New Tax Law Proposal Will Kill Private Placements in IRAs

Proposed Tax Law

The Responsibly Funding Our Priorities Act as proposed by the Democrats Ways and Means Committee in the House will kill private placements in IRAs. 

Section 138312

Sec. 138312. Prohibition of IRA Investments Conditioned on Account Holder’s Status. The bill prohibits an IRA from holding any security if the issuer of the security requires the IRA owner to have certain minimum level of assets or income, or have completed a minimum level of education or obtained a specific license or credential.

For example, the legislation prohibits IRAs from holding investments which are offered to accredited investors because those investments are securities that have not been registered under federal securities laws. IRAs holding such investments would lose their IRA status.

This section generally takes effect for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, but there is a 2-year transition period for IRAs already holding these investments.  

Not only will you no longer be able to buy such investments, as worded you will have to sell those you already own within two years.

Section 138313

Sec. 138313. Statute of Limitations with Respect to IRA Noncompliance. The bill expands the statute of limitations for IRA noncompliance related to valuation-related misreporting and prohibited transactions from 3 years to 6 years to help IRS pursue these violations that may have originated outside the current statute’s 3-year window. This provision applies to taxes to which the current 3-year period ends after December 31, 2021. 

Section 138314

Sec. 138314. Prohibition of Investment of IRA Assets in Entities in Which the Owner Has a Substantial Interest. To prevent self-dealing, under current law prohibited transaction rules, an IRA owner cannot invest his or her IRA assets in a corporation, partnership, trust, or estate in which he or she has a 50 percent or greater interest. However, an IRA owner can invest IRA assets in a business in which he or she owns, for example, one-third of the business while also acting as the CEO. The bill adjusts the 50 percent threshold to 10 percent for investments that are not tradable on an established securities market, regardless of whether the IRA owner has a direct or indirect interest. The bill also prevents investing in an entity in which the IRA owner is an officer. Further, the bill modifies the rule to be an IRA requirement, rather than a prohibited transaction rule (i.e., in order to be an IRA, it must meet this requirement). This section generally takes effect for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, but there is a 2-year transition period for IRAs already holding these investments.  

 Section 138315

Sec. 138315. IRA Owners Treated as Disqualified Persons for Purposes of Prohibited Transactions Rules. The bill clarifies that, for purposes of applying the prohibited transaction rules with respect to an IRA, the IRA owner (including an individual who inherits an IRA as beneficiary after the IRA owner’s death) is always a disqualified person. This section applies to transactions occurring after December 31, 2021.  

These sections, especially 138312 and 138315 are very damaging. 

Proposed Solution

Those restrictions are across the board, not just striking back at those making millions. 

Supposedly the concern is a level playing field. 

But if leveling the playing field is the genuine concern, instead of disallowing these investments, how about opening them up to everyone?

I am not sure what ****head proposed these rules, but we need to raise a fuss over these provisions now. 

Find Your Representatives

Please take action. 

