The Roth IRA in Texas: Five Tax Bans in the Constitution, and the Two Places Texas Is Harder Than You Think

Texas does not tax Roth IRA withdrawals or conversions, and it has locked that answer into its constitution rather than merely leaving it out of the tax code: since 2019 the legislature may not impose an individual income tax, and as of November 2025 four further prohibitions cover wealth, capital gains, state death and gift taxes, and securities transactions. A $100,000 conversion costs a Texan $0 in state tax. Texas also shields a Roth IRA from creditors with no dollar cap and protects an inherited Roth by name. The two places it is harder than its reputation: it is a community-property state, and available retirement funds can count under its Medicaid rules.

Five taxes Texas has written out of its constitution

Most states answer the Roth question with a rate schedule; Florida answers it with a conformity ceiling. Texas answers it with a flat prohibition and then, in November 2025, added three more. Art. VIII §24-a is the operative one for a Roth: “the legislature may not impose a tax on the net incomes of individuals.” It arrived by Proposition 4 in 2019 with 74.4% of the vote, and it replaced the older 1993 amendment rather than stacking on top of it.

Five taxes Texas has locked out of its constitution

Three of them added on a single day — November 4, 2025 · verified against the codified constitution

Tax	Section	Adopted	Ballot	What it bars
Individual income tax	Art. VIII §24-a	Nov 5, 2019	Prop 4 · 74.4%	The legislature may not impose a tax on the net incomes of individuals.
Wealth tax	Art. VIII §25	Nov 7, 2023	Prop 3 · 67.9%	Bars a tax based on the wealth or net worth of an individual or family.
Capital gains tax	Art. VIII §24-b	Nov 4, 2025	Prop 2 · 65.4%	Bars a tax on a realized or unrealized capital gain.
Death, inheritance and gift taxes	Art. VIII §26	Nov 4, 2025	Prop 8 · 72.2%	Bars death taxes and limits specified transfer taxes, with §26(b)'s exceptions preserved.
Securities transaction tax	Art. VIII §30	Nov 4, 2025	Prop 6 · 54.9%	Bars specified taxes on registered securities-market operators and their securities transactions; §30(c) preserves named taxes and fees.

What follows for a Roth IRA holder:

• Conversions are free at the state level in any amount, at any age. There is no exclusion to qualify for because there is no return to exclude anything from — the opposite of New York, where the game is fitting conversions into a $20,000 annual window at 59½.
• No state early-withdrawal penalty. Federal additional tax may apply, depending on Roth ordering rules, holding periods and exceptions. California has a separate 2.5% additional tax when applicable.
• No state withholding, no estimated tax, no safe harbour to miss. A December conversion creates no state-level underpayment problem.
• No local layer anywhere — no city, county, school district or special district may tax personal income.
• The Roth-versus-traditional comparison loses its state dimension entirely. No state deduction to forgo on a traditional contribution, no state tax to avoid on a Roth withdrawal.
• No individual income tax does not mean every IRA-owned entity is exempt. An ordinary IRA conversion or distribution creates no Texas individual income tax. An IRA-owned business entity can have separate franchise-tax obligations: the Comptroller expressly treats a partnership with an IRA partner as a taxable entity.

Authority: H.J.R. 38, 86th Leg., R.S. (2019), §3 (repealing Tex. Const. Art. VIII §24, added by S.J.R. 49, 73rd Leg., R.S. (1993)); Texas Legislative Council, Amendments to the Texas Constitution Since 1876 (May 2026), Art. 8 tables · Tex. Const. Art. VIII §24-a, added by H.J.R. 38, 86th Leg., R.S. (2019), §2; election held Nov. 5, 2019 per §4 of the resolution · Tex. Const. Art. VIII §24-a; Texas Comptroller Pub. 96-1774 (Dec. 2025). Contrast Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §17085(c) · Tex. Const. Art. VIII §24-b, added by S.J.R. 18, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); adopted as Proposition 2, Nov. 4 · verified 2026-07-25

The inherited-Roth answer Texas wrote down before the Supreme Court asked the question

Tex. Prop. Code §42.0021 exempts qualifying retirement accounts from attachment, execution and seizure — with no dollar cap and no means test under that state provision. California's state-law IRA exemption uses a necessary-for-support test; bankruptcy also requires analysis of separate federal retirement-fund protections.

