IRA Valutions: Who Cares What It's Worth?

Not all IRAs are created equal (when it comes to providing an annual valuation, at least).

Consider the case of “Berks vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue.” In the case, Bernard and Claire Berks invested in notes with their IRAs but the borrowers either defaulted or their collateral did not adequately secure the debt. This resulted in the notes being worth zero. The IRA provider, over a period of several years, requested that the Berks provide an annual valuation. The Berks referred these queries to the investment provider who, allegedly, called the provider and told them that “the notes are worth zero.” No documentation supporting this assertion was provided. The Berks requested that the assets be valued at zero and that the provider terminate their accounts. In accordance with the provider’s policy, the assets were distributed from the IRA holder’s account to the IRA holder at the last recorded book value of the asset. In other words, the IRA holder received a 1099-R (form for reporting distributions from pension plans) for the full amount of the account using the original face value of the notes.

The Berks took the case to tax court challenging the valuation of the IRA at the time of distribution. The IRS did not see this situation the same way as the Berks did.  Not only would the IRS not accept the opinion of the Berks that the IRA was worth zero, they penalized them 20 percent of the account value for their “negligence” in failing to make a reasonable attempt to comply with tax laws, maintain adequate books and records or to substantiate items properly. They were also cited with the intentional “disregard” for rules and regulations. 

As is usual in tax cases, the burden of proof falls on the taxpayer. The Berks’ tax return claimed the IRA distributions were not taxable and therefore paid no taxes on the reported distribution. They blamed the preparer for this “oversight.” They blamed the IRA Provider for distributing the account at full value. In short, they took no responsibility for their account or their tax preparation and the court was not sympathetic.  In fact, the court found that these arguments actually proved the Berks’ negligence.

The case brings up a greater issue about the importance of valuations.

IRA holders whose accounts have alternative assets in them receive a request from their IRA providers every year to provide fair market value for their IRA’s assets. For most IRA holders, these annual valuations are of little importance because their IRAs are invested in publicly traded securities and their IRA providers will often prepare valuations for their clients at a fee. For reference, about 97 percent of IRAs are invested in publicly traded securities.

For the $126 billion invested in self-directed IRAs (SDIRA) however, valuations matter a great deal. The account holder, not the provider, is responsible for providing valuations every year on their assets.

This issue of determining fair market values for hard-to-value assets in SDIRAs has become a focal point for the IRS. The IRS is now paying attention to the fact that with many SDIRA assets, there is a wealth of taxes to either be reaped or avoided. 

So the Berks case offers several learning points. First, provide an annual valuation, with documentation, when the IRA provider requests it.  If the asset is worth zero, provide proof that the asset is worth zero. For those with publically traded IRA investments, much of the work is done for them by the IRA investment provider, usually at a fee (we don’t charge a valuation fee at New Direction IRA.)  SDIRAs give IRA holders entrance to every investment allowed by law, but the account holder must find and manage the investment and provide the value annually.  Those are the rules. With SDIRAs, investors receive unlimited possibilities but they are also expected to know and understand the rules.   

What is a Self-Directed IRA? What are Alternative Assets?

The term Alternative IRA, which has been in the news so much recently, is frequently misunderstood. It is often thought to be an IRS designation that signifies an account type that is different from a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA, which are designated IRS account types. It is also not unusual for people to be under the impression that self directed means that the IRA owns an LLC which holds the IRA assets. Neither of these is the case.

“Alternative” as well as “Self Directed” are descriptive terms, not legal distinctions, and are used largely as marketing tools. ( In fact, terms such as “Rollover IRA”, “Real Estate IRA”, and “Gold IRA” are also descriptive and used primarily for marketing.) The only consistent meaning that alternative IRA might have is that the assets held by the account include something other than stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. And the
meaning of self directed IRA is basically that the IRA holder will have some choice in terms of what assets the account will hold. That may be a choice between two or three publicly traded stocks or bonds or funds, or it may be the ability to choose real estate, gold, private lending, investment in private companies, and more. IRA providers are not bound by the IRS to offer any particular suite of assets. It is incumbent upon the IRA holder to choose a provider that services the desired asset types.

The IRS, which governs IRAs, allows two basic tax arrangements for retirement accounts:

1) With a Traditional IRA, the IRA holder contributes money to the account “pre-tax”. While that money is in the account, it performs tax-deferred, meaning that the increase or decrease in its value does not have an effect on the IRA holder’s personal annual taxes. The only time that the IRA holder’s personal taxes are affected are when they make a contribution or take a distribution. A contribution will decrease the amount of earned income that the account holder declares for a tax year. And when a distribution is taken, the amount of the distribution is then added to the person’s annual income for that tax year and taxed accordingly.

