Whether by choice or necessity, many Americans are still working long beyond what has traditionally been retirement age. If you are a member of this group, you may be keeping funds in your employer plan well into your seventies and maybe even later. There are some big benefits to extending a career. You can continue to contribute to your retirement account and may even be able to take advantage of rules that allow required minimum distributions (RMDs) to be delayed.
Eventually, however, the time will likely come when you will want to take some or all of the funds out of your plan. You may want to roll over those funds to an IRA. A large percentage of employer plan funds do end up in an IRA eventually.
Question:
Is it possible to take the RMD portion of an inherited traditional IRA and convert that each year as the distribution is done into a Roth IRA? Or, is the only way to accomplish this is to take the distribution and then make a contribution, which limits the amount I can put in each year?
Thanks,
Lynn
Answer:
Lynn,
No, RMDs from an inherited IRA cannot be converted to a Roth IRA. “Required minimum distributions” are just that, required. Whether from an inherited IRA or from an IRA by the original owner, they must be removed from the account.
Edward was born in 1950. Traditional IRA accounts would not be established until the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In 1975, Edward and many other Americans took full advantage of this tax-deferred savings opportunity. The maximum contribution limit in 1975 was $1,500, and Edward contributed the full amount to his IRA every year.
Contribution limits increased to $2,000 in 1982 and to $3,000 in 2002, and each year Edward squirreled away the maximum amount. The over-50 catch-up contribution provision became effective with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) when Edward was already over 50, so he leveraged the new rules to dial up his savings.
I’m sure you’ve heard countless advisors mention that a direct transfer (or direct rollover) is the best way to move funds between IRAs or qualified retirement plans. But do you understand why? There are a number of reasons, and in this installment, we discuss some of those in greater depth.
Background: Direct Transfer vs. 60-day Rollovers
It is important to under the difference between a direct transfer (or direct rollover) and it’s alternative, a 60-day rollover (or indirect rollover).
Direct Transfer – A direct transfer and a direct rollover have identical meanings. The only difference is the tax code uses the term “direct transfer” when discussing IRAs and “direct rollovers” when addressing qualified plans. In either event, we are talking about a distribution where the funds are payable to another tax-deferred account. They are not paid to the account holder. There are two ways to directly transfer/rollover IRA and qualified plan accounts:
Question:
I have a question about avoiding RMDs for a still-working 72 year old in a 401k plan. Suppose they don’t have to take 401k RMDs due to the still-working exemption from RMDs. Let’s say the person knows they will retire next year in February 2020 when they will be 73. If they do an IRA rollover while still employed in January 2020, would that avoid the RMD for the 401k plan?
Is it correct to assume that the rollover amount from the 401k would not be included in the IRA RMD calculation for 2019, but would be included for 2020 (since 401k amount was not in IRA at end-2018, it would not be included in calculation)?
It’s that time of year again. Tax season is upon us. This is now the time when many individuals consider funding their IRAs. Contributing to an IRA may seem pretty straight forward and in many ways it is! But there can be twists. Here are five IRA contribution rules that may surprise you.
1. File now and fund later. Frequently, during tax season we are asked if an IRA contribution must be made before the tax return is filed. The answer is no. This is not required. You can claim a deduction for your IRA contribution now when you file your taxes and fund it later. Some people even fund their IRA contribution with their tax refund if the timing is right. Just don’t wait too long. If you claim the contribution, be sure you get it done.
A disclaimer is an interesting tool. It is a denial or disavowal of legal claim, or a formal refusal to accept an interest in something. “Release” and “waiver” are good synonyms. Oftentimes a disclaimer statement is used by a person looking to shield themselves from legal repercussions. A shady politician might disclaim any responsibility or liability from the things he “may or may not have said.” It would be nice if we could disclaim the bad things in life, like a stubbed toe or a failing grade in math class.
Disclaimers are not just for people looking to cover their tails. They can certainly be used for the benefit of others, especially with retirement plans. For example: a husband dies but neglects to name a beneficiary on his IRA account.
Question:
My Daughter is a 30-year old RN and I want to help her contribute to an IRA. She has a 401K at the hospital where she works, but she only contributes to maximize their 4% matching. It is my understanding she can still contribute (up until April 15th, 2019) $5,500 to either a 2018 ROTH or a 2018 traditional IRA. At her age, the growth on an IRA over time should be huge. Would a ROTH always be a better IRA to put her $5,500 and forgo the reduction on her taxable income from the traditional IRA?
Thanks!
Ted
Answer:
Ted,
I completely agree with everything you’ve said. Your daughter should continue to contribute to her employer at least up to the amount necessary to get the maximum matching contribution.
When a legal question is clear, I like to imagine the landscape like the great plains of the midwestern United States. The land is flat and lush, meaning problems are easily identified and the area can be easily traversed. On the other hand, when the question isn’t so clear, the terrain reminds me of the moon; rocky, dark, desolate, and full of potholes and craters.
Naturally, we hope that every legal issue we encounter is like the rolling plains of the breadbasket of America. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. And such is the situation when it comes to the protection of inherited IRAs in bankruptcy court.
Much attention is paid to the favorable options available when spouses are named as IRA beneficiaries. However, a significant portion of IRA assets will end up being inherited by individuals who are not a spouse of the decedent. Many people name siblings, friends, children or others as their IRA beneficiaries. Also, IRA assets that start off with spouse beneficiaries often end up in the hands of non-spouse beneficiaries. How so? A typical scenario is for spouses to name each other as IRA beneficiaries. After the death of first spouse, the surviving spouse will often transfer the inherited IRA assets to an IRA in their own name. At that point they are likely to name a non-spouse beneficiary if they do not remarry. Because IRA assets frequently wind up being inherited by someone other than a spouse, it is critical to understand both the possibilities and pitfalls for these non-spouse beneficiaries.
When an IRA owner dies, there is no probate or other process necessary to transfer the IRA funds to the beneficiary named on the beneficiary designation form. Instead, the IRA becomes the beneficiary’s property by the fact of the IRA owner’s death. Generally, the beneficiary will provide a death certificate to the IRA custodian. The account will then be retitled as a
