My wife inherited a few retirement accounts from her mother, who passed away in 2013. In calculating the RMD, I think that Vanguard told me one thing, and one of my wife’s siblings another – since the siblings all did the same thing, someone is wrong.

All RMDs were taken in 2013 as necessary prior to her passing. There were three accounts: a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, and an employer 403(b). In January 2014, Vanguard set up an inherited traditional IRA and an inherited Roth IRA; several months later, the 403(b) was rolled over into the inherited traditional IRA account. All siblings did this. Yesterday, I called Vanguard to figure out the RMDs on the two accounts. The person I spoke with said that because the 403(b) was rolled over into the inherited traditional IRA in 2014, the 403(b) does not come into play this year – but will next year – and is not used in calculating the RMD for the inherited traditional account. Now, again, her siblings did the same thing. For one of them, in looking at the numbers, it is clear that the 403(b) WAS used in calculating the RMD for that sibling.

I understand that all the rules surrounding IRAs can get very complicated – when I spoke withe Vanguard, they put me through to the “complex IRA” division, and even then was put on hold for them to put heads together.

My question:

Rather than rehash all of this with them, does it make sense just to take out an amount that is clearly greater than what the RMD could be? For example, if the RMD calculated was 200 bucks, but for the sibling it was closer to 500 bucks… just take out maybe 500, be above whatever the RMD really is, and take a minor tax hit? I’m getting tired of thinking about this, reading about this, and talking with them. I’m told the IRS calculates the RMD too, I wish they would simply tell me what they want me to take out…

I would rather take out too much than too little. (Next year it will be easier, luckily). The sums involved are essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things…