Thanks for Tuning In

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

21 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
amigator
amigator
2 years ago
Just another way that it shows these guys (Congress, heck all Fed politicians) do not care about us “regular people” at all.  They should be expanding IRA amounts instead of forcing us into the Wall street world of 401k’s.  Would be interested in seeing the fees for all 401ks verse the amount contributed to IRA’s. I bet we can guess who would win?
IRA’s will go away soon. Not nearly as profitable for the “big” guys.  They have already lost there protection from law suits….
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Won’t effect me, so I don’t really care. But, seems like congress should be focusing on much more important things then trying to prevent tax deferred investments in things people have a controlling interest in. I guess some rich people will have to get a 60 foot yacht at retirement instead of a 80 foot. Oh the humanity.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
It won’t affect me personally either, because I don’t even have an IRA or a 401(K) or any other kind of tax deferred retirement vehicle…unless you consider the 1031 tax deferment, which is not generally considered to be a retirement vehicle.
It still bothers me to see good strategies taken away from people who are trying to bootstrap themselves to into a better life, either during their working life or their retirement. Just because it isn’t taking something off my plate, doesn’t mean I think it’s okay. It’s just one more potential avenue of making a better life that is being taken away from the upper middle class…in the name of taxing the rich.
numike
numike
2 years ago
Do taxes fund spending? link to crookedtimber.org
PostCambrian
PostCambrian
2 years ago
I don’t think anyone needs a tax break to invest in their own business. Too easy to cook the books on price, gains, etc. I don’t see why you really want them Mish. The rich can invest in them but not get a tax break or deferral.  
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
Reply to  PostCambrian
You don’t see why?   The answer always is – follow the money!
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Private placement investments are for the rich.  Accredited investors are all rich. People who make above the median earned income are all rich.
(all together now)
TAX the RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICCCCCCCHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!
(Oops,  aimed too low and screwed the upper middle class one more time……)
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
Opening up these little-known investments and strategies to everyone will invariably result in the average guy getting his butt handed to him.   Haven’t we learned nothing from the last 40 years of relentless financial deregulation?   Or are we being deliberately obtuse?
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
“Haven’t we learned nothing from the last 40 years of relentless financial deregulation?”
Yes. That a central bank debasing everyone else, in order to hand the loot to useless FIRE idiots in exchange for them neither knowing nor doing nor comprehending anything at all; results in, tah-dah: Useless FIRE idiots who neither know, nor accomplish, nor comprehend anything at all, getting rich beyond both their wildest dreams and their non-existent talents. Hence gaining control over all the nations’s otherwise productive capital. So that they, in their infinite ignorance, idiocy and uselessness, can malinvest, misallocate and destroy it all while pretending to be some sort of “elite.” While everyone else, who are forced to fund the idiocy, gets “his butt handed to him. “
If you pay attention, “deregulation” has exactly no bearing on any of it. Just theft. And more theft. And more, and more…… And nothing else, whatsoever.
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
The central bank money-printing and loose lending policies are the fig leaves to try to cover the extremely nasty outcomes of financial and other forms of deregulation.  Reaganism was a “success” only because of these policies.  Otherwise, it would have hit the wall within a few years.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
Ah, all those nasty consequences of being free to choose……… we sure need Trump, and an army of ambulance chasers and bankster trash save us from this horrible freedom stuff!!!
You’ve got it backwards: Without printing, there would be hardly any “financial” anything to be saved from. That whole “industry” only exists as a pure  welfare recipient. With sound money, Gold in a vault is all the savings/investment needed. No fees, no ostensibly grown men wasting their life acting like 3 year old children pontificating about random numbers “going up” and “going down.” None of the same childbrains clamoring for Massa to rob others to “make them whole” and “save the system.” No armies of rank idiot nothings in New York and elsewhere cheering for ensuring more and more people are homeless and freezing, just to keep the obviously retarded illusion that a house sitting there decaying in the weather somehow creates value as it sits there. Etc., etc.
All of that would go away if people had enough basic literacy to simply treat The Fed; and all its supporters and supporting structures, from governments to regulators to kangaroo courts; with the respect it is due. Aka, the same respect our by now military-, and honestly pretty much every other area as well-, superiors; awards Buddha statues and feminist hags cheering on occupation forces like Parisian whores in the Vichy era cheered on Germans.
If Reagan had deregulated finance for real; he would have removed the Fed’s monopoly on printing dollars.That way anyone could print a pile of them if their friends wanted some more. Hence everyone could get rich, in exactly the same way that 95% of those who are currently rich became so. The fact that Reagan did not do that, is proof positive that the theft racket referred to as “finance” is _over_ regulated. Not_under_.
honestcreditguy
honestcreditguy
2 years ago
cuckoo, cuckoo…..the bolshevik party when it comes to money is clueless, Maxine Waters on the Finance committee….completely hilarious….
They want everything you have, the middle class is too rich, they must be poor and serfs…..signed The Bolsheviks, Joe, Nancy, Chuck, NWO and the rest of their ilk
Yooper
Yooper
2 years ago
Ugh, and I really like the GoldMoney / Entrust self-directed IRA option I took all those years ago as suggested by someone 🙂
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
Do I remember correctly a disclosure during Mitt Romney’s presidential bid that his IRA value was ~ $100 million, from private securities placed into the IRA at an extremely low cost basis which had exploded in value?  Perhaps the framers of this proposal had this perceived abuse of tax preference in mind, and figured that they might as well frame the limitation expansively, as there certainly would be push back to narrow it before passage..
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
That was an IRA run by the Mormom Church. If you want to close loopholes start with the one the size of Jupiter — tax religious and nonprofits with no exceptions. 
dbannist
dbannist
2 years ago
That’s actually a myth.  Churches pay a ton of taxes.  They pay property taxes on all property not immediately used by the church.  So any rentals they use to fund operations get taxed.  Additionally, they pay sales taxes.  It’s important to note that they are not required to, however, practically speaking they pay them since the paperwork required to avoid them is massive and very few churches have the resources to avoid it.  They pay SS taxes on all employees, except the pastor who pays the full amount out of his salary so it’s moot.  In fact, churches pay all taxes that any other corporation pays except property taxes.  That’s the only loophole for them, that’s it.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
They don’t pay any tax on their profits (ie tax on donations) either where businesses most definitely do pay taxes on their profits.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
“I am not sure what ****head proposed these rules, but we need to raise a fuss over these provisions now.”
Klaus Schwab: you will own nothing and be happy.
davebarnes2
davebarnes2
2 years ago
Peter Thiel revenge act?
Siliconguy
Siliconguy
2 years ago
Reply to  davebarnes2
Exactly. Put shares designed to worth as close to nothing as possible and that are also unavailable to anyone else into a Roth. Go public ( or whatever he did) and the shares are now worth millions all tax free. Then he sold some of them within the Roth, tax free, and used those proceeds to invest again in another startup. Rinse and repeat. 
Mitt Romney did the same thing. 
Mish is wrong on this one. That needs to stop. Only publicly available investments should be allowed in Roth’s. And putting a hard cap on the maximum balance in a Roth is also part of the plan. 
Rein in the greed heads now, or enough AOC clones will get in and erase the Roth entirely. A stoke of the pen and the Roth can be converted to a Traditional IRA with a basis. I have a Roth, I like it, it’s my emergency fund. I don’t want to lose it because some smarty pants decided to cheat the intent of the system to prove how clever he was. 
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Next up from the democrap party: 
Sec. 138332.  Investment Safety in Volatile Markets. Retirement investment plans, such as 401Ks and IRAs must maintain on an annualized basis a minimum of twenty percent of all funds in Government-issued Bonds to stabilize investment returns and ensure funds are available for retirement.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.