Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Beehave
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:46 pm

Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by Beehave » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:29 am

Saw this on Yahoo Finance page, from Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—President Trump is expected to sign an executive order Friday directing the government to review rules requiring retirees to start taking annual withdrawals from retirement funds after they turn 70 ½ and to consider making it easier for small businesses to offer employees 401(k) plans.

The action, expected to be signed during a ceremony in Charlotte, N.C., ahead of the Labor Day weekend, was billed by the White House as a push to better prepare workers for retirement.

As part of the initiative, the Treasury Department would review the rules on required minimum distributions from retirement plans to see if investors can keep more money for a longer time in 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts and other tax-sheltered savings plans. If successful, it could allow retirees to spread retirement savings over a longer period.

User avatar
SquawkIdent
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:14 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs?

Post by SquawkIdent » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:34 am

Interesting, thanks. :sharebeer

Alan S.
Posts: 7803
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:07 pm
Location: Prescott, AZ

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by Alan S. » Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:28 pm

Quite possible that the RMD change would simply entail a more current annuity mortality table. Currently, RMDs are based on the 2000 annuity mortality table (blended 50-50 male/female) projected to reflect mortality improvements through 2003. Therefore, we are about due for an update anyway to reflect improvements over the last 15 years. However, the RBD currently used is arbitrary and could be delayed separately or in conjunction with new mortality tables. Don't expect any relief for 2018 as custodians likely object to processing of roll backs.

Of course, this could also trigger another look by Congress at the formerly proposed 5 year rule for non spouse beneficiaries. Such inherited IRAs are typically no longer viewed as retirement accounts, but rather as savings for the beneficiaries which should be taxed much quicker.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 48650
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by LadyGeek » Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:32 pm

The order has been signed. Here's additional information on Executive Orders: What is an Executive Order?, from the American Bar Association.
Both executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the formal collection of all of the rules and regulations issued by the executive branch and other federal agencies.

...
Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.
I don't see anything posted yet on an "official site", such as the Federal Register. - Update: see below.

As a reminder, opinions of the political process are off-topic.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
Artsdoctor
Posts: 3567
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by Artsdoctor » Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:42 pm


trueblueky
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by trueblueky » Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:45 pm

Here it is:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... y-america/

Lots of examine this and study that. This order doesn't change anything, yet. DOL will conduct the studies and post draft changes for comment at some point.

Updating the life tables is a good idea. Updating them annually may be more trouble than it's worth -- maybe state that they will be updated every x (10?) years rather than willy nilly.

EDIT: I see artsdoctor posted the link while I was typing mine.

Spirit Rider
Posts: 8916
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by Spirit Rider » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:32 pm

Well, the current RMD tables were for 2003 and the previous we're in 1987. So as Alan stated we are about due for a change.

I vote for reducing the penalty-free distributions by five years to 54 1/2 and increasing the RMD age by five years to 75 1/2.

NoHeat
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by NoHeat » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:32 pm

I’d be happy if they just got rid of the 1/2-year thing. And moreover, the April after the 1/2-year thing. That’s so confusing.

RetiredCSProf
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by RetiredCSProf » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:46 pm

This proposed change to RMDs was reported on the "Nightly Business News" this evening.

This was reported along with a proposal to reduce capital gains by inflation. That is, to add a factor for inflation to the cost basis of property sold.

jcar
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:41 pm
Location: NC

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by jcar » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:52 pm

The possible change on capital gains tax due to inflation could be quite interesting for real estate

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6144
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by willthrill81 » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:54 pm

Spirit Rider wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:32 pm
I vote for reducing the penalty-free distributions by five years to 54 1/2 and increasing the RMD age by five years to 75 1/2.
I'd be all for that! :beer

But I'm not holding my breath either.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 48650
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by LadyGeek » Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:17 pm

Note that discussion of possible capital gains taxes adjust for inflation is off-topic as "proposed legislation". Here's why: Political comments and proposed tax plan remain off-topic

In summary, the point of the policy is to (1) eliminate contentious disagreements that result from these discussions and (2) keep investors from making bad decisions. Proposed regulations change many times between the time they're introduced and signed into law.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
tfb
Posts: 7972
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by tfb » Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:23 am

