This is a collection of our bi-monthly client updates where we share the systematic upgrades, insights, and strategies we implement for our clients. Subscribe for free here.

  • What is the 30-day tax window for an 83(b)?

    This is an FAQ on 83(b) elections including what they are, what you should consider when making an election, and key rules and regulations to be aware of before making an election.

    What is an 83(b) election?

    Filing an 83(b) election allows you to pay the income taxes on the value of your equity or option grants today rather than the value that are at when they vest in the future. This must be done within 30 days of receiving your grants.

    Why would you want to do this?

    Let’s say you’re a VP who works for Public Big Tech Company with each share valued at $1,000 today. You were just given a one-off Restricted Stock Award (RSA) of 500 shares that vests in one year and your effective tax rate is 35%.

    You would owe $175,000 today if you make an 83(b) election and pay taxes on those shares right now. Whether that’s a good decision depends on what the expected value of those shares are in the future. The chart below shows the taxes you’d owe depending on the value of each those shares in the future.

    If the shares go up 20% in the next year, you would owe $210,000 at that time in income taxes (or $35,000 more than paying today). But if the shares go down, you would have paid more in taxes today than if you would have just waited. This means, of course, making an 83(b) election should only be done if you are bullish on the prospects of the equity value of the company giving you the awards.

    How do I optimize my 83(b) outcome?

    One of the most critical inputs in deciding to file an 83(b) election is your view on the future value of the grants. But what else might you want to consider as part of the 83(b) decision to optimize your decision-making?

    • Opportunity costs: You should consider what else you could do with the tax payment you’re making whether that’s just having the cash on hand for liquidity needs or investing in other assets.
    • Concentration risks: If you already have a large share of your net worth attached to the company, you are going to be further increasing that concentration by making an 83(b) election for positions you will not be allowed to sell out of until they vest
    • Leaving the company: If you leave the company after you’ve paid the 83(b) election but before your shares have fully vested, you will lose out on both the remaining shares and the taxes you’ve already paid as the IRS will not refund you the tax payment
    • Alternative Minimum Tax: Certain actions like exercising ISOs early and then filing an 83(b) election can trigger the AMT; you should be aware of what these actions, thresholds, and liabilities are before doing anything

    Make sure you think through these considerations before deciding to do an 83(b) election. These analyses (and many others) are part of our Equity Compensation Diagnostic that we use to help our clients get the most out of their equity comp strategy.

    What other 83(b) rules should I know about?

    Like all tax laws and regulations, there are some critical steps and rules to note about 83(b) elections:

    • You must make the election within 30 days of the grant; this is a strict deadline, no extensions
    • You will need to have the cash on hand to pay the income taxes on the election at the end of the calendar year
    • 83(b) elections are irrevocable, make sure this is what you actually want to do
    • 83(b) elections are made for the full award, you can’t elect to do just X% of the shares or options that make up the grant
    • 83(b) elections are only for grants and awards for which there “is a substantial risk of forfeiture;” not every type of equity or option award or grant qualifies (for example, RSUs typically do not fall under this categorization) it is highly recommended you speak to a qualified advisor about your situation

    If you liked this piece:

    • Email us to schedule a complimentary 30-minute introductory call if you’d like to learn more about 83(b) elections or explore how to better optimize your equity compensation strategy:
      email: [email protected]
    • Check out our newsletter about aligning your finances more intentionally to the life you want to live

    Disclosures:
    This content is for educational purposes only and is not investment, tax, or legal advice. Employees and clients of Kangpan & Co. may hold positions in securities discussed in this post. Speak with a licensed tax, legal, or financial advisor before making any changes to your investments or financial strategies. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Investing involves risk including the loss of capital.

  • What is Tax-Efficient Asset Location?

    Tax-efficient asset location is the practice of placing each investment in the account type where it receives the most favorable tax treatment. High-yielding assets taxed as ordinary income like bond funds belong in tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs and 401ks. Lower-yielding assets with preferential tax rates like stock index funds belong in taxable accounts.

    For a high-earning couple in a high tax state with $1.7M invested, getting this right could be worth $6,370 per year in tax savings without changing a single investment they own. Here’s exactly how it works.