2) In a Roth IRA, contributions by the IRA holder are “post-tax”; the investments in the account perform without tax consequence; and then can be distributed tax free to the IRA holder after the age of 59.5. These two basic arrangements, along with the associated rules for contributions and distributions, are the same for all IRAs, alternative or not, self-directed or not. For example, if a person opens a traditional IRA that is self-directed with a provider like New Direction IRA, which handles a wide array of alternative asset types, that account holder could have that IRA invested in a couple of rental houses and some gold bars. The rental income and appreciation of the real estate and the appreciation of the gold would constitute the performance of the assets. Regardless of what the assets were, the IRA holder could continue to make contributions per IRS regulations.

With any IRA, there are two dynamics occurring that affect the account’s balance. The first is the pattern of contributions and distributions. These are governed by IRS rules and the IRA holder’s strategy. The second is the performance of the money/assets that are in the IRA. This is governed by the economic factors associated with each particular asset. In other words, was it a profitable investment or not. The two dynamics are only related in that they are functions of the same account and are guided by the IRA holder. These dynamics are not affected by whether an IRA is self directed or not and whether the assets are publicly traded securities or alternative.

In the case of IRA terminology, it may be that marketing attempts to make the consumers’ options more understandable have back-fired and actually created less understanding. It can be helpful to remember 3 categories of terms:

1) IRS designations are account types (Traditional, Roth, or an employer plan). These account types have rules associated with them about taxation and contributions/distributions.

2) Asset terms are simply that, the type of asset in which the IRA is invested: real estate, gold, loans, stock (public or private), etc.

3) Descriptive terms are used to help lead the consumer to the service that they desire (i.e. an IRA that has gold or real estate or an IRA that results from a 401(k) rollover) and do not affect tax status.

All of the current conversation regarding “Alternative” and “Self Directed” IRAs, may seem confusing unless one is familiar with the terminology. Whether it is the success of Mitt Romney’s IRA or the Jean Chatzky report on the Today Show that is fueling interest in retirement investing, what is certain is that IRA account holders are becoming more and more aware of the choices that they have when it comes to their retirement funds.

Partnering with disqualified persons to your IRA

There is a lot of discussion about “Disqualified Persons” when one is creating a strategy for acquiring IRA assets. The IRS’s disallowance of self-dealing with regard to retirement accounts means that if an investor is considering transactions such as purchasing real estate, investing in a company, making a loan, or even buying hard assets like precious metals, they need to identify persons who are disqualified to their IRA in order to avoid a prohibited transaction and its concomitant penalties.

It may sound like a simple matter to list those people and entities that are disqualified, but the fact that there are several pages of the Internal Revenue Code (section 4975) dedicated to this issue indicates just how gray this area can get. To make this matter even a little more difficult to keep straight, partnering with these “disqualified” persons is allowed. While an exhaustive examination of this issue may not be desirable (or even possible), it is helpful to review a few of the basics.

Disqualified persons include one’s self, one’s spouse, lineal ascendants and descendants and those descendants’ spouses. The designation also extends to business entities owned and/or controlled by these people as well as some fiduciaries associated with these business entities.

Transactions in which an IRA is not allowed to participate with a disqualified person/entity include buying from, selling to, paying compensation to, extending credit to, receiving a loan from, and allowing use of assets.

Partnering with disqualified persons/entities is allowed. The way that works is that an IRA acquires a specified percentage of the asset as does each of the other partners. All income and payments related to that asset must be divided along the percentage lines established at the purchase of the asset. This can be somewhat cumbersome, depending on how much activity is associated with the investment, but it is imperative to keep up with this arrangement.

A helpful way to think about whether you are contemplating a transaction with a disqualified person/entity, which is prohibited, or a partnership, which is allowed, is to think of a negotiating table on which a transaction will be made. On this table, money will move from one side of the table to the other, and, in return, a benefit or asset will move in the opposite direction. If the disqualified person/entity is on the same side of the table as your IRA, you are likely okay. If the disqualified person is on the other side of the table, you might be looking at a prohibited transaction.

In some cases, IRS parameters for IRAs can be confusing. The information above that describes some basic principles that apply to disqualified persons and what an IRA can do in relation to them is only part of the whole picture. Despite the fact that it can daunting, it is much better to invest the time to learn about the rules now, before making a move with your IRA, than to pay for a mistake with your hard earned retirement funds later. The good news is that you have a place to start the process in Entrust New Direction IRA. Their knowledgeable staff, informative website, and frequent educational programs are excellent sources of information about all aspects of IRAs.