099 is.

Brief explanation - the IRS requires one of the parties in a work-for-pay situation to act as the "business". The "business" party gets a lot of freedom in deducting work-related expenses, and also gets the choice of retirement accounts and a much higher limit on what can be contributed to those accounts. On the negative side, the "business" party has to pay the employer half of FICA taxes: 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare.

For a job with a W-2, the employer is considered the business. Employees are stuck with whatever 401k and health insurance the employer chooses, which may be none at all. Options to deduct work-related expenses were lousy before (on Schedule A and subject to 2% AGI floor) and were completely eliminated in 2018. But, the employer pays half of FICA taxes, and income tax is withheld and sent to the IRS automatically.

For a job that pays on a 1099 (IRS Form 1099-MISC), the employer is pushing all the "business" rights and responsibilities to the worker. Usually, taxes are not withheld and no benefits are offered. The worker ("independent contractor") can open a SEP-IRA or Solo 401k and put away $56k instead of the regular $19k. Business expenses can be deducted against income on Schedule C (if a sole proprietor) or Form 1120S (if incorporated), which is nice, because anything the worker uses to earn the income (phone, computer, internet service, a home office, tools, car/mileage) can be deducted within the limits of the law. You are responsible for paying the employer half of FICA, on Schedule SE if sole prop or out of the business if incorporated. You also may need to file quarterly estimated taxes, which would be a pain.

Edit: Yes, the IRS has rules on who can be employee vs. independent contractor, although there are some situations in the grey area that could fall either way. Others are clear-cut.

[retiredjg]

Something that is not clear cut to me...is getting paid with a 1099 the only thing required to open a Solo 401k? Or does it revolve around the how the "business" is set up?

I'm completely ignorant of small businesses and how they are set up. Please educate me a little.

[47Percent]

You are not really shielding them from anything, but only postponing it to a later date. Gov will get their taxes one way or another.

If a robber comes to your home and tells you "I can take your stuff today, or I can come back in 5 years and take them away", what would you say?

[ClaycordJCA]

California has its own test for IC status that is much more restrictive than the IRS standards. It is not something companies can negotiate around. Rather, the worker must qualify as an IC under the “ABC” test (not subject to the principal’s direction or control in performing the work, work is not within the principal’s usual business, and IC is customarily engaged in an independently operated business) or, as of January 1, fall within one of the statutory exceptions.

[fyre4ce]

You are not really shielding them from anything, but only postponing it to a later date. Gov will get their taxes one way or another.

If a robber comes to your home and tells you "I can take your stuff today, or I can come back in 5 years and take them away", what would you say?

Putting aside the theft analogy, the benefit of tax-deferred accounts isn't that the taxes are taken later in time. If savings is taxed at 50%, it doesn't matter whether the 50% is taken at contribution, at withdrawal, or any time in between - the result will still be that you'll have half of what you would have had without taxes. The benefit is that most people have a lower marginal tax rate in retirement than while working, for two main reasons:

[*]Taxes on income in retirement are lower than while working: only traditional withdrawals and pensions are fully taxed. Roth is tax-free, taxable withdrawals are tax-free for return of basis and a reduced rate for long-term gains. HSA withdrawals are tax-free when used for medical expenses. Social Security is taxed at anywhere from 0-85%, depending on other income. Many people retire in a lower-tax state than when they were working. No payroll tax. So, for the same level of net income, you need pay less taxes.
[*]Expenses tend to be lower. Mortgages tend to be paid off, kids tend to be through schooling. You probably need less space with kids out of the nest, and so can downsize to a smaller dwelling and vehicles. Many people retire in lower cost-of-living areas than while working. Any job-related expenses are gone, as are life and disability insurance. So, you need less net income to support the same standard of living.

There are exceptions of course, but the OP lives in California so is probably not one of them.

Another overlooked benefit of tax-deferred accounts is no tax drag. Even if future tax rates are known to be higher than today, tax deferral can still beat out a taxable account for this reason. The OP probably pays 24.3% federal+state on long-term gains and qualified dividends, and this really adds up over decades.

[Lalamimi]

what about child care costs? I believe there are credits. Or are the kids teens now .

[47Percent]

You are not really shielding them from anything, but only postponing it to a later date. Gov will get their taxes one way or another.

If a robber comes to your home and tells you "I can take your stuff today, or I can come back in 5 years and take them away", what would you say?

Putting aside the theft analogy, the benefit of tax-deferred accounts isn't that the taxes are taken later in time. If savings is taxed at 50%, it doesn't matter whether the 50% is taken at contribution, at withdrawal, or any time in between - the result will still be that you'll have half of what you would have had without taxes. The benefit is that most people have a lower marginal tax rate in retirement than while working, for two main reasons:

[*]Taxes on income in retirement are lower than while working: only traditional withdrawals and pensions are fully taxed. Roth is tax-free, taxable withdrawals are tax-free for return of basis and a reduced rate for long-term gains. HSA withdrawals are tax-free when used for medical expenses. Social Security is taxed at anywhere from 0-85%, depending on other income. Many people retire in a lower-tax state than when they were working. No payroll tax. So, for the same level of net income, you need pay less taxes.
[*]Expenses tend to be lower. Mortgages tend to be paid off, kids tend to be through schooling. You probably need less space with kids out of the nest, and so can downsize to a smaller dwelling and vehicles. Many people retire in lower cost-of-living areas than while working. Any job-related expenses are gone, as are life and disability insurance. So, you need less net income to support the same standard of living.

There are exceptions of course, but the OP lives in California so is probably not one of them.

Another overlooked benefit of tax-deferred accounts is no tax drag. Even if future tax rates are known to be higher than today, tax deferral can still beat out a taxable account for this reason. The OP probably pays 24.3% federal+state on long-term gains and qualified dividends, and this really adds up over decades.

I was being a bit cryptic. My main point was, you have five years (in my example; or as many years as you are deferring) to think about how to get out of that predicament, or mitigate its effects.

Once it is gone, it is gone forever. But if you have it deferred, if you happen to get laid off, or for some reason take a year off between jobs, you can do a roth conversion and pay next to nothing in taxes. This technique is especially handy if you decide to call it quits a few years ahead of schedule because you think you don't need to work any more -- decidedly a luxury.

[fyre4ce]

I was being a bit cryptic. My main point was, you have five years (in my example; or as many years as you are deferring) to think about how to get out of that predicament, or mitigate its effects.

Once it is gone, it is gone forever. But if you have it deferred, if you happen to get laid off, or for some reason take a year off between jobs, you can do a roth conversion and pay next to nothing in taxes. This technique is especially handy if you decide to call it quits a few years ahead of schedule because you think you don't need to work any more -- decidedly a luxury.

I figured, and no problem, you're right. I just see a lot of misconceptions about traditional vs. Roth accounts and thought I'd try to clear it up for other readers.