Should I cash out my Roth IRA to pay my mother's property tax debt, to avoid foreclosure on her home?
@foreverBroke - Ok, here are the questions - Is mom's house paid for in full? If there's any mortgage, is it current? If not, what are the numbers? Is it underwater, i.e. owe more that it's worth?  Will the tax department talk to you and negotiate? Maybe let you make payments over time? If you have that kind of cash flow, the slower payment may keep you from killing your savings.  We don't know your age. I do know that the early years savings, often around the first 8-12 years, are the funds that turn into half your final retirement savings due to compounding.  Obviously, this a tough time emotionally, what I don't want is for you to make a financial move that is a temporary fix. Not knowing the rest of the story limits my answer. If my mom needed my help I'd want to understand the whole picture.  Not that I'm a fan, but have you considered a reverse mortgage? It may be a way to keep the house but give up the equity, or some of it, on her moving out or passing. You're crazy to cash out your Roth or take on 401k loan, as that is addressing a short-term problem without doing anything about the longer-term issue. Just don't do it. Through no fault of her own, your mom is insolvent. It happens to people all of the time, and the solution is chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The only thing that I would do with my money in this situation is help her with bankruptcy attorney fees if needed, and maybe bid on it at auction, if the house in in good shape. "First, I'm really sorry to hear about your mother. My wife was recently diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer, so I know that there is a possibility that your mind is in ""survival"" mode, trying to preserve as much as you can in the way of things that you can effect (that's how I've been feeling recently). Having a loved one with cancer is really tough because there is absolutely, positively nothing tangible that you can do to change the fact that they have cancer. You will have to ask yourself some questions: How important is it that your mom can stay in her house? Moving could add some unneeded stress. How may years have you been contributing to your 401k? If you have 30 years left, you could have enough time to recover some of your losses from reducing the amount of money you have given up for your mom. Will your mom be able to pay you back for paying the taxes over time, or would this be a 'gift'? Have her doctors told her that she ""... has N months left...""? What is the next step after you are able to pay her taxes and save the house?  Someone close to me recently told me that ""There is no point in trying to save for someone for the future, if you can't sustain them until they get to that future. What will happen to your mom if she loses her house? Will it make it easier or harder for her to recover if she can stay? To paraphrase someone famous, ""you can't take a loan out for your retirement, but you could take a loan out for this event."" At any rate, good luck. My thoughts are with you and your mother." If it turns out that you do want to help pay the tax bill (after answering all the questions above), I say cash out those funds. You are apparently very young with a long work life ahead (lucky you). Step aside from the actual money part of it for a moment. What does your Mom want? What do you really want to do about this? Is it from love that you want to help but are afraid it's a bad financial decision? Or is it from a feeling of duty and you deep down don't really want to spend your savings on Mom's tax bill. - If you really do want to help and you have the wherewithall to do so, then do it. Otherwise don't. You can recover financially. - I myself have had my retirement savings go to nearly zero 3 times. The first time I recovered pretty easily. The second time, not so easily. I'm just starting on the recovery path for the 3rd time at age 58 and I highly doubt I ever will recover this time. I didn't cash out on purpose but the stock market was not friendly. - My main point is to figure out truly what you want.
There's a couple issues to consider: When you sell your primary home, the IRS gives you a $500k exemption (married, filing jointly) on gain.  If you decide not to sell your current house now, and you subsequently fall outside the ownership/use tests, then you may owe taxes on any gains when you sell the house. Rather than being concerned about your net debt, you should be concerned about your monthly debt payments.  Generally speaking, you cannot have debt payments of more than 36% of your monthly income.  If you can secure a renter for your current property, then you may be able to reach this ratio for your next (third) property. Also, only 75% of your expected monthly rental income is considered for calculating your 36% number. (This is not an exhaustive list of risks you expose yourself to). The largest risk is if you or your spouse find yourself without income (e.g. lost job, accident/injury, no renter), then you may be hurting to make your monthly debt payments.   You will need to be confident that you can pay all your debts.  A good rule that I hear is having the ability to pay 6 months worth of debt.  