Spokane man surprised by $140K tax bill after he withdrew cash from 401(k) — what Ramsey Show hosts say to do
Marty from Spokane, Washington, thought he was taking a smart step toward debt-free homeownership. But pulling $400,000 from his 401(k) to buy a house left him with a staggering $140,000 tax bill.
'I just recently found out that when I go to file my taxes, I am going to owe roughly $140,000,' he said, calling into The Ramsey Show. 'I really don't want to do a payment plan with the IRS, but I just don't know the best path forward.'
Marty thought he had paid all the fees and taxes when he withdrew the money, but said, 'I was misinformed that it had been paid… and I didn't realize it hadn't been done until I went to file my taxes.'
Marty has a few ways to come up with the money: He could use a line of credit like a HELOC or credit card, dip into his $60,000 in savings, or take out a personal loan from a bank. But The Ramsey Show co-hosts Jade Warshaw and Rachel Cruze were clear: some of those options could make things worse. They advised against using a home equity line of credit (HELOC) or a credit card.
'I would not do a HELOC,' Cruze said. 'I would not put your home at risk. With HELOCs, the interest rates are sometimes insane.' As for credit cards, the interest rates tend to be even higher and more volatile, and the debt can spiral fast. That's a dangerous mix when dealing with a large IRS bill. Instead, Warshaw and Cruze recommended pulling from Marty's savings and using a personal loan from a bank to cover the remainder.
'Use your savings, then get a personal loan to pay the IRS off as quickly as possible,' Warshaw advised.
'Because I'd rather owe a bank than the IRS at this point,' Cruze added.
IRS debt can lead to aggressive penalties, interest and long wait times when trying to resolve issues — which is why they emphasized handling it quickly, cleanly, and without risking other key assets like retirement accounts or home equity.
'You're already in the hole,' Cruze said, adding '...be in the hole with a bank.'
Marty's story serves as a reminder to avoid dipping into retirement accounts, especially if you don't fully understand the tax implications.
As Warshaw concluded, 'No more leveraging very important things for debt.'
Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10)
In a financial emergency, your 401(k) might look like a tempting source of fast cash, especially when you see a hefty six-figure balance just sitting there. But taking money out of your 401(k) before age 59½ can come with serious consequences that extend far beyond the immediate tax year. You're typically hit with a 10% early withdrawal penalty and ordinary income tax on the total amount that you've withdrawn.
For example, let's say you withdraw $20,000 from your 401(k) before age 59½:
$2,000 goes straight to the IRS as a penalty (10%)
Assuming a 22% tax bracket, you'll owe another $4,400 in income taxes
Total cost in fees and taxes: $6,400, or 32% of your withdrawal
The amount you'll actually keep: $13,600
Aside from the fees and taxes, there are long-term implications, too.
Lost investment growth: Money withdrawn from your 401(k) isn't just taxed, it's no longer growing. A $20,000 withdrawal today could have grown to $80,000 or more over 25 years with compounding returns (assuming an average of 7% annual growth).
Tax time shock: Many people think taxes and penalties are deducted automatically. But if you don't withhold the right amount when you take the distribution, you may owe thousands when you file, with penalties and interest if you can't pay on time.
There are some exceptions where tapping into your 401(k) early may be the only option:
Avoiding foreclosure or eviction
Job loss with no savings or access to credit
Disability or death (in which case, penalties may be waived)
Hardship withdrawals, like for terminal illness (may be exempt from the 10% penalty, but you'll still owe income taxes)
Before dipping into your retirement funds, consider other options:
Emergency savings
Personal loans or credit union options
Home equity loans, if your income supports repayment
Selling non-retirement investments, like brokerage accounts
Pulling from your 401(k) early can feel like a quick fix, but with taxes, penalties and lost future growth, you could lose 30% to 40% of what you take out, so it should be treated as a last resort rather than an easy solution.
Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Senate version of Trump's budget bill includes a new tax break worth up to $2,000—around 90% of filers could take advantage
Congress will soon begin a reconciliation process for the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act — President Donald Trump's sweeping tax reform and spending bill, which Republicans hope to bring to the President's desk by July 4. The bill promises continuity for taxpayers by permanently extending the cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as a raft of new cuts, including breaks for tipped and overtime income. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill also include a throwback: an above-the-line deduction on charitable contributions. The House version allows taxpayers who don't itemize to deduct $150 ($300 for joint filers) in charitable contributions from their taxable income through 2028 — a tax rule you may remember from a similar provision of the CARES Act, which expired in 2021. The Senate version is even more generous, with permanent deductions of up to $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for married couples filing jointly. "This could provide some tax savings for folks," says Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. "That could be something unexpected if you're not currently deducting charitable giving." Most people don't deduct charitable contributions — and it's not because they're not generous or don't want a tax break. Other than under the Covid-19 relief bill, taxpayers generally have had to itemize deductions in order to get a break for charitable giving. For most people, that doesn't make sense. Some 9 in 10 taxpayers take the standard deduction, which in 2025 is $15,000 for singles and $30,000 for joint filers. You'd typically only itemize if the sum of your deductions would save you more money than just taking the standard deduction. In short, the legislation currently bouncing around Congress would, at least temporarily, allow anyone who donates to charity to get a tax break — not just the mega-philanthropists among us. Because these deductions reduce your taxable income, they're the most beneficial for people in the highest tax brackets. A $1,000 deduction from income is effectively worth $100 to someone in the 10% tax bracket. The same deduction is worth $350 to someone in the 35% bracket. Should some version of the provision become law, you'll still have to follow the IRS' rules on charitable giving. Donations must be made to qualifying charitable organizations — donations to political campaigns, crowdfunding efforts and, in the case of the proposed tax break, donor-advised funds won't be eligible. Before you make a donation you plan on deducting, check the IRS' search tool to make sure the organization is tax-exempt. And be sure to get a receipt for your donation; the IRS generally requires written acknowledgement of any donation in excess of $250.
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
How To Gift Funds In Retirement Like Warren Buffett
Warren Buffett isn't just known for his investing acumen—he's also a model for thoughtful giving. For retirees considering how to share their wealth, Buffett's approach offers valuable lessons. Gifting funds in retirement, when done strategically, can support loved ones and meaningful causes without jeopardizing long-term financial security. One of Buffett's core principles is to give during his lifetime, rather than waiting to pass assets through an estate. This philosophy, often called "giving while living," allows donors to witness the impact of their generosity and ensures funds are used effectively. For retirees, this can mean helping adult children buy a home, funding a grandchild's education, or supporting charitable organizations they're passionate about—all while maintaining control and oversight. The IRS allows individuals to gift up to $18,000 per recipient annually (as of 2024) without triggering gift tax reporting. Married couples can double that amount, jointly gifting $36,000 per recipient per year. Over time, these annual gifts can meaningfully reduce the size of a taxable estate while offering real-time support to family members. Additionally, retirees can take advantage of direct payments for qualified education or medical expenses. When paid directly to an institution, these gifts do not count against the annual exclusion limit. Buffett's philanthropic strategy centers around meaningful, high-impact giving. Retirees can emulate this by focusing on causes they care about and exploring tax-efficient methods such as: Generosity is admirable, but it shouldn't come at the cost of long-term financial security. Before making substantial gifts, retirees should review their financial plan to ensure they have sufficient income for healthcare, lifestyle expenses, and potential long-term care needs. Financial planning tools can model different gifting scenarios to strike a balance between giving and preserving financial independence. Consulting with a financial advisor or estate planning attorney can help ensure that gifts align with broader financial goals. Warren Buffett once said he wants to give his kids 'enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.' It's a powerful reminder that gifting is about empowerment, not entitlement. For retirees, gifting during their lifetime—whether to family or charities—can be one of the most meaningful parts of the retirement journey. With a thoughtful, tax-efficient approach, gifts can leave a legacy that lasts far beyond a balance sheet.
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
A New IRS Commissioner And The Promise Of More Efficient Tax Audits
WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 18: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) building on Thursday, Aug. 18, 2022 ... More in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images) The Senate has officially confirmed that former Missouri Congressman Billy Long will serve as the IRS commissioner in Trump's second term. While some cabinet appointees have cruised through their confirmation hearings with limited scrutiny, Long did not have the same luck as many Senators expressed concerns over his checkered past. Long ultimately prevailed under the platform of reshaping the taxing authority to be more like a private sector entity. This article discusses why he faced so much scrutiny, what his vision can look like once instituted, and what recently published academic research says about the current and future state of the tax audit process. Long was a sitting Congressman in Missouri from 2011 to 2022. Before joining the House of Representatives, he was an auctioneer and a talk radio host. He left office to run for Senate, where Long ultimately lost in the Republican primary. Following this stint, he served as a tax consultant for Lifetime Advisors and Commerce Terrace Consulting, followed by working as a realtor with Murney Associates. Much of this variation in Long's background led to his nomination to be somewhat unique and trying. This scrutiny is headlined by Long's tax qualifications