Please note this can only affect the tables. The 70-1/2 required start date is hardcoded in law. Changing that requires new legislation.
Executive Order wrote:Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, consistent with applicable law and the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, examine the life expectancy and distribution period tables in the regulations on required minimum distributions from retirement plans (67 Fed. Reg. 18988) and determine whether they should be updated to reflect current mortality data and whether such updates should be made annually or on another periodic basis.
Harry Sit, taking a break from the forums.

daveydoo
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:53 am

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by daveydoo » Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:39 am

Beehave wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:29 am
... If successful, it could allow retirees to spread retirement savings over a longer period...
No it wouldn't. It would allow retirees to spread their retirement savings over a shorter period (starting when they are older). The math is not tricky. It would allow wealthy people who do not need to take RMDs to benefit from the longer accumulation phase and then pass the money down to their heirs.

There's one born every minute. :D
"I mean, it's one banana, Michael...what could it cost? Ten dollars?"

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 6135
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by JoMoney » Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:56 am

Huh.. I wonder how updating the mortality tables might impact people using them for 72(t) SEPP distributions prior to age 59.5.
If someone had already begone taking SEPP distributions using the RMD method, and the tables were changed, would the IRS require they stick to the original distribution table or the updated one?
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

cherijoh
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:49 pm
Location: Charlotte NC

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by cherijoh » Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:11 am

daveydoo wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:39 am
Beehave wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:29 am
... If successful, it could allow retirees to spread retirement savings over a longer period...
No it wouldn't. It would allow retirees to spread their retirement savings over a shorter period (starting when they are older). The math is not tricky. It would allow wealthy people who do not need to take RMDs to benefit from the longer accumulation phase and then pass the money down to their heirs.

There's one born every minute. :D
It sounds like retirees would still be starting RMDs at 70.5. But if the adjusted life expectancy tables add a couple of years to your actuarial life span, the divisors would go up and the % of your account that you have to take each year would go down. So I think Beehave is correct about spreading out distributions.

User avatar
Strider
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:14 pm

How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by Strider » Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:53 am

[Thread merged into here, see below. --admin LadyGeek]

As reported in the WSJ and on CNBC, the president has issued an executive order directing that the IRS table for RMDs be re-calculated to account for current life expectancy. My question does not refer directly to that executive order.

Rather, does anyone know how recently the current RMD table was revised? Does it reflect current life expectancy, or alternatively does it reflect life expectancy as of some years ago?

Also, because there has been a widely-reported reduction in American life expectancy due to deaths from opiod use, might this recalculation actually require future RMDs to be larger than currently required?

Strider

The Wizard
Posts: 12356
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by The Wizard » Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:14 am

An actuary would look at the DISTRIBUTION of opioid deaths with age.
It's entirely possible that the bulk of them are people younger than age 70 and thus have little bearing on the conditional life expectancy of people age 70 and beyond...
Attempted new signature...


User avatar
Strider
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:14 pm

How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by Strider » Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:23 pm

To what extent have life-span projections for the above-70 demographic changed in the last 16 years (since the last revision of the RMD table)? If a lot, this may result in a significant change in the RMD table.

Strider

User avatar
Phineas J. Whoopee
Posts: 7581
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by Phineas J. Whoopee » Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:36 pm

Strider wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:53 am
As reported in the WSJ and on CNBC, the president has issued an executive order directing that the IRS table for RMDs be re-calculated to account for current life expectancy. My question does not refer directly to that executive order.
...
Recognizing that your question is not about the executive order, and not knowing what the Journal and CNBC reported, the order is a direction to the Treasury department to review its rules, not to change them. The outcome may or may not eventually lead to a reduction of RMDs.

PJW

User avatar
Strider
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:14 pm

How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by Strider » Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:43 pm

Actually, a recalculation of the RMD table may cut either of two ways.

If life expectancy for the over-70 demographic has increased since 2002 (the date of the last revision of the RMD table), then the RMD distribution period would increase in a revised table (lower RMDs).