Then the part that is genuinely unusual. Most states left the inherited-IRA question to their courts, which is why it is a coin flip across much of the country: in Clark v. Rameker (2014) the Supreme Court held an inherited IRA is not a “retirement fund” for the federal bankruptcy exemption, and state law has had to fill the gap. Texas had already filled it. §42.0021(a)(5) exempts “a Roth IRA, including an inherited Roth IRA” — inherited-IRA language added in 2011, inherited-Roth language in 2013, both before the 2014 decision. A federal bankruptcy court has since confirmed the state exemption survives Clark.

The structural piece that makes it work: Texas is an opt-in bankruptcy state. A Texas debtor may elect the state exemptions instead of the federal list — so they claim §42.0021 and never touch the federal “retirement funds” test that Clark narrowed. Florida, by contrast, is opt-out.

The same account, four states

Every row sourced on its own state’s page · verified 2026-07-25

	New York	California	Florida	Texas
Taxes a Roth conversion?	Yes, minus a $20,000/yr window at 59½	Yes — in full, no exclusion	No	No
How the “no tax” is secured	—	—	Conformity ceiling (Art. VII §5)	Outright ban (Art. VIII §24-a)
Its own early-withdrawal penalty?	None	2.5% additional tax when applicable; ordering rules and exceptions matter	None	None
Your own Roth vs. creditors	Strong (CPLR §5205(c))	State-law support-necessity test; separate federal bankruptcy rules	Unlimited, no cap	Unlimited, no cap
An inherited Roth vs. creditors	Inherited-account result requires case-specific analysis	Inherited-account protection not established here	Protected by statute	Named in the statute
Community property?	No	Yes — equal division	No	Yes — “just and right” division
Senior property-tax break income-tested?	Yes — and STAR ignores conversions	Property Tax Postponement loan: $55,181 household-income cap (2025–26 vintage); secured by a lien, not a general exemption	Yes — $38,686 AGI cap	No income test in the listed statewide programs
IRA countable for Medicaid?	Potential payout exclusion only if state/account-specific conditions are met	Asset test returned 2026	Potential payout exclusion only if state/account-specific conditions are met	Generally countable; check applicable exclusions
Illustrative $100,000 conversion (assumptions below)	~$11,949 (NYC)	~$9,300	$0	$0

The limits deserve as much attention as the protection. A child-support lien is not blocked by §42.0021 — the sharpest exception, and the one most likely to touch an ordinary family. A federal tax levy overrides it. Fraudulent transfers are recoverable on two separate tracks. A distribution keeps its exemption for only 60 days unless rolled over. And in a self-directed account a prohibited transaction can destroy the exemption along with the account’s tax status. Texas imposes no look-back window on recent contributions, and the Texas homestead exemption has no state-law dollar cap but has acreage limits: up to 10 urban acres, or 200 rural acres for a family and 100 for a single adult. Federal bankruptcy restrictions and exceptions remain separate.

Authority: Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 933 (S.B. 1810) §1, eff. 6/17/2011; Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 91 (S.B. 649) §2, eff. 9/1/2013; Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 320 (H.B. 2779) §1, eff. 9/1/2019 · In re Kara, 573 B.R. 696 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2017); Clark v. Rameker, 573 U.S. 122 (2014); In re Enloe, 542 B.R. 414 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2015) · In re Kara, 573 B.R. 696, 702 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2017) (citing In re Bounds, 491 B.R. 440, 444 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2013)); 11 U.S.C. §522(b)(1)-(2) · Tex. Prop. Code §42.0021(a)(4)-(5), (c) · Tex. Prop. Code §42.0021(a), (a)(4)-(5) · Tex. Prop. Code & · verified 2026-07-25

The community-property half of the answer

This is where Texas stops resembling Florida and starts resembling California. Texas is a community-property state: a Roth funded with earnings during the marriage is community property regardless of whose name is on the account. Two divergences from California matter:

• Division at divorce is discretionary, not equal. Texas divides the community estate “in a manner that the court deems just and right” — California starts from a presumptive half-and-half. Equal is the intuition, not the rule.
• Quasi-community property applies only at divorce. Move to Texas from a separate-property state and the concept reaches your divorce, not your death — while everything you hold is presumed community property, and rebutting that presumption is your burden.
• Transfer mechanics matter. A transfer of the IRA interest incident to divorce can be tax-free under IRC §408(d)(6); withdrawing cash and paying it to a spouse is not the same transaction. IRAs use the divorce-transfer rule, not the qualified-plan QDRO process. Draining a community Roth ahead of a divorce is separately actionable.

