Effect of no RMD requirement for 2009
If I do not take my RMD for 2009 what figure do I use to figure my RMD in 2010. Do I still go by my age, or must I use 2009’s age? 🙂 Would be nice to be a year younger.
If I do not take my RMD for 2009 what figure do I use to figure my RMD in 2010. Do I still go by my age, or must I use 2009’s age? 🙂 Would be nice to be a year younger.
Permalink Submitted by Clyde Wolf on Sat, 2009-04-11 18:33
Bobdeena,
Forget the “year younger”, you will use the age you become in 2010.
To calculate your 2010 RMD, you will use the closing IRA balance on December 31, 2009.
It is the same as if you had to take a 2009 RMD, but you don’t.
The Charitable Contribution Distribution is still available in 2009.
Permalink Submitted by Deena Wagner on Sat, 2009-04-11 19:11
Thank you for a quick and clear reply.
Permalink Submitted by Janine Janine on Wed, 2009-04-15 15:33
In the case of an Inherited IRA, do you subtract 2 (instead of the 1 that you would have used for 2009 RMD) to get the correct divisor for RMD for 2010?
I can’t help wondering who is going to keep track of all this. 🙄
Thank you.
Permalink Submitted by Alan Spross on Wed, 2009-04-15 18:11
Yes, you would subtract 2 for 2010 from the 2008 divisor, as a reflection of your actual age. What makes this somewhat more confusing however, is that if you are under the 5 year rule, you just ignore 2009 and thereby get an additional year, so for the 5 year rule time actually does stop advancing.