    The Detailed Math Behind Asset Location Tax Savings

    Here are the assumptions for this example:

    • John and Jane are a high-earning couple in their late-30s working and living in California
    • They have a combined income this year of $832,000 putting them in the 37% Federal and 10.30% CA state tax brackets (assuming they will file Married, Filing Jointly). We’ll hold off on local taxes for this example.
    • The couple have $790,000 spread across various Traditional IRA and 401k accounts and $915,000 in taxable investment accounts
    • John and Jane know the basics of personal finance and hold a diversified 60/40 stock and bond allocation within each of their investment accounts (i.e. they have a 60/40 split in their 401k plans, a 60/40 split in their brokerage investments, etc.)

    We’re going to spend the rest of this post examining how shifting assets across John and Jane’s various portfolios will help them reduce their overall tax drag. Instead of using a 60/40 allocation within each investment account they have against, we will look at all their investments in aggregate in order to determine a more tax-efficient strategy across their accounts.

    To simplify this analysis we will:

    • Focus just on the impact of taxes on the dividends or distributions from investments
    • Treat all qualified accounts as one portfolio which we’ll called Tax-Advantaged Accounts and all taxable accounts as another portfolio which we’ll call Taxable Accounts
    • Use a portfolio mix of 60% stocks represented by Vanguard’s S&P 500 Index (ticker: VOO) and 40% bonds represented by iShares’ Core US Aggregate Bond Index (ticker: AGG). While we don’t default to a 60/40 for our clients, it serves as an illustrative common reference point across examples we provide.
    • Assume the same funds are available to an investor in both their Tax-Advantaged Accounts and their Taxable Accounts

    Table 1: Yield and Tax Rates for High-Earning CA Couple For VOO and AGG

    Vanguard S&P 500 Index (VOO)iShares Core US Aggregate Bond Index (AGG)
    30 Day SEC Yield11.16%4.18%
    Taxes on Yield:
    Federal220.0%37.0%
    State310.3%10.3%
    NIIT43.8%3.8%
    Effective Tax Rate34.1%51.1%

    1. As of August 31, 2025 for VOO and September 18, 2025 for AGG
    2. Simplified assumption for this analysis that all VOO dividends are qualified while no distributions from AGG are qualified
    3. CA levies flat 10.3% tax rate at this income level across all dividends and distributions
    4. Assuming this couple will pay Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) based on income

    Optimizing Asset Location means taking into consideration two key traits of these assets that should be clear from the above:

    • First, qualified dividends from stock index funds such as VOO are generally taxed at a lower Federal rate than distributions from bond funds. For John and Jane’s income level that means a 20.0% rate for qualified dividends and 37.0% rate for bond fund distributions.
    • Second, the dividend yield of 1.16% on VOO is much lower than the 4.18% on AGG. In other words, there is less taxable income coming out VOO overall than AGG per dollar invested.

    Our path to optimization is clear… move as much of the higher-taxed, higher-yielding asset into Tax-Advantaged Accounts (such as IRAs and 401k plans) while moving as much of the lower-taxed, lower-yielding asset into Taxable Accounts.

    We’re going to assume John and Jane currently hold a 60% stock and 40% bond mix within each of their accounts which gives us the following split of assets and taxes between their Tax-Advantaged Accounts and their Taxable Accounts:

    Table 2: Non-optimized, Consistent 60/40 Within Accounts:

    Distributing assets in a 60/40 split consistently within each of their accounts results in John and Jane paying ~$9,990 in taxes on the dividends and distributions they receive from their investments.

    Now let’s look at what would happen if we optimize the portfolios for Asset Location by shifting as much of our bond mix into the Tax-Advantaged Accounts as we can while keeping the overall mix of stocks and bonds across accounts at 60/40. We’re making this shift because bonds both yield a higher income per dollar invested and are taxed at a higher rate than the stocks in our portfolio so we want to .

    We now have the following results after redistributing assets across portfolios:

    Table 3: Optimized, 60/40 Across Accounts

    We’ve put all our bond holdings into the Tax-Advantaged Accounts boosting the share of bonds within those accounts to 86% (but keeping the total share of bonds across all accounts at 40%). We still have some stocks within our Tax-Advantaged Accounts, but our Taxable Accounts are now comprised 100% of lower yield, lower tax stocks. The total amount of pre-tax income we’re receiving from our investments in the form of dividends and distributions remains unchanged, but we’re keeping much more of the after-tax value of that income.

    The net effect of this swap is a decrease in taxes paid on income from our investments from $9,989 a year down to $3,619. This is a decrease of $6,370 just by being a bit more intentional with how we approach allocating our assets across different types of accounts.