Community rights can matter at death. In Estate of Leah Rita Tillotson, No. 05-19-01192-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas December 30, 2020), pages 4–8, the court upheld the deceased wife's community interest in her surviving husband's rollover and Roth IRAs and rejected the claimed federal preemption under IRC §§408 and 408A. That is an IRA-at-death decision, not merely a life-insurance analogy. It does not resolve every conflict between a deceased IRA owner's named beneficiary and a surviving spouse. A beneficiary form should not be treated as conclusively eliminating community-property rights; the account's ownership, agreements and facts need legal review.

Authority: Tex. Est. Code §§111.002(a), 112.051, 112.052; absence of any consent requirement in Tex. Fam. Code chs. 3-4 and Tex. Est. Code chs. 101, 111, 112; contrast ERISA §205 / IRC §417 · Tex. Est. Code §§111.052, 111.053, 111.054, 201.003(c); Madrigal v. Madrigal, 115 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) · Tex. Fam. Code §7.001, §7.002; contrast Cal. Fam. Code §2550 · Tex. Fam. Code §7.002(a), (b); Tex. Estates Code chs. 101, 201 (silent); contrast Cal. Fam. Code §125 and Cal. Prob. Code §§66, 101(a) · Tex. Fam. Code §7.003; IRC &sec · verified 2026-07-25

Leaving California or New York: who taxes the conversion?

Texas is the destination; the risk sits behind you. 4 U.S.C. §114 bars any state from taxing a nonresident’s retirement income and names individual retirement plans expressly — California’s own guidance lists Roth conversions among what it cannot reach, and New York’s says conversion income is excluded “by reason of section 114.” Work thirty years in Los Angeles, retire to Texas, convert: California’s share is zero.

What makes Texas practically different from Florida here is what it lacks: there is no declaration-of-domicile statute, no Texas counterpart to the sworn instrument a Floridian files. Texas has no individual-income-tax residency test or individual income-tax return. Residence requirements for other legal purposes still matter. Your domicile is proved by conduct and documents — including the property-tax homestead application, which you must swear to and which requires that you claim no out-of-state homestead. Practical deadlines: a driver licence within 90 days, vehicle registration within 30.

The audit risk is entirely the old state’s. California applies a two-prong residency test plus a thirteen-factor closest-connections analysis, treats more than nine months in-state as a presumption of residency, resolves genuine doubt against the move, and runs a dedicated residency-audit programme. New York can make you a resident on a permanent home plus 184 days and demands clear and convincing evidence of departure. In both, conversion timing is all-or-nothing: the entire conversion is sourced to the period in which you received it, with no proration — so convert after the move is genuinely complete, not during it. And note the trap in the opposite direction: §114 protects retirement income only, so California can still tax other income sourced to it after you leave.

A recent move can affect which state exemptions apply in bankruptcy. Section 522(b)(3)(A) uses a 730-day domicile period and, when needed, a preceding 180-day fallback. But section 522(b)(3)(C) separately protects qualifying tax-exempt retirement funds, subject to applicable conditions and the IRA limits in section 522(n). A California-to-Texas move does not by itself establish that only California’s means-tested IRA exemption is available.

Authority: 11 U.S.C. §522(b)(3)(A), (C); §522(n) · 4 U.S.C. §114(a), (b)(1)(E), (b)(3); P.L. 104-95 · FTB Pub. 1005 (2025) p.12; FTB Pub. 1031 (2025) §I; Cal. R&TC §17952.5 · FTB Pub. 1005 (2025) p.4; Cal. R&TC §17952.5(a), (b)(5) · FTB Pub. 1031 (2025) §G 'Guidelines for Determining Residency' · FTB Pub. 1100 (2025) §E Example 13; FTB Pub. 1031 (2025) §I · NY TSB-M-98(7)I (Dec. 24, 1998) at 1-2 · NY Tax Law §605(b)(1)(A)-(B); 20 NYCRR §105.20(c); Leach v. Chu, 150 A.D.2d 842; NY Nonresident Audit Guidelines (Dec. 2021) at 53 · Tex. Prop. Code §41.005(c), (e); a · verified 2026-07-25

Where a conversion costs you something — and where it cannot

Property-tax and means-tested health programs use different eligibility rules. A conversion's federal income-tax treatment does not determine every program's treatment.