This may not necessarily mean having 6 months worth of cash on hand, but access to that money through personal lines of credit, borrowing against assets, selling stocks/investments, etc. You also want to make sure that your insurance policies fully cover you in the event that a tenant sues you, damages property, etc.  You also don't want to face a situation where you are sued because of discrimination.  Hiring a property management company to take care of these things may be a good peace-of-mind. "It's not so much a matter of your age as it is a matter of what your current tax rate is vs. what your tax rate will be when you take out the money.  As long as your current tax rate is lower than what you anticipate it will be when you withdraw the money, it makes sense to pay the tax now. Of course you can't know for certain what your tax rate will be when you take out your money, but the answer for most people is going to be ""higher than it is now"".  Some reasons why: As you age you start to lose deductions (home mortgage gets paid off, kids grow up and move out).  You likely won't gain any new deductions that would lower your tax rate as you age, you'll only lose them. Tax rates now are historically low, and budget deficits are high.  That means that higher tax rates are almost certainly coming. So unless your circumstances are very unusual, I would pretty much always recommend saving after-tax dollars. Now that I've said that, I'll throw a small wrench into that plan - when you save with a Roth IRA, you are paying taxes today with the anticipation that you won't have to pay taxes later.  But this may not necessarily be the case: The government could decide to tax Roth IRA gains in the future (would be a very unpopular move, but if they decided to do it, who's to stop them?) The government could change the tax system by lowering income tax rates and creating a VAT, or instituting something like the ""Flat Tax"".  Your Roth money is exempt from income tax, but not from a VAT or national sales tax. So, you also need to consider the possibility of those things happening and how that would affect you.  Ten years ago nobody would have dreamed of the US having a VAT, but now it looks more and more possible." Then at the end, if you decide to cash in your house, you can roll the   proceeds into a fancier house to avoid paying taxes on your profit. The problem is that the book was written in 1989. That comment is no longer true; that part of the tax law changed in the 1990's. Also in 1989 the maximum amount that person could put in an IRA was $2,000 and hadn't been raised for almost a decade and wouldn't be raised for another decade. Roth accounts didn't exist; nor did HSA's or 529's. Most people didn't have a 401K. You are asking to compare what options we have today compared to what was available in the late 1980's.  For me except, for the years 2001-2005 and 2010-2015, the period from 1988 until now has had flat real estate values. Still the current values haven't returned to the peak in 2005. The score is 11 great years, 17 flat or negative. I know many people who during the 1990's had a zero return on their real estate. Don't do it.  I would sell one of my investment houses and use the equity to pay down your primary mortgage.  Then I would refinance my primary mortgage in order to lower the payments. There are two methods of doing this Pulling out the money and paying the penalty if any, and going on your way. Having the Roth IRA own the business, and being an employee. If you go with the second choice, you should read more about it on this question. "Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house.  It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless.  You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it.   The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will.  You'd need to hire a lawyer for that.  It may not be possible.   Abandon the house.  It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate.  Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house.  You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either.  Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford.  You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem.   Explore a reverse mortgage.  They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout.  Or maybe not.  It doesn't hurt to ask.   Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you.  Google gave some results on ""find property management company Philadelphia"" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff.  Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling.  A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period).  Pay the mortgage out of the rent.  If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it.   Note that the rent may not support the mortgage.  If not, then option four is not practical.  However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway.  Let the bank have it (option two).   If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income.  She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure.  A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation.   It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer.  Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive.  You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania.   It's currently winter.  Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing.  If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes.  Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first).  Note that the kind of heat matters.  You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity." A point that hasn't been mentioned is whether paying down the mortgage sooner will get you out of unnecessary additional costs, such as PMI or a lender's requirement that you carry flood insurance on the outstanding mortgage balance, rather than the actual value/replacement cost of the structures.  (My personal bugbear:  house worth about $100K, while the bare land could be sold for about twice that, so I'm paying about 50% extra for flood insurance.)  May not apply to your loan-from-parents situation, but in the general case it should be considered. FWIW, in your situation I'd probably invest the money. "I debated whether to put this in an answer or a comment, because I'm not sure that this can be answered usefully without a lot more information, which actually would then probably make it a candidate for closing as ""too localized"". At the very least we would need to know where (which jurisdiction) she is located in. So, speaking in a generic way, the options available as I see them are: Contact the mortgage companies and explain she can't continue to make payments. They will likely foreclose on the properties and if she still ends up owing money after that (if you are in the US this also depends on whether you are in a ""non-recourse"" state) then she could be declared bankrupt. This is rather the ""nuclear option"" and definitely not something to be undertaken lightly, but would at least wipe the slate clean and give her some degree of certainty about her situation. Look very carefully at the portfolio of properties and get some proper valuations done on them (depending on where she is located this may be free). Also do a careful analysis of the property sales and rental markets, to see whether property prices / rental rates are going up or down. Then decide on an individual basis whether each property is better kept or sold. You may be able to get discounts on fees if you sell multiple properties in one transaction. This option would require some cold hard analysis and decision making without letting yourselves get emotionally invested in the situation (difficult, I know). Depending on how long she has had the properties for and how she came to own them, it MIGHT be an option to pursue action against whoever advised her to acquire them. Clearly a large portfolio of decaying rental properties is not a suitable investment for a relatively elderly lady and if she only came by them relatively recently, on advice from an investment consultant or similar, you might have some redress there.  Another option: could she live in one of the properties herself to reduce costs? If she owns her own home as well then she could sell that, live in the one of the rentals and use the money saved to finance the sale of the other rentals. Aside from these thoughts, one final piece of advice: don't get your own finances tangled up in hers (so don't take out a mortgage against your own property, for example). Obviously if you have the leeway to help her out of your budget then that is great, but I would restrict that to doing things like paying for grocery shopping or whatever. If she is heading for bankruptcy or other financial difficulties, it won't help if you are entangled too." "The bottom line is you broke the law.  While this is pretty much victimless, it is none the less a violation of the law and should be avoided in the future.  I would have not agreed to this as a parent and it sets a bad precedent.  As such I would avoid trading and move the money into cash until you turn 18.   Once you turn 18 you should transfer the money into an account of your own.  From there you may proceed as you wish. As far as paying taxes, of course you need to pay them.  Your mother did this as a favor to you and by doing such you caused her tax bill to rise.  As a gesture of goodwill you should at least provide her with half of the profits, not the 15% you propose.  Fifteen percent would be the ""I am an ungrateful son"" minimum, and I would seriously consider giving all of the profits to her." Guaranteed 8.2% annual return sounds too good to be true. Am I   right? Are there likely high fees, etc.? You're right. Guaranteed annual return is impossible, especially when you're talking about investments for such a long period of time. Ponzi (and Madoff) schemed their investors using promises of guaranteed return (see this note in Wikipedia: In some cases returns were allegedly determined before the account was even opened.