Permalink Submitted by Marvin Rotenberg on Mon, 2009-01-05 20:44
Your client, a greater than 5% owner, will not have to take a RMD for 2009 if he/she is in a defined contribution plan. If it’s a defined benefit plan a RMD will hve to be taken for 2009.
The question regarding a client turning age 70 1/2 in 2009 and wether they must take a RMD in 2009. This is difficult to answer at this point. We think however they may not have to take the RMD in 2009. The real question in that the client really is not in pay ststus untill April 1st of 2010. It still is a question for the 2009 RMD. Our best thinking for now is no RMD for 2009. When we get better guidence form the IRS we will post it
Marvin
Permalink Submitted by Alan Spross on Mon, 2009-01-05 23:25
The technical analysis indicates no 2009 RMD in that case, despite the RBD of 4/1/2010. See pages 26 and 27 of the attached link. I doubt there is much of a chance the IRS would rule diffferently, but the IRS has surprised us before:
Permalink Submitted by Alan Spross on Mon, 2009-01-05 19:17
No. All 2009 year RMDs are suspended including those for beneficiaries.
Permalink Submitted by Linda Randazzo on Mon, 2009-01-05 19:50
Just to be sure. If i am turning 70 1/2 in 2009 can i waive my 1st distribution? If so how long do i have?
Thanks
Permalink Submitted by Marvin Rotenberg on Mon, 2009-01-05 20:44
Your client, a greater than 5% owner, will not have to take a RMD for 2009 if he/she is in a defined contribution plan. If it’s a defined benefit plan a RMD will hve to be taken for 2009.
The question regarding a client turning age 70 1/2 in 2009 and wether they must take a RMD in 2009. This is difficult to answer at this point. We think however they may not have to take the RMD in 2009. The real question in that the client really is not in pay ststus untill April 1st of 2010. It still is a question for the 2009 RMD. Our best thinking for now is no RMD for 2009. When we get better guidence form the IRS we will post it
Marvin
Permalink Submitted by Alan Spross on Mon, 2009-01-05 23:25
The technical analysis indicates no 2009 RMD in that case, despite the RBD of 4/1/2010. See pages 26 and 27 of the attached link. I doubt there is much of a chance the IRS would rule diffferently, but the IRS has surprised us before:
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-85-08.pdf