The statewide homestead programs listed here do not use an income test. Conversion income does not change eligibility under those provisions — not the $140,000 school-district homestead exemption, not the additional $60,000 for owners 65 or older or disabled, not the school tax ceiling that freezes school taxes at 65, not the over-65 deferral, not the appraisal limitation (generally prior appraised value plus 10%, plus new improvements, limited to market value). Other age, ownership, residence and application conditions still apply. This is not a finding about every local benefit; check the terms of the particular program. Both 2025 increases are in effect and retroactive to the 2025 tax year — and note the over-65 add-on went from $10,000 to $60,000, a change still widely mis-stated at the old figure.

Medicaid uses a separate resource and income test. Texas’s 2026 special income limit is $2,982 a month for an individual; a Qualified Income Trust may be needed above the applicable cap, and does not eliminate the resource test. MEPD F-4100 lists available retirement accounts as countable resources and directs readers to the annuity rules. Countable value depends on accessibility and applicable exclusions, not merely the account’s Roth label. F-7210 separately excludes qualifying retirement-related annuities, including an annuity purchased with Roth IRA proceeds, from resources and transfers; that section retains its December 2009 effective date. Do not assume that starting withdrawals alone shelters an account or that the full balance necessarily counts in every case. Confirm the arrangement with HHSC or a Texas elder-law attorney.

Medicare Savings Programs have separate resource conditions. For Texas QMB, SLMB and QI, the 2026 countable-resource limits are $9,950 individual and $14,910 couple. QDWI uses separate limits. Available retirement funds may count, subject to account access and applicable exclusions; do not assume every Roth balance disqualifies an applicant.

The dated program review identified no operating Texas state auto-IRA programme. That does not remove federal Roth contribution, compensation or income limits: an employer-facilitated or individually opened IRA can still receive an excess contribution. Labor Code §1.005 generally preempts local private-employer employment-benefit mandates unless another statute expressly authorizes them; it does not prohibit a municipality from providing benefits to its own employees.

Authority: S.B. 4 §1.01 and S.B. 23 §1.01, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); S.J.R. 2 (Prop. 13) and S.J.R. 85 (Prop. 11), approved Nov. 4, 2025; Tex. Const. art. VIII, §1-b(c) · Tex. Labor Code §1.005(b), added by HB 2127, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023) (Texas Regulatory Consistency Act); enforcement via Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 102A · Tex. Tax Code §11.13(b), as amended by S.B. 4, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), contingent on S.J.R. 2 (Prop. 13, approved Nov. 4, 2025); Tex. Const. art. VIII, §1-b(c) · Tex. Tax Code §11.13(c), (d), (q), as amended by S.B. 23, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), contingent on S.J.R. · verified 2026-07-25

Mineral rights inside a Roth IRA — the Texas question nobody answers

Mineral ownership is ordinary in Texas and it collides with a Roth IRA in a way almost no retirement guide addresses. The distinction is royalties versus working interests.

Passive royalty income, including overriding royalties, is generally excluded from unrelated business taxable income, subject to exceptions such as debt financing and certain controlled-entity payments. A working interest that bears development costs is not covered by the royalty exclusion: at $1,000 or more of gross unrelated-business income, the custodian files Form 990-T for the account. Filing does not necessarily mean tax is due: the IRA owes tax only on unrelated business taxable income after allowable deductions, including the $1,000 specific deduction. Debt-financing can pull even royalties into the same treatment, and operating or servicing the property yourself risks a prohibited transaction that disqualifies the entire account.

The consolation is specifically Texan: an IRA that owes this tax keeps its Texas creditor exemption, because §42.0021 treats a plan as exempt even where it is taxed solely under the unrelated-business rules.

