• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Question about recharacteriation of Roth conversion: 1099-R, 5498, transferred amount

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

swampwiz

Junior Member
I have been trying to get a straight answer from both my custodian and a few other finance forums, including one that supposedly for taxes - "your question is too advanced; please contact one of our recommended specialists (for a fee :mad:). Hopefully my latest conversation with my brokerage will get me to talk to someone in charge of processing the 1099-R & 5498 forms ...

Anyway, there seem to be 8 different values that are pertinent in all this:

[A] the *nominal* amount to be recharacterized

the "net income attributable" for the recharacterization

[C] the *net* amount to be recharacterized

[D] 1099-R form for the Roth IRA, code N, gross distribution (line 1)

[E] ibid, taxable amount (line 2a)

[F] 5498 form for the traditional IRA, recharacterized contributions (line 4)

[G] the actual amount that the custodian transfers from the Roth IRA to the traditional IRA

[H] the amount that is to be subtracted from the amount that has been converted to the Roth (i.e., on the 1099-R form for the traditional IRA, code 2, gross distribution and taxable income, which are the same) for the 8606 form

So my understanding or hunch is that:

Even though there would be a recharacterized Roth conversion, the 5498 form says "contributions", but it is regarded as recharacterized conversions.

B is a function of A - i.e., the value that is used in the calculation of is based on [A] and the balance of the Roth IRA at the time of the original conversion and the recharacterization; typically, this is a calculation that the custodian will perform, although it is possible for the custodian to allow the taxpeyer calculate this (at least my custodian allows this)

C = A + B

D = A

E = 0

F = C

G = F = C

H = D = A

So I would just like to verify that my assessment is correct, or if not, what these values should be. What I am trying to figure out is the amount of [A] or [C] to instruct my custodian to recharacterize to end up with a desired value of [H].
 
Last edited:


Just Blue

Senior Member
I have been trying to get a straight answer from both my custodian and a few other finance forums, including one that supposedly for taxes - "your question is too advanced; please contact one of our recommended specialists (for a fee :mad:). Hopefully my latest conversation with my brokerage will get me to talk to someone in charge of processing the 1099-R & 5498 forms ...

Anyway, there seem to be 8 different values that are pertinent in all this:

[A] the *nominal* amount to be recharacterized

the "net income attributable" for the recharacterization

[C] the *net* amount to be recharacterized

[D] 1099-R form for the Roth IRA, code N, gross distribution (line 1)

[E] ibid, taxable amount (line 2a)

[F] 5498 form for the traditional IRA, recharacterized contributions (line 4)

[G] the actual amount that the custodian transfers from the Roth IRA to the traditional IRA

[H] the amount that is to be subtracted from the amount that has been converted to the Roth (i.e., on the 1099-R form for the traditional IRA, code 2, gross distribution and taxable income, which are the same) for the 8606 form

So my understanding or hunch is that:

Even though there would be a recharacterized Roth conversion, the 5498 form says "contributions", but it is regarded as recharacterized conversions.

B is a function of A - i.e., the value that is used in the calculation of is based on [A] and the balance of the Roth IRA at the time of the original conversion and the recharacterization; typically, this is a calculation

C = A + B

D = A

E = 0

F = C

G = F = C

H = D = A

So I would just like to verify that my assessment is correct, or if not, what these values should be.

What US State are you in?
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
I have been trying to get a straight answer from both my custodian and a few other finance forums, including one that supposedly for taxes - "your question is too advanced; please contact one of our recommended specialists (for a fee :mad:). Hopefully my latest conversation with my brokerage will get me to talk to someone in charge of processing the 1099-R & 5498 forms ...

Anyway, there seem to be 8 different values that are pertinent in all this:

[A] the *nominal* amount to be recharacterized

the "net income attributable" for the recharacterization

[C] the *net* amount to be recharacterized

[D] 1099-R form for the Roth IRA, code N, gross distribution (line 1)

[E] ibid, taxable amount (line 2a)

[F] 5498 form for the traditional IRA, recharacterized contributions (line 4)

[G] the actual amount that the custodian transfers from the Roth IRA to the traditional IRA

[H] the amount that is to be subtracted from the amount that has been converted to the Roth (i.e., on the 1099-R form for the traditional IRA, code 2, gross distribution and taxable income, which are the same) for the 8606 form

So my understanding or hunch is that:

Even though there would be a recharacterized Roth conversion, the 5498 form says "contributions", but it is regarded as recharacterized conversions.

B is a function of A - i.e., the value that is used in the calculation of is based on [A] and the balance of the Roth IRA at the time of the original conversion and the recharacterization; typically, this is a calculation that the custodian will perform, although it is possible for the custodian to allow the taxpeyer calculate this (at least my custodian allows this)

C = A + B

D = A

E = 0

F = C

G = F = C

H = D = A

So I would just like to verify that my assessment is correct, or if not, what these values should be. What I am trying to figure out is the amount of [A] or [C] to instruct my custodian to recharacterize to end up with a desired value of [H].


I am sorry, but I simply cannot follow that. Maybe I am having a dense day and one of the other tax pros will...but I cannot follow it. To be honest, I agree with what the other tax forum told you. This is something that you need to pay someone to do for you. Its a bit much to expect from a volunteer.
 

swampwiz

Junior Member
This is not complicated - a little obscure perhaps, but not complicated. Someone who codes for an IRA custodian would know this easily. I guess this forum is as worthless as the other one. I'm sorry to have wasted everyone's time. :mad:
 

ShyCat

Senior Member
This is not complicated - a little obscure perhaps, but not complicated. Someone who codes for an IRA custodian would know this easily. I guess this forum is as worthless as the other one. I'm sorry to have wasted everyone's time. :mad:
A bit unrealistic of you to expect "someone who codes for an IRA custodian" to be standing by here, ready to answer your specific question. That makes us worthless in your eyes, oh well. :rolleyes:
 

tranquility

Senior Member
This is not complicated - a little obscure perhaps, but not complicated. Someone who codes for an IRA custodian would know this easily. I guess this forum is as worthless as the other one. I'm sorry to have wasted everyone's time. :mad:
I agree it may not be complicated in theory, it is your presentation that makes it complicated. Why don't you use paragraph format to explain what is happening rather than weaving a tale of facts that really does not elucidate. Let me guess, you're an engineer, aren't you? They are the most difficult of clients as they are smart and overcomplicate simple concepts because they feel their way is better than the way those who do it for a living do it.

So, you're tying to recharacterize something? What are you planning?
 

davew128

Senior Member
Let me guess, you're an engineer, aren't you? They are the most difficult of clients as they are smart and overcomplicate simple concepts because they feel their way is better than the way those who do it for a living do it.
I agree with the assessment of engineers but I would have chosen attorney (tax or otherwise) because they feel the need to question that you did it right because you're not an attorney (even though they barely understand the underlying law in the first place).
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I am sorry, but I simply cannot follow that. Maybe I am having a dense day and one of the other tax pros will...but I cannot follow it. To be honest, I agree with what the other tax forum told you. This is something that you need to pay someone to do for you. Its a bit much to expect from a volunteer.
Nope. OP has an agenda.

But, necropost.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top