However, if life expectancy for the over-70 demographic has decreased since 2002 (due perhaps to deaths from opiod use), then the RMD distribution period would decrease in a revised table (higher RMDs).

I don't know how to access the life expectancy data that the Department of the Treasury might use.

Strider

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 48650
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by LadyGeek » Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:50 pm

FYI - The executive order is discussed here: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Update: See below.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 48650
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by LadyGeek » Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:01 pm

I merged Strider's thread into here. While Strider is indeed asking a different question, both threads are now discussing the RMD tables.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
celia
Posts: 8491
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by celia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:36 pm

NoHeat wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:32 pm
I’d be happy if they just got rid of the 1/2-year thing. And moreover, the April after the 1/2-year thing. That’s so confusing.
What would you propose instead?

I would think this is to take into account those who turn 70.5 (or 70) on December 30 or 31. How are they supposed to take the first RMD in the same year if they want to wait for their birthday or half-birthday that year? What if it is a holiday weekend? What if they are traveling? What if they want it to be a Qualified Charitable Donation and they need to get it to the charity and also have the charity cash the check in the year of donation. There just aren't enough days between December 31 (half) birthdays and the end of the year to make much happen. :D [sic--I am aware of what I am saying in the last sentence]

Maybe you would propose:
The Required Beginning Date (RBD) Year (RBY) is the year in which the taxpayer turns 71.
This would allow everyone born the same year to take their RMD anytime they want that year. And they could allow the first RMD, or part of it, to be used for a QCD, even if the taxpayer turned 70 on the previous December 31 and wanted to donate before July 1.

The Wizard
Posts: 12356
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by The Wizard » Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:50 pm

celia wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:36 pm
NoHeat wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:32 pm
I’d be happy if they just got rid of the 1/2-year thing. And moreover, the April after the 1/2-year thing. That’s so confusing.
What would you propose instead?

I would think this is to take into account those who turn 70.5 (or 70) on December 30 or 31. How are they supposed to take the first RMD in the same year if they want to wait for their birthday or half-birthday that year? What if it is a holiday weekend? What if they are traveling? What if they want it to be a Qualified Charitable Donation and they need to get it to the charity and also have the charity cash the check in the year of donation. There just aren't enough days between December 31 (half) birthdays and the end of the year to make much happen. :D [sic--I am aware of what I am saying in the last sentence]
You've been around long enough to know that RMDs are due starting January 1st of the YEAR you turn 70-1/2, or whatever new age might be legislated.
Am I right?
Attempted new signature...

User avatar
FiveK
Posts: 5735
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:43 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by FiveK » Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:58 pm

The Wizard wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:50 pm
You've been around long enough to know that RMDs are due starting January 1st of the YEAR you turn 70-1/2, or whatever new age might be legislated.
Am I right?
Not according to the IRS. ;)

See When must I receive my required minimum distribution from my IRA?:
You must take your first required minimum distribution for the year in which you turn age 70½. However, the first payment can be delayed until April 1 of the year following the year in which you turn 70½. For all subsequent years, including the year in which you were paid the first RMD by April 1, you must take the RMD by December 31 of the year.

The Wizard
Posts: 12356
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by The Wizard » Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:03 pm

FiveK wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:58 pm
The Wizard wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:50 pm
You've been around long enough to know that RMDs are due starting January 1st of the YEAR you turn 70-1/2, or whatever new age might be legislated.
Am I right?
Not according to the IRS. ;)

See When must I receive my required minimum distribution from my IRA?:
You must take your first required minimum distribution for the year in which you turn age 70½. However, the first payment can be delayed until April 1 of the year following the year in which you turn 70½. For all subsequent years, including the year in which you were paid the first RMD by April 1, you must take the RMD by December 31 of the year.
You are correct.
So that allows even more time for someone to take their required amount...
Attempted new signature...

