Irs clarified inherited IRA RMDs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a poorly written article!

Agree and I read it twice. Will inherit an IRA sometime in the next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PSA to people with a lot of money in retirement accounts..If you can without undue tax burden, convert your 401Ks/IRAs to Roth before you start RMD. RMD withdrawals cannot be put into a Roth IRA.

This. If folks have the liquidity, even a partial ROTH conversion will make a massive difference on the people who inherit. It takes a lot of cash to be able to float the ROTH conversion but it’s a powerful to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand

Non-spouse, Non-Roth:
If you inherit an IRA..
AND the person you are inheriting from is already on RMD
THEN you are expected to withdraw money based on an RMD schedule with a baloon withdrawal in year 10

If you inherit an IRA..
AND the person you are inheriting from is not on RMD
THEN you can withdraw money anytime during the 10 year period

Roth-IRA:
You can withdraw money anytime during the 10 year period

Spouse:
No RMD requirements other than your own.

I know I'm just a poor working schlub but I don't think I have a problem with this rule.
What is the objection?

People don't want to be told what to do. They want to be able to withdraw whatever they want, whenever they want. Every little rule they don't like will now be litigated thanks to the idiots in the SC overturning an established precedent. The funny thing is, most people think it's for their benefit when it's really for the benefit of large corporations at the cost of poors like them (regardless of what they think of themselves). Lawyers and corporations benefit.

Thanks. I get it now. I vaguely grasp the intent of the law and see how some folks want to defer the income for as long as possible. (to their heirs?)

Of course, I'd be fine with the law being changed that the retirement accounts are simply emptied, taxed and closed when someone dies but that's not going to happen. (says the guy who has to look up terms like SALT, AMT and Social Security tax limit since I've never encountered them in my personal tax life)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a poorly written article!

Agree and I read it twice. Will inherit an IRA sometime in the next year.

That's why I re-read again when things were quiet and summarized it upthread..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand

Non-spouse, Non-Roth:
If you inherit an IRA..
AND the person you are inheriting from is already on RMD
THEN you are expected to withdraw money based on an RMD schedule with a baloon withdrawal in year 10

If you inherit an IRA..
AND the person you are inheriting from is not on RMD
THEN you can withdraw money anytime during the 10 year period

Roth-IRA:
You can withdraw money anytime during the 10 year period

Spouse:
No RMD requirements other than your own.

I know I'm just a poor working schlub but I don't think I have a problem with this rule.
What is the objection?

People don't want to be told what to do. They want to be able to withdraw whatever they want, whenever they want. Every little rule they don't like will now be litigated thanks to the idiots in the SC overturning an established precedent. The funny thing is, most people think it's for their benefit when it's really for the benefit of large corporations at the cost of poors like them (regardless of what they think of themselves). Lawyers and corporations benefit.

Thanks. I get it now. I vaguely grasp the intent of the law and see how some folks want to defer the income for as long as possible. (to their heirs?)

Of course, I'd be fine with the law being changed that the retirement accounts are simply emptied, taxed and closed when someone dies but that's not going to happen. (says the guy who has to look up terms like SALT, AMT and Social Security tax limit since I've never encountered them in my personal tax life)

That's ideal, but would cause undue tax burden on the inheritors. What might have made sense is forced withdrawal of the balance in equal parts (i.e. 1/10th in year 1, 1/9th in year 2, etc.). RMDs as defined for retirees makes sense since their withdrawal window is essentially open, but not for people with a 10 year withdrawal window.