Authority: 2025 Instructions for Form 990-T (Who Must File); IRC §512(b)(12); §408(h) · 26 CFR §1.512(b)-1(b); IRC §512(a)(1), §513 · 26 CFR §1.512(b)-1(b); IRC §512(b)(2) · IRC §408(e)(1); IRC §408A(a); IRC §511 · IRC §408(e)(2)(A); IRC §4975(c)(1)(C), (D), (E); §4975(e)(2) · IRC §514(a)(1), §514(b)(1); IRC §512(b) · Tex. Prop. Code §42.0021(a); §42.0021(b); §42.001(a) · verified 2026-07-25

The public-employee corner

Texas’s public workforce has uneven Roth access, and one gap is worth knowing before you choose a plan:

• State employees: Texa$aver offers a Roth option in both the 401(k) and the 457.
• Teachers: TRS of Texas offers no Roth vehicle at all — Roth access for school employees runs through a district-sponsored 403(b), so it depends on your district’s vendor list. Texas repealed its 403(b) vendor-certification regime in 2019, so the state no longer pre-screens those products for you.
• Cities: availability varies — Dallas documents Roth in both its 457 and its 401(k); other cities are inconsistent about publishing it.
• Higher education: the Optional Retirement Program is administered institution by institution and statewide guidance does not address Roth availability.
• The simplification: because Texas exempts no retirement income, none of New York’s $20,000-exclusion complexity about which plan’s distributions qualify exists here.
• Federal rule now live: for 2026, the federal rule generally requires Roth age-based catch-ups when 2025 wages from the sponsoring employer exceeded $150,000. The general transition ended after 2025. Final regulations generally apply from 2027, with separate governmental and collectively bargained rules; later regulatory applicability is not a blanket exemption from the 2026 statutory requirement. Confirm the applicable wage test and administration with the plan.

Authority: City of Dallas HR, Deferred Compensation; City of Austin HR, Active Employee Benefits · IRS Notice 2025-67; IRC §414(v)(7)(A); SECURE 2.0 §603; T.D. 10033 (final regs, Sept. 16, 2025); IR-2025-91 · TRS of Texas, Understanding 403(b) Retirement Plans · Tex. Comptroller, Texas Payroll/Personnel Resource — Deferred Compensation Plans; Tex. Gov't Code §§609.001, 609.007, 609.502; 34 TAC §87.5(a) · Tex. Const. art. VIII, §24-a (added Nov. 5, 2019) · Tex. H.B. 2820, 86th Leg., R.S. (2019) (repealing Sec. 8A, art. 6228a-5, Vernon's Tex. Civ. Stat.), eff. Sept. 1, 2019; TRS of Texas 403( · verified 2026-07-25

Four Texas beliefs you can retire

A state with no income tax attracts confident folklore. Each of these is wrong:

• verified“Texas could add an income tax whenever it wants” — not since 2019, and not easily. Art. VIII §24-a states plainly that “the legislature may not impose a tax on the net incomes of individuals.” Undoing it takes a constitutional amendment ratified by voters, not a bill. And the older 1993 amendment it replaced was repealed outright rather than left underneath — the codified constitution reads simply “Sec. 24. (Repealed Nov. 5, 2019.)”
• verified“Texas is basically Florida” — on tax yes, on almost everything else no. They give the same answer on conversions and both protect retirement accounts without a dollar cap. Then they part company: Texas is community property and Florida is not; the listed Texas statewide homestead programs have no income test; and Medicaid retirement-fund treatment depends on the state's rules and the particular account.
• verified“My old state can chase my IRA for years after I leave” — federal law says otherwise. 4 U.S.C. §114 bars any state from taxing the retirement income of a nonresident, and it names individual retirement plans expressly. California’s own guidance lists Roth conversions among the income it cannot reach; New York’s says conversion income is excluded “by reason of section 114.” The fight is never the rule — it is whether you genuinely stopped being a resident.
• verified“No income tax means an IRA-owned business has no Texas tax obligations” — that does not follow. Ordinary IRA conversions and distributions incur no Texas individual income tax. Franchise tax is a separate entity-level question. The Comptroller's taxable-entities FAQ says a partnership with an IRA partner is a taxable entity; legal form, nexus and applicable exemptions require separate analysis under Tax Code §171.0002.

The fine print that actually bites

Everything below comes from statutes, the constitution, official policy handbooks and agency forms surfaced during verification:

• priority_highA child-support lien goes straight through Texas’s uncapped shield. §42.0021 protects a Roth IRA from creditors without a dollar limit — but the exemption does not reach a child-support lien. An uncapped shield against a commercial judgment is not a shield against everything, and this is the exception most likely to matter to an actual family.
• priority_highA recent move can change the state exemptions available in bankruptcy. A recent move can delay access to Texas state exemptions. Section 522(b)(3)(A) uses a 730-day domicile period and a preceding 180-day fallback, while §522(b)(3)(C) separately protects qualifying retirement funds, subject to applicable limits. The move alone does not establish that only a former state’s means-tested IRA exemption applies.
• priority_highTexas Medicaid can count an available Roth balance. Available retirement funds can count against the applicable resource limit. MEPD F-4100 directs retirement accounts to separate annuity rules; accessibility and exclusions matter. F-7210 addresses qualifying retirement-related annuities, including those purchased with Roth IRA proceeds. A withdrawal alone does not establish an exclusion, and this is not a finding that every entire Roth balance counts.
• priority_highMedicare Savings Programs are the cliff nobody mentions. Texas keeps an asset test for QMB/SLMB/QI-1 — $9,950 individual / $14,910 couple for 2026. Available, countable retirement funds can affect eligibility even when income is low; confirm account access, exclusions and the particular program's rules.
• priority_highYour spouse may own half of a Roth with only your name on it. Texas is a community-property state: a Roth funded with earnings during the marriage is community property regardless of title. At divorce the court divides it in a manner it deems “just and right” — discretionary, not California’s presumptive half-and-half, so equal is the starting intuition rather than the rule.
• priority_highA tort judgment against one spouse can reach all the community property. A Texas-specific wrinkle with no Florida analogue: liability rules mean a tort judgment against either spouse can reach community property generally, which widens the exposure surface around jointly-built savings even where the retirement account itself is exempt.
• priority_highWorking interests are the mineral trap, not royalties. Passive royalties inside an IRA are excluded from unrelated business taxable income. An operating working interest is not: at $1,000 or more of gross unrelated-business income, the custodian files Form 990-T. The IRA may owe tax after allowable deductions; a filing obligation does not automatically mean tax is due. Debt-financing can drag even royalties in, and servicing the property personally risks blowing up the account under §4975.
• priority_highA distribution only stays exempt for 60 days. Money that leaves the account keeps its Texas exemption for 60 days unless it is rolled over. Cash sitting in a checking account past that window is ordinary cash to a creditor.

Methodology & update log

This page was originally assembled in July 2026 from a 148-record dataset researched from primary sources — the Texas Constitution, Texas codes, enrolled legislation, Comptroller publications and forms, the state Medicaid policy handbook, federal statutes and court opinions. An independent adversarial pass then re-fetched every cited source, checked each quote verbatim, hunted for superseding guidance and re-derived the arithmetic: 126 of 148 facts confirmed. The nineteen corrections caught two pieces of dead law that would otherwise have been published as current, several citations that pointed at the right conclusion through the wrong authority, and one negative finding that a landing page appeared to support but its own linked documents contradicted. Three questions are labelled unsettled on purpose, and one figure — the comparison against New York and California — was independently rederived from statute rather than carried over from our own earlier pages, after we found and corrected an error in one of them.

• 2026-07-26 — page published; all 148 facts verified 2026-07-25. Watch-list: whether any Texas court or attorney general construes the November 2025 amendments, and in particular whether §24-b’s capital-gains bar is read to reach gains inside a retirement account; the appellate posture of the municipal-preemption statute; annual indexing of the Medicaid and Medicare Savings Program figures; and the 2009-vintage policy section governing the Roth annuity treatment.

Spot an error? Tell us — corrections are logged in the changelog.

Texas Roth questions, answered plainly

Selected sources rechecked September 23, 2026: T.D. 10033, §1.414(v)-2; Notice 2025-67 wage threshold; 11 U.S.C. §522(b)(3) and (n); Texas MEPD F-4100/F-4122; F-7210 annuity conditions; Form 990-T filing instructions. These checks do not refresh every claim or comparison on this page.

Corrections and updates

September 24, 2026 — Correction. Corrected the catch-up authority to T.D. 10033, the greater-than-$150,000 wage threshold, and statutory versus regulatory timing. Added the separate federal retirement-fund bankruptcy protection; narrowed property-tax and Medicaid statements to the supported conditions; and distinguished the $1,000-or-more Form 990-T filing threshold from tax owed after deductions. Also corrected entity-level franchise-tax scope, constitutional exceptions, homestead acreage, benefit-program limits, federal excess-contribution exposure and conditional early-withdrawal/529 wording. Corrected the claim that no Texas IRA-at-death decision existed, while retaining uncertainty about different beneficiary conflicts. The chart now states its hypothetical assumptions and California schedule vintage. Source dates for unchanged claims are retained. Public correction record.

Where to go next