Conduit trusts & The Secure Act

Jeffrey Levine in Kitches writes “the question as to whether Conduit Trusts subject to the 10-Year Rule are even a viable solution for clients, especially in cases when the trust language limits distributions to “only” the Required Minimum Distribution. In such scenarios, no distributions can be made until the 10th year after death, when the entire account must be emptied all at once, since that is the only point during the 10-Year Rule when a distribution is actually required (resulting in a potentially huge tax liability in the process).” https://www.kitces.com/blog/secure-act-see-through-conduit-trust-stretch-ira-10-year-non-eligible-designated-beneficiary/#

My trust language reads “Beginning with the year of a Grantor’s death, and for each calendar year end thereafter, the Trustee shall withdraw from each Retirement Plan Assets the required minimum distribution (as defined in Code Section 401(a) and the Regulations thereunder) for such Retirement Plan Assets for such year. In addition, the Trustee may withdraw such *additional* amount or amounts, from any Retirement Plan Asset, as such the Trustee deems advisable; provided, so long as the Conduit Beneficiary is serving as a Trustee.”

So it says “the Trustee may withdraw such *additional amounts* or amounts … as the Trustee deems advisable.” So it’s not limiting distributions *only* to just RMDs. It’s allowing for additional withdrawals. In other words, the distribution doesn’t only have to take place on the 10th year, as Levine claims, correct?



Yes, that is correct. The most damaging provisions limit distributions to the RMDs which is not the case with your trust, but your trust is still degraded by the 10 year rule unless the conduit beneficiary inherits very late in life.

  • You are correct.  
  • Conduit trusts rarely made sense.  While the RMDs were small in the early years, over time they became larger, thus forcing distributions, throwing the distributions into the beneficiaries’ estates, and defeating the asset protection of the trust.
  • Why would anyone have mandated distribution to the beneficiary of the RMDs but prohibited distributions in excess of the RMDs?  It’s unlikely that either of these would have made sense, and it’s even more unliikely that both of these restrictions would have made sense in the same case.
  • You may want to revise yours to make the trust fully discretionary so that it won’t mandate complete distribution after 10 years.
  • Bruce Steiner

Add new comment

Log in or register to post comments