Congress Eyes Inherited IRAs

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaneohe Sarah, according to this, it seems like it would be based on the age of the beneficiary so the RMD would be different from the original owner's? https://personal.vanguard.com/us/wha...ranonspousermd

Right. After the first year the beneficiaries age is used to determine the RMD.

[Sarah in SC]

Well, it depends. If you are one of a group of beneficiaries, you'll not be taking it under your own life expectancy, but under the oldest persons (sometimes). And for some of them, I've seen it accelerated through a court order, especially when there is some dispute as to ownership. It can get fairly complicated, and if at all possible, leave it to your spouse, which will allow them to simply put it in their own IRA accounts.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah in SC Well, it depends. If you are one of a group of beneficiaries, you'll not be taking it under your own life expectancy, but under the oldest persons (sometimes). And for some of them, I've seen it accelerated through a court order, especially when there is some dispute as to ownership. It can get fairly complicated, and if at all possible, leave it to your spouse, which will allow them to simply put it in their own IRA accounts.

Sometimes. If the inherited IRA is split and each beneficiary given their share in their own account, the following year each uses their own age for RMDs. Clear as mud.

[Sarah in SC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Sometimes. If the inherited IRA is split and each beneficiary given their share in their own account, the following year each uses their own age for RMDs. Clear as mud.

And you wonder why I never venture to answer questions about this stuff!
Try explaining SIMPLE IRA eligibility sometimes, totally defies the imagination!

[ripper1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude Hopefully Congress finds something else to worry about.......... Why mess with the beneficiaries of inherited IRAs? They'll get the money at some point. This sounds like another one of those dumb ideas where Uncle Sam wants their money now. Remember the old conversion from IRA to Roth in the late 90's, where you could spread the taxes over 4 years? Only 25% of ALL eligible people took "advantage" of that "special deal". How did that work out for ya, Uncle Sam?

Take that tax man....Right on Dude.

[ripper1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude Did they consider community property states, like Wisconsin? The only way you can list someone other than your spouse as a primary beneficiary of an IRA is if they sign a form saying they're ok with that. Anyone think that might be a hard signature to get? Typical Congress, again showing their lack of due diligence on financial matters that affect real people....... I would say the majority of people in the US can't even do so-called "stretch IRAs" because they don't have enough other assets to afford retirement and give money to younger generations. What was the point again, to "raise" $4.5 billion a year when we are $15.4 TRILLION in the red? That's like looking for spare change on the ground to pay your $300,000 mortgage payment...........

You are killing me, Dude, I like your thinking.

[ripper1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Sometimes. If the inherited IRA is split and each beneficiary given their share in their own account, the following year each uses their own age for RMDs. Clear as mud.

Exactly the way my three sisters and I are using the Inherited IRA from my deceased brother.