[72]). Her financial advisor doesn't charge by the hour--he takes a   commission. So there's obviously some incentive to sell her things,   even if she may not need them. Definitely not a good sign, if the advisor gets a commission from the sale then he's obviously not an advisor but a sales person. The problem with this kind of investment is that it is very complex, and it is very hard to track. The commission to the broker makes it hard to evaluate returns (you pay 10% upfront, and it takes awhile to just get that money back, before even getting any profits), and since you're only able to withdraw in 20 years or so - there's no real way to know if something wrong, until you get there and discover that oops- no money! Also, many annuity funds (if not all) limit withdrawals to a long period, i.e.: you cannot touch money for like 10 years from investment (regardless of the tax issues, the tax deferred investment can be rolled over to another tax deferred account, but in this case - you can't). I suggest you getting your own financial advisor (that will work for you) to look over the details, and talk to your mother if it is really a scam. The other thing that you may or may not be considering is the fact that when she moves or otherwise ceases to live in that condo, you could then rent the unit out to others at the inflation adjusted rent price for the area. You could continue to build equity in the property for a fraction of the cost, and it would continue to be a tax write-off once your mother is not living there. While you have more maintenance and repairs cost when renters live there (typically, anyway), if inflation continues to carry on at about 4-5%, then you would be potentially renting the unit out at between $2,500 and $2,850 by the 10th year from now. Obviously, there are other considerations to be made as well, but those are some additional factors that don't seem to have been addressed in any of the above comments. Since this is the reasoning: I don't want to bother with micropayments, and harassing her for   monthly payments. You must do one the following: Provide the money to your mom as a loan (i.e.: with a note and interest) payable when the full repayment of the loan to the bank is done (i.e.: balloon note). The terms of the note should be that the money to be used as collateral for the secured loan from the bank. Provide the money to your mom directly. In this case you have to pay gift tax on $7K (above the 13K exemption limit). Since you want the money back - you'll probably want the option #1. Your interest rate should be above a certain level to avoid reclassifying it as a gift by the IRS (your tax adviser can help you with that). Your mom will pay interest to the bank on the secured loan, and to you on the collateral (unless you wave it, subject to gift tax, again - talk to the tax adviser). You will only need to harass your mom about the balloon payment in the end. This is not a tax or legal advice. Talk to your tax adviser and a legal counsel about the details and additional options. "Obviously you have done well financially in order to be able to purchase a condo for cash, presumably, without risk of your other obligations.  To put things in perspective, we are probably talking about less than $5,000 in tax savings.   If she is on the title then she is a co-owner.  Are you okay with that?  You would essentially be giving this child a 50% stake in a property without compensation.  Will your other children be okay with it? As your question stated you would prefer to not have her as an owner.  However, is it better to not have her as an owner, So I would buy the condo without her on the title and just pay the extra $100 per month in property tax.  It is probably ""small potatoes"" in comparison to your net worth. I would also only charge her at most your cost of carrying the property as rent.  While you will create income all of it (and probably more) could be written off as costs.  There should be no income tax burden created from this situation.  Your accountant can help with any paperwork that needs to be filed." I think you're missing several key issues here. First for the facts: IRA contributions are $5500 a year maximum (currently, it changes with inflation), i.e.: you cannot deposit $10K in an IRA account in a single year. IRA withdrawals can only be made if you have something liquid in the IRA. You cannot withdraw from Lending Club IRA unless you manage to sell the notes currently held by you there. Roth IRA is funded with after-tax money, and you can withdraw your deposits in Roth IRA any time for any reason. No 10K limit there, only limited by what you deposited. However the main thing you're missing is this: You can withdraw up to $10K from your IRA for first home purchase without penalty. Pay attention: not without tax but without penalty. So what is the point in depositing $10k into IRA just to withdraw it the next year? "the mortgage interest deduction alone couldn't make this work, but if you realize less income by living off the mortgage funds, then it could definitely reduce your taxes by much more than the cost of the mortgage interest.  particularly, if you are waiting for some future cut-off date (e.g. turning 59.5 and getting access to roth funds, turning 70 and getting social security, simply doing a roth conversion with strategic recharacterization at age 40 and waiting 5 years to get the money out penalty-free, etc.).  and that future date could be quite far off if you only use a small fraction of the total mortgage each year. plus, it is fairly reasonable to assume that equity market returns will outpace mortgage rates, especially if you are ""rich"" and don't need to worry about living on the street even if the market hits unprecedented lows.  while i find most financial advisers to be incompetent (most people really...), i wouldn't write this guy off, just because he left out the specific details that made the strategy work for one particular client."