User avatar
celia
Posts: 8491
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by celia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:16 pm

The Wizard wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:03 pm
You are correct.
So that allows even more time for someone to take their required amount...
Even if you delay until the following April for your first RMD, the second one is also due in the same year. You are only delaying the first one a few months.
A dollar in Roth is worth more than a dollar in a taxable account. A dollar in taxable is worth more than a dollar in a tax-deferred account.

blackcat allie
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:54 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by blackcat allie » Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:20 pm

Without quoting from order directly, it appears that fiduciary is now on the line in retirement accounts (for the purpose of expense cutting and thereby increasing ease of use by employers). Did anyone else get that impression?

User avatar
Phineas J. Whoopee
Posts: 7581
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by Phineas J. Whoopee » Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:09 am

blackcat allie wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:20 pm
Without quoting from order directly, it appears that fiduciary is now on the line in retirement accounts (for the purpose of expense cutting and thereby increasing ease of use by employers). Did anyone else get that impression?
I didn't get that impression. The order directs Treasury and Labor to review some of their rules, not to change them. It may or may not be the case that eventually some changes will occur.

PJW

jclear
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:47 am

Re: How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by jclear » Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:15 am

Strider wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:23 pm
To what extent have life-span projections for the above-70 demographic changed in the last 16 years (since the last revision of the RMD table)? If a lot, this may result in a significant change in the RMD table.

Strider
Apparently the government's 2002 regulations were based on a 2000 commissioned actuarial report.
https://www.soa.org/experience-studies/ ... ty-tables/
The thing that gets me is that the RMD were set based off these, but not just 1/expectedremaininglife. Does anyone working there even remember on what basis they calculated the RMD tables? They can look at their records, but new minds new thinking. If their calculations included inflation, interest rates, and so on, then things have changed.

ralph124cf
Posts: 2037
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:41 am

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by ralph124cf » Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:11 am

The Wizard wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:50 pm
celia wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:36 pm
NoHeat wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:32 pm
I’d be happy if they just got rid of the 1/2-year thing. And moreover, the April after the 1/2-year thing. That’s so confusing.
What would you propose instead?

I would think this is to take into account those who turn 70.5 (or 70) on December 30 or 31. How are they supposed to take the first RMD in the same year if they want to wait for their birthday or half-birthday that year? What if it is a holiday weekend? What if they are traveling? What if they want it to be a Qualified Charitable Donation and they need to get it to the charity and also have the charity cash the check in the year of donation. There just aren't enough days between December 31 (half) birthdays and the end of the year to make much happen. :D [sic--I am aware of what I am saying in the last sentence]
You've been around long enough to know that RMDs are due starting January 1st of the YEAR you turn 70-1/2, or whatever new age might be legislated.
Am I right?
The law seems quite clear: If you turn 70.5 on December 31, 2018, you may take the RMD at any time during 2018, however, for a QCD, that can only be done AFTER you turn 70.5. The law does not have to make sense.

Ralph

User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 7330
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:12 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by jeffyscott » Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:45 pm

jclear wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:15 am
Strider wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:23 pm
To what extent have life-span projections for the above-70 demographic changed in the last 16 years (since the last revision of the RMD table)? If a lot, this may result in a significant change in the RMD table.

Strider
Apparently the government's 2002 regulations were based on a 2000 commissioned actuarial report.
https://www.soa.org/experience-studies/ ... ty-tables/
The thing that gets me is that the RMD were set based off these, but not just 1/expectedremaininglife. Does anyone working there even remember on what basis they calculated the RMD tables? They can look at their records, but new minds new thinking. If their calculations included inflation, interest rates, and so on, then things have changed.
The IRS Uniform Life Expectancy Table assumes that distributions would extend over two lives: yours and a beneficiary 10 years younger than you, according to something I read at Fidelity. This makes sense, since if your spouse is over 10 years younger, you'd use the Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy Table.
press on, regardless - John C. Bogle

bsteiner
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:39 pm
Location: NYC/NJ/FL

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by bsteiner » Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:54 pm

As others have pointed out, it's been about 15 years since the tables were updated, so it might make sense to update them. If life expectancies have increased, that would reduce the required distributions.

It might be complicated to provide for multiple employer retirement plans, but I think it's worth the effort to see what they can come up with. In that regard, I would be interested in hearing from those who run small businesses as to how burdensome it is for them to set up and maintain a plan for their business.

