Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-04-2016, 02:17 PM   #21
Dryer sheet aficionado
FIREchief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepford View Post
Since Roth's aren't subject to RMDs maybe it doesn't apply.
Since it is "post-death," I'm reading this as applying to both tIRA and Roth IRA. Realistically, the big hit would be to tIRA, as liquidating a large tIRA over five years could drive into the highest tax bracket. The Roth impact would be minimal at first, but would force investment into after-tax assets that would generate taxable income over time.
__________________

__________________
FIREchief is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-04-2016, 02:21 PM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 3,685
I guess one alternative is to pass away before the bill takes effect...
__________________

__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 02:23 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 3,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
I never felt the legislation was meant to benefit the heirs and shelter taxes in perpetuity, but obviously others have other feelings. Carry on.
401(a)(9) has a rule against perpetuities, this is the code section or regs section that would be amended

this is why you can't take out a 100% J&S pension with someone 40 years younger than you that isn't a spouse

note they are keeping the spouse exception - sounds like this was something they should have had in the current regs
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 02:43 PM   #24
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: St. Charles
Posts: 278
Well, I just emailed one of my Senators (the one I think might actually care about this) to express my concerns.

I will let you know what I hear back.
__________________
If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Never slow down, never grow old!
CardsFan is online now  
Old 10-04-2016, 02:46 PM   #25
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: St. Charles
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
401(a)(9) has a rule against perpetuities, this is the code section or regs section that would be amended

this is why you can't take out a 100% J&S pension with someone 40 years younger than you that isn't a spouse

note they are keeping the spouse exception - sounds like this was something they should have had in the current regs
BUT, they did not have it in the current regs, and they have been around for years (30?). So why now?
__________________
If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Never slow down, never grow old!
CardsFan is online now  
Old 10-04-2016, 02:47 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 3,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardsFan View Post
BUT, they did not have it in the current regs, and they have been around for years (30?). So why now?
I'm guessing it's due to all the people with big 401k/ira balances that are now dying. Seriously.
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 02:56 PM   #27
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: St. Charles
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
I'm guessing it's due to all the people with big 401k/ira balances that are now dying. Seriously.
We agree on that! The gummint sees this big pile of un-taxed money and says lets change the rules so we get some of it! Actually, more of it than we would have gotten if the poor guy lived!
__________________
If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Never slow down, never grow old!
CardsFan is online now  
Old 10-04-2016, 03:07 PM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
I never felt the legislation was meant to benefit the heirs and shelter taxes in perpetuity, but obviously others have other feelings. Carry on.

Well, first, it is not in perpetuity.... under current law you have to start taking money out now... so the balance will go down pretty good...


The big change is how fast the account has to be emptied now... as the example above, with $1 million that is a big hit... and if we are in a good economy that million can make maybe $200K in the first year and even though you have taken out $200K you at where you were.. now you have to take out $250K the next year...


I would think an RMD based on the life expectancy of the deceased is the better option... that way the gvmt gets their money as they had planned and the person is not unduly burdened with taxes....
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 03:21 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,036
It's another fiscal cliff too: $450,000 no problem, $450,001 uh oh.
__________________
GrayHare is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 03:24 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 3,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrayHare View Post
It's another fiscal cliff too: $450,000 no problem, $450,001 uh oh.
gotta draw a line in teh sand somewhere I guess
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 03:30 PM   #31
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 721
Confiscatory, pure and simple. This rule can force the beneficiary into an artificially high and very temporary tax bracket. A $1MM IRA will have to be drained at $200k a year minimum. With any other taxable income coming in, the beneficiary becomes a high income person and most other tax benefits disappear. When stretched over 20 or 30 years, a reasonable amount can be withdrawn and blended with other income to achieve a more reasonable tax rate.

All the more reason to put money into tax favored real estate and avoid the tax deferred IRA and 401(k).

You would think the fairly conservative folks on the finance committee (I'm looking at you, Orrin Hatch) would not stoop to this type of theft.
__________________
Another Reader is online now  
Old 10-04-2016, 04:04 PM   #32
Full time employment: Posting here.
Cobra9777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Another Reader View Post
Confiscatory, pure and simple. This rule can force the beneficiary into an artificially high and very temporary tax bracket. A $1MM IRA will have to be drained at $200k a year minimum. With any other taxable income coming in, the beneficiary becomes a high income person and most other tax benefits disappear. When stretched over 20 or 30 years, a reasonable amount can be withdrawn and blended with other income to achieve a more reasonable tax rate...
[emphasis added]

I think it's already been established in this thread that the new 5 year rule would only apply to the extent the IRA balance exceeds $450K. So $1M would drive $110K/yr for 5 years, plus $450K over the beneficiary's life expectancy. Still a "hit", no doubt, but probably manageable in many cases.
__________________
Retired at 52 in July 2013. On to better things...