    As we mentioned earlier, this is just a basic, illustrative example to show how more thoughtful asset location can benefit investors. In the real world, we would likely be doing this across a larger range of assets, account for the costs of reallocation, consider unique needs a client may have for a particular account, etc.

    Are There Tax Leaks in Your Portfolio Strategy?

    If you found this content helpful:

    • Follow our twice-monthly Substack for investment, tax, and life planning strategies like this delivered directly to your email
    • Contact Us for a complimentary 30-minute Portfolio Efficiency Diagnostic to quantify the potential impact of tax location and other tax-efficiency optimizations may have on your portfolio.

    Disclosures:
    This content is for educational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation. This is not tax or legal advice. We receive no direct compensation from any of the funds discussed. Employees and clients of Kangpan & Co. may hold investments discussed in this article. Speak with a licensed financial advisor before making any changes to your investments. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Investing involves risk including the loss of capital.

  • What to do When NJ High Earners Don’t Qualify for 529 State Tax Deductions

    NJ residents making more than $200k are excluded from one of the primary benefits of contributing to New Jersey’s 529 Plan.

    Tax benefits are the primary reason many investors open 529 plans to save for education expenses. These mainly come in the form of:

    • Deferred taxes on the dividends, distributions, and growth of investments within the plan
    • Tax deductions from contributions made to the plan

    The availability of, and rules for tax deductions from contributions vary significantly by your state of residence. We’ll be taking a look at the rules of a high-earner in New Jersey for this discussion.

    NJ High Earners Are Not Eligible for 529 State Tax Deductions

    In New Jersey, up to $10,000 a year of 529 Plan contributions are deductible from state taxes for residents contributing to the New Jersey 529 Plan. However, this deduction is only available for those with a gross income of $200,000 or less.

    That means if you’re a New Jersey resident who is fortunate enough to earn more than $200,000 a year, you do not get the benefit of the state tax deduction for contributions made to a New Jersey 529 plan (though you still get the benefits of deferred taxes on the growth of your investments within the plan).

    Look into other 529 plans if you don’t qualify for NJ State Tax Benefits

    Compare your options vs. other plans.

    Not all 529 plans are created equal when it comes to fees and investment options. And you are generally not restricted to just using your state’s 529 Plan.

    Let’s take a look at the potential fee benefits a high-earning New Jersey household could realize by moving their NJ 529 plan to another state’s plan such as California.

    For this comparison we are looking at:

    • 529 Plan State: the state where the plan is sponsored
    • Program Fees: asset-based fees charged by the plan administrator for managing the plan’s underlying investments
    • 60/40 Fees: fund fees for implementing a 60% Stock / 40% Bond portfolio utilizing the options available within the plan. Fees for each individual fund are noted in parentheses
    • Yearly Fees Per $100,000: the expected yearly program and fund fees paid for every $100,000 invested in the plan
    529 Plan StateProgram Fees60/40 FeesYrly Fees Per $100,000
    New Jersey0.10%10.046% blended
    – Franklin U.S. Large Cap Index 529 Portfolio (0.03%)
    – Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF 529 Portfolio (0.07%)
    $146
    (0.146% total fees)
    California0.01%20.058% blended
    – Index U.S. Equity Portfolio (0.05%)
    – Index Bond Portfolio (0.07%)
    $68
    (0.068% total fees)

    Data as of September 16, 2025 from each 529 Plan Sponsor’s Website
    1. No fee for Franklin U.S. Government Money 529 Portfolio
    2. For passive and index investment options

    For every $100,000 invested in New Jersey’s 529 Plan, you could be paying $78 more per year in fees vs. investing in a similar strategy within California’s 529 Plan.

    This may seem small but this could add up to thousands of dollars over the life of your 529 plan when you consider that you are paying this every year per and losing out on the power of compounding each time you pay the difference.

    If you found this post helpful:

    Disclosures:
    This content is for educational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation. This is an illustrative example highlighting the difference in program and fund fees between two 529 Plans allocated to 60/40 strategies using available options. There are other considerations when selecting a 529 plan such as availability of investments, the expected performance of those investments, and other fees. The selection of California in this example is arbitrary and is not an endorsement of any specific plan. Speak with a licensed financial advisor before making any changes to your investments. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Investing involves risk including the loss of capital.