centered around being a Certified Tax & Business Advisor, which, as reported by ProPublica, is a dubious title that is nowhere close to the same as a professional accountant like a CPA, CIA, or CMA. In fact, Long's accounting and tax experience are minimal, which many questioned as he was vying to take on the role of head of the tax authority. Beyond his qualifications, the AP highlights his suspect activities related to promoting unusually aggressive uses of tax credits like the employee retention tax credit and tribal tax credits. Despite some of these concerns, following this seventh-month process, the Senate confirmed Long by a vote of 53-44. As discussed in a Forbes article, one of the positives of his nomination is Long's vision of modernizing and streamlining the taxing authority. Long specifically points to taking clues from the private sector and eliminating programs that he deems wasteful, like Direct File. While Long was vague about what he meant by this modernization vision, FedScoop reports that individuals within the IRS believe that Long's vision of modernizing the IRS will include a clearer embrace and usage of AI and automation in the audit process. This anticipation comes as numerous IRS positions are being eliminated, as reported by Politico, leading to questions about the agency's future. In a study forthcoming in Contemporary Accounting Research titled 'Tax audits and the policing of corporate taxes: Insights from tax executives,' the authors provide evidence of inefficiencies in the way extant IRS audits are being conducted as they pertain to corporations. This study is authored by Jeri Seidman (University of Virginia, McIntire School of Commerce), Roshan Sinha, and Bridget Stomberg (both of Indiana University, Kelley School of Business). This study finds inefficiencies in the current tax audit process. Sinha notes the key takeaways from the study are as follows, 'First, financial statement audits are both so regular and so thorough that tax executives view tax audits as redundant. Thus, tax audits may have limited ability to deter tax noncompliance. Second, tax executives are not passive actors in the tax audit process; they take deliberate actions to shape audit outcomes. Third, tax audits are less efficient for everyone when taxpayers perceive them as procedurally unfair because they are less likely to accept the outcome.' A key theme across the findings is the notion that the tax authority views its role in the process as a police officer. While it is one method of enforcement, the study finds that angle tends to put corporations on the defensive from the get-go, adversely affecting the relation between the IRS auditor and corporation and potentially negatively affecting the end outcome of the tax audit. To conduct the analysis, the study performs 26 interviews with tax executives (directors and VPs of tax) at publicly traded U.S. companies. These interviews allowed executives to share detailed experiences and examples from their interactions with the IRS, state tax authorities, and international tax agencies. The interviews were semi-structured, which meant that although we had a list of questions we wanted to cover, there was flexibility to let the conversation flow to unscripted topics and ideas we had not anticipated. Given the type of analysis, the responses led to several surprising findings. Seidman notes three, in particular, related to how the executives respond to the audit process. 'We were surprised by the extent to which tax executives share information with their peers, essentially comparing notes with competitors about specific tax agents and audit strategies. Even more striking was their perception that financial statement audits already impose such stringent oversight on their taxes that income tax audits become redundant.' Second, Seidman highlights that 'when tax executives perceive audits as unfair, they are less likely to accept the outcome. Instead, they may pursue costly appeals, which can drag on for years. Interestingly, these protracted battles often conclude with no additional taxes owed, highlighting inefficiencies in the current system where both taxpayers and tax authorities expend significant resources, yet generally end up with the same resolution anyway.' Lastly, Seidman states, 'in addition to the negative comments directed at the IRS in terms of agent training or education and culture, interviewees also regularly comment on how far behind the IRS is technology-wise, especially compared to Europe and Australia.' This point emphasizes the need for the IRS to invest more in its physical infrastructure to remain on par with other developed nation's tax authorities. The study concludes by suggesting that the tax authority can develop novel and more efficient ways to conduct their audits in the new era of budget limitations and financial statement disclosures. As for policymakers, Stomberg states that they can 'consider whether the current system, particularly the frequent 'game of attrition' between tax authorities and taxpayers over the course of long audits, represents an optimal use of resources. In particular, interviewees largely herald cooperative programs, though they had less positive things to say about CAP than about other country's programs.' Given the mission Long depicted for a new modern IRS, this study provides several important takeaways that can be considered to achieve this modernization without sacrificing the taxing authority's grip on funding the federal government. For instance, if the financial statement audits are already adequately reviewing the tax financial statement disclosures, then perhaps the IRS can utilize that information already available to deter tax noncompliance. The IRS can even go as far as to work with auditing governing bodies like the PCAOB to develop standards that can provide greater oversight over publicly reported tax information. This notion carries even heavier weight with the impending change to financial accounting standards over corporate tax disclosures, which the FASB is implementing starting in 2025. Lastly, while it costs money to enhance the IRS's technology, it appears as though an investment in physical infrastructure may be warranted. However, much of the possible improvements appear to stem from the tone and relation between the tax authority and tax executives. The study notes significant differences between the education, experience, and conduct of tax auditors, even among countries. For example, participants in the study applaud the HMRC from the U.K. on these dimensions in contrast with the U.S. auditors. These suggestions come at a critical time when the federal government wants to cut as much as 20% of IRS employees in 2026, according to The Journal of Accountancy. Despite these cuts, the IRS is currently rolling out improvements to auditing process, such as the recent adoption of an improved pre-filing program to aid certainty among corporate taxpayers. If the U.S. can continue to invest more in its auditors and technology, then a cost-effective way might emerge to efficiently achieve better tax audit outcomes.