NoHeat
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by NoHeat » Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:27 pm

FiveK wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:58 pm
The Wizard wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:50 pm
You've been around long enough to know that RMDs are due starting January 1st of the YEAR you turn 70-1/2, or whatever new age might be legislated.
Am I right?
Not according to the IRS. ;)

See When must I receive my required minimum distribution from my IRA?:
You must take your first required minimum distribution for the year in which you turn age 70½. However, the first payment can be delayed until April 1 of the year following the year in which you turn 70½. For all subsequent years, including the year in which you were paid the first RMD by April 1, you must take the RMD by December 31 of the year.
This discussion illustrates my point that the present rules are unnecessarily confusing. Average retirees don't have much chance of always getting it right, on their own. That's why I'm hoping the rules get simpler, or at least not any more complicated, if they get revised in the near future.

Spirit Rider
Posts: 8916
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by Spirit Rider » Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:36 pm

NoHeat wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:27 pm
FiveK wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:58 pm
The Wizard wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:50 pm
You've been around long enough to know that RMDs are due starting January 1st of the YEAR you turn 70-1/2, or whatever new age might be legislated.
Am I right?
Not according to the IRS. ;)

See When must I receive my required minimum distribution from my IRA?:
You must take your first required minimum distribution for the year in which you turn age 70½. However, the first payment can be delayed until April 1 of the year following the year in which you turn 70½. For all subsequent years, including the year in which you were paid the first RMD by April 1, you must take the RMD by December 31 of the year.
This discussion illustrates my point that the present rules are unnecessarily confusing. Average retirees don't have much chance of always getting it right, on their own. That's why I'm hoping the rules get simpler, or at least not any more complicated, if they get revised in the near future.
So you would prefer the the 1st year 4/1 rule was not in place???
  • The one that allows you until 4/1 following the 1st year RMDs are due in case you didn't know or ran out of time?
  • The one that allows you to intentionally defer the 1st year RMD to the next year after you retire when you may be in a lower tax bracket.
So no, the rules are not unnecessarily confusing. They are in fact necessary for the benefit of the taxpayer.

In this case, if you didn't know about the 4/1 following the 1st year rule. You are no worse off than if the rule never existed. However, those who take the time to learn can benefit.

User avatar
Strider
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:14 pm

How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by Strider » Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:23 pm

Still another aspect to the current rules of which many are unaware is the ability to split the first (but ONLY the first) RMD between two calendar years. Link: https://www.irahelp.com/forum-post/2371 ... ear-period

Strider

brennok
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by brennok » Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:38 pm

So if you are already taking RMDs would this affect you? Or would you just continue to use the old table? Does anyone know what happened in 2002 when the tables were updated?

The Wizard
Posts: 12356
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by The Wizard » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:06 pm

Spirit Rider wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:36 pm
...In this case, if you didn't know about the 4/1 following the 1st year rule. You are no worse off than if the rule never existed. However, those who take the time to learn can benefit.
As a practical matter, delaying first RMD until 4/1 of following year is only helpful for certain folks who worked full time till 70+ or otherwise had high one-time taxable income in the year they turned 70.5.

You can't do any Roth conversions starting 1/1 of the year you turn 70.5 until you complete your RMD, so that's not a plan.

As for me, I'm going to take monthly withdrawals from tax deferred totalling up to my RMD starting January, 2020.
And those withdrawals look to be a chunk less than what I've been taking since 2013, in lieu of SS...
Last edited by The Wizard on Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Attempted new signature...

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 6135
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by JoMoney » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:19 pm

brennok wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:38 pm
So if you are already taking RMDs would this affect you? Or would you just continue to use the old table? Does anyone know what happened in 2002 when the tables were updated?
Yeah, that was my question too... especially for any early retirees who may be using the tables for 72(t) SEPP withdrawals
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

The Wizard
Posts: 12356
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by The Wizard » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:24 pm

JoMoney wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:19 pm
brennok wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:38 pm
So if you are already taking RMDs would this affect you? Or would you just continue to use the old table? Does anyone know what happened in 2002 when the tables were updated?
Yeah, that was my question too... especially for any early retirees who may be using the tables for 72(t) SEPP withdrawals
I'm pretty sure you just start using the new table for the yearly divisor henceforth.
That's not so hard to imagine, is it?
Attempted new signature...