AA: 45% stock, 35% bonds, 15% real estate, 5% cash
Cobra9777 is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 04:11 PM   #33
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 19,712
Sounds like there is another reason to do IRA to Roth conversions - to get your IRA down to <$450k.

It's not clear yet (to me) if a person died with a $500k IRA and 2 adult children named as beneficiaries, would each child have to withdraw $250k over 5 years or only $25k over 25 years. i.e. is it the excess over $450k that is subject to the 5 year rule?

From the notes at the bottom of the article the writer(s) believe that all or parts of the bill won't be taken up until a new Congress takes office.
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 04:21 PM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
I would think an RMD based on the life expectancy of the deceased is the better option... that way the gvmt gets their money as they had planned and the person is not unduly burdened with taxes....
That's way too reasonable and logical for our congresscritters to implement.
__________________
GrayHare is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 04:51 PM   #35
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,629
Well darn! I actually had left my IRA's to my daughter as a means for her to take RMD's for the rest of her life so she could have "a little bit of money" each year.

I guess the ok news is there is a $450K cap. For me, I have 4 to 5 times the amount in taxable accounts than in deferred accounts so I need to pay attention to that cap and/or not make any more contributions, plan to die before RMDs start or plan to live long enough to be under the cap if I have started RMDS's or do ROTH conversions.

And what about those that don't pay attention to this stuff? How does our government intend to announce this ...if at all?
__________________
sheehs1 is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 05:09 PM   #36
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,036
The $450,000 number feels like it was pulled out of a hat. Lots of strategies will emerge for those just over the limit, such as early withdrawals if needed to stay under, donations to charity, etc.
__________________
GrayHare is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 05:23 PM   #37
Dryer sheet aficionado
FIREchief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
http://www.groom.com/media/publicati...on%20Bills.pdf

Good read. Take note that one of the rules changes stretch iras, which may affect many on the forum:

"Post-Death Required Minimum Distribution Rules (“Stretch IRAs”). Current post-death required minimum distribution (“RMD”) rules generally provide that if an employee or IRA owner dies before the required beginning date and has a designated beneficiary, RMD distributions are permitted to be paid over the designated beneficiary’s life expectancy. RESA would change the post-death RMD rules to generally require that all distributions after death (including to a designated beneficiary) be made by the end of the fifth calendar year following the year of death – a significant revenue raiser. The requirement does not apply if the designated beneficiary is an eligible beneficiary, which is defined as any beneficiary who, as of the date of death, is a surviving spouse, disabled, or chronically ill, or is an individual who is not more than 10 years younger than the employee (or IRA owner), or is a child of the employee (or IRA owner) who has not reached the age of majority. In addition, RESA would provide that the new 5-year distribution requirement only applies to the extent that the amount of an individual’s aggregate account balances under all IRAs and defined contributions plans, determined as of the date of death, exceeds $450,000 (indexed for inflation).
Has anybody seen any other source that substantiates this? I've googled, including the Senate's official site, and I can find a lot of mentions of the bill, but none that include elimination of stretch IRAs.
__________________
FIREchief is offline  
Old 10-04-2016, 05:26 PM   #38
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,559
If I were king, there would be no such thing as an inherited IRA or 401k, or an inherited anything else for that matter (except for surviving spouses). Since I'm not, I guess they'll do what they're going to do.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now  
Old 10-04-2016, 05:39 PM   #39
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: St. Charles
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
If I were king, there would be no such thing as an inherited IRA or 401k, or an inherited anything else for that matter (except for surviving spouses). Since I'm not, I guess they'll do what they're going to do.

So, where should it go? Surely not to the government!



Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Never slow down, never grow old!
CardsFan is online now  
Old 10-04-2016, 05:44 PM   #40
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIREchief View Post
Has anybody seen any other source that substantiates this? I've googled, including the Senate's official site, and I can find a lot of mentions of the bill, but none that include elimination of stretch IRAs.
http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/me...dification.pdf

http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/me...%20JCX8816.pdf

$3.182 billion in additional revenue in 2017-2026.
__________________

__________________
Another Reader is online now  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Employment Finance vs Early Retirement Finance truenorth418 Life after FIRE 12 12-16-2015 12:18 PM
Steal from the rich - God approves! Trek Other topics 0 12-22-2009 01:49 PM
The Three Stooges appear before the senate banking committee---wooowooowoo cashflo2u2 FIRE and Money 64 11-22-2008 10:08 AM
Congress Approves Changes to HSA Rules for 2007 mykidslovedogs Health and Early Retirement 2 12-20-2006 05:38 PM
Senate Armed Services Committee hooks up the flag officers Nords Other topics 2 10-18-2006 06:47 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:29 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.