Permalink Submitted by Jose Morales on Tue, 2009-01-06 16:57
I’m going to assume that you meant she was born on 7/1/1938.
Anyone born between January thru the end of June of 1938 was 70 1/2 in 2008; anyone born between July thru the end of December of 1938 will be 70 1/2 in 2009.
Permalink Submitted by Alan Spross on Tue, 2009-01-06 19:14
And the effect of turning 70.5 on 1/1/09 is that she will have no RMD for the 2009 year since it has been suspended, even though her RBD is 4/1/2010. The RBD is not advanced by the 2009 suspension, so she will have to take her 2010 RMD by 12/31/2010, NOT 4/1/2011.
By not having been born one day earlier (6/30/1938), her first RMD requirement has been advanced 21 months from 4/1/2009 to 12/31/2010. Good timing indeed!
Permalink Submitted by Michael Lohr on Fri, 2009-01-09 22:22
I’m confused. If this RMD suspension was not enacted, given that she turned 70.5 on 1/1/09, she could have taken her first RMD during 2009 or she could have chosen to postpone it until 4/1/2010. Had she chosen to postpone her beginning distribution, and taken it on 4/1/2010, she would have had to take a second distribution before 12/31/2010. Now factoring in the RMD suspension for 2009, and assuming her RBD is not advanced by the 2009 suspension, if she doesn’t take her first distribution in 2009, she will still have to take two years worth of distributions during calendar year 2010. Is that correct?
Permalink Submitted by Jose Morales on Fri, 2009-01-09 22:33
No, she would only have to take her 2010 RMD by December 31st of 2010. The 2009 RMD is suspended and therefore her ability to postpone her first RMD would disappear.
Permalink Submitted by Jose Morales on Tue, 2009-01-06 16:57
I’m going to assume that you meant she was born on 7/1/1938.
Anyone born between January thru the end of June of 1938 was 70 1/2 in 2008; anyone born between July thru the end of December of 1938 will be 70 1/2 in 2009.
Permalink Submitted by Alan Spross on Tue, 2009-01-06 19:14
And the effect of turning 70.5 on 1/1/09 is that she will have no RMD for the 2009 year since it has been suspended, even though her RBD is 4/1/2010. The RBD is not advanced by the 2009 suspension, so she will have to take her 2010 RMD by 12/31/2010, NOT 4/1/2011.
By not having been born one day earlier (6/30/1938), her first RMD requirement has been advanced 21 months from 4/1/2009 to 12/31/2010. Good timing indeed!
Permalink Submitted by Michael Lohr on Fri, 2009-01-09 22:22
I’m confused. If this RMD suspension was not enacted, given that she turned 70.5 on 1/1/09, she could have taken her first RMD during 2009 or she could have chosen to postpone it until 4/1/2010. Had she chosen to postpone her beginning distribution, and taken it on 4/1/2010, she would have had to take a second distribution before 12/31/2010. Now factoring in the RMD suspension for 2009, and assuming her RBD is not advanced by the 2009 suspension, if she doesn’t take her first distribution in 2009, she will still have to take two years worth of distributions during calendar year 2010. Is that correct?
Permalink Submitted by Jose Morales on Fri, 2009-01-09 22:33
No, she would only have to take her 2010 RMD by December 31st of 2010. The 2009 RMD is suspended and therefore her ability to postpone her first RMD would disappear.
This is covered briefly in [url=http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-09.pdf%5DIRS Notice 2009-9[/url]