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 6135
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by JoMoney » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:36 pm

The Wizard wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:24 pm
JoMoney wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:19 pm
brennok wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:38 pm
So if you are already taking RMDs would this affect you? Or would you just continue to use the old table? Does anyone know what happened in 2002 when the tables were updated?
Yeah, that was my question too... especially for any early retirees who may be using the tables for 72(t) SEPP withdrawals
I'm pretty sure you just start using the new table for the yearly divisor henceforth.
That's not so hard to imagine, is it?
It's not hard to imagine, but correct guidance is critical. Incorrect interpretation could cause a massive penalty.
The current guidance is that once you've selected a life expectancy table it can not be changed. It's implied that they're saying you can't choose to switch from a Single Life Table to a Uniform Life table (or other table)... but it's not explicit other than saying the table can't be changed.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

jclear
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:47 am

Re: How Current is the IRS RMD Table?

Post by jclear » Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:12 pm

jeffyscott wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:45 pm
jclear wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:15 am
Apparently the government's 2002 regulations were based on a 2000 commissioned actuarial report.
https://www.soa.org/experience-studies/ ... ty-tables/
The thing that gets me is that the RMD were set based off these, but not just 1/expectedremaininglife. Does anyone working there even remember on what basis they calculated the RMD tables? They can look at their records, but new minds new thinking. If their calculations included inflation, interest rates, and so on, then things have changed.
The IRS Uniform Life Expectancy Table assumes that distributions would extend over two lives: yours and a beneficiary 10 years younger than you, according to something I read at Fidelity. This makes sense, since if your spouse is over 10 years younger, you'd use the Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy Table.
There's a separate table for people with their spouse as beneficiary and their spouse is 11 years or more younger than them. The ULET is for the case of a single person, or an account where the spouse is 10 or fewer years younger (or is older), or where the spouse is not the sole beneficiary. The 11+ year difference table is a simple joint survivor life expectancy table. Comparing the tables, it looks like the person using ULET is given the consideration of having a spousal beneficiary exactly 10 years younger than themselves, regardless of the exact situation. So, yes, 590B confirms what Fidelity said.

Jablean
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:38 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by Jablean » Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:41 pm

For those of us dealing with RMDs on inherited IRAs wonder if they'll let us recalculate as our factors are set on date of death.

Alan S.
Posts: 7803
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:07 pm
Location: Prescott, AZ

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by Alan S. » Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:19 pm

Jablean wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:41 pm
For those of us dealing with RMDs on inherited IRAs wonder if they'll let us recalculate as our factors are set on date of death.

When the 2002 tables were released, the divisor for inherited IRAs (single life table) was then determined by applying the 1.0 annual divisor reduction to the revised first year divisor shown in the new table. Therefore, inherited IRA RMD were reduced as well as owner's RMDs. Most likely, this methodology would be applied again if the tables are revised.


There is a lack of transparency to the entire process of RMD table revision and how it is triggered. Would be nice if more transparency was provided, if not specified in IRS Regs.

ralph124cf
Posts: 2037
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:41 am

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by ralph124cf » Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:17 pm

A poster above mentioned the ability to split the RMD for the first year after you turned 70.5. There was also a question about QCDs for somebody who turned 70.5 on December 31st.

As far as I can see you can just double up the QCD the second year and everything is a wash.

For example, suppose you have an RMD of $100K both years, and you want to give a QCD of $15K each year. Simply take 85K as your partial RMD the first year, then the second year first give a QCD of $30K, and then take the remaining $85K to complete the second year RMD.


Any problems with this scenario?

Ralph

Spirit Rider
Posts: 8916
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Possible Change to RMDs? [Executive order]

Post by Spirit Rider » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:34 pm

ralph124cf wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:17 pm
Any problems with this scenario?
I don't see any.

Of course, it will only reduce the AGI in the following year, but by double.

Post Reply