Q&A

Q&A: Is there a way to avoid taxes on RMDs?

March 9, 2026 By Liz Weston Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I have read advice on how to minimize taxes for people who potentially could have higher incomes and taxes after age 70 when they have pensions, Social Security payments and retirement account RMDs. The most common strategy seems to be doing Roth conversions during the later stages of employment, particularly if one spouse retires before the other so family income decreases.

However, I have not read good advice for older people when this problem has already started (other than noting that one way to avoid paying taxes is to donate the RMD funds). Is there any strategy for people who already have this triple income to reduce paying taxes and high Medicare premiums? We lived below our means for our working lives to save for retirement, but now see our savings dissipate due to the taxes and Medicare premiums.

Answer: Your situation illustrates why it’s so important to get good tax advice years before RMDs start, because you have fewer options after that point.

The alternative you mentioned is called a qualified charitable distribution. QCDs allow you to transfer a certain amount (up to $111,000 per individual in 2026) directly from your IRA to a charity. The transfer can satisfy your RMD requirement, but the amount is not included in your taxable income.

Another option is buying a qualified longevity annuity contract, or QLAC. These deferred income annuities start paying out guaranteed income for life once you’ve reached a certain age (up to age 85). You can use up to a certain lifetime amount of IRA money ($210,000 per individual in 2026) to purchase the contract. That money is excluded from RMD calculations until payouts begin.

As with any annuity, you’ll want to research your options, understand the downsides — including lack of liquidity, because the amount you spend typically can’t be recovered — and seek out fiduciary advice before you proceed.

Q&A: How do I get tax forms from my online bank?

March 9, 2026 By Liz Weston Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I have a savings account and a revocable trust money market account with an online bank. They provide the 1099-INT tax form for the savings account as a downloadable file. However, they do not provide a downloadable form for the trust account money market.

They insist that it can only be mailed after Jan. 31 and cannot be downloaded online. When I complained several times, saying that I received trust account tax forms from other financial institutions, I received frivolous answers.

Can you explain what is going on here and what I should do to get my 1099-INT early so I can do my taxes without having to wait for it?

Answer: What’s going on is that the bank and its customer service reps are ignorant of the law.

There’s no requirement that the form be downloadable, but the Internal Revenue Service does require 1099-INT forms to be provided to recipients and to the IRS by Jan. 31, says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. This year, the deadline was actually Feb. 2, since Jan. 31 fell on a weekend.

Since the IRS can levy penalties for late filing, you can be sure the bank has found a way to electronically provide the forms to the tax authorities, even if it can’t be bothered to get them to you.

As you’ve personally experienced, other financial institutions give their customers access to the forms well before the deadline. You can’t personally reform a dysfunctional institution, so consider moving your business to one that provides actual customer service.

Q&A: Broker made mistake calculating RMDS

March 2, 2026 By Liz Weston Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: While preparing our 2025 taxes, I noticed that our brokerage doubled the required minimum distributions for my husband and me for 2025. I called, and they said they were “running two systems” and sent a notice to investors to look for any problems. I do not recall ever receiving such a notice. Also, I did not notice the increase, as the bank used for these direct deposits also has multiple CDs, and the account is a “rainy day” fund that we use only for emergencies.

This money moved us into another tax bracket and we will be hit with a big tax bill. Also, we have lost out on future returns from the money that was distributed rather than left alone to grow. What is the brokerage’s responsibility? Do we just have to bite the bullet and pay the taxes on a mistake?

Answer: You had a 60-day window to return the excess withdrawal to your retirement accounts without incurring taxes, says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting.

Assuming that window has passed, you can consider making a claim against the brokerage firm for the higher taxes and lost earnings. Start by making a written complaint to the brokerage firm’s compliance department. If you don’t get satisfactory results, you can file a complaint with the FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, at https://www.finra.org/investors/need-help/file-a-complaint.

Unfortunately, the IRS holds taxpayers responsible for correctly calculating and taking RMDs, even when their brokerage firms make mistakes. You would be wise to put reminders in your calendar to check your brokerage’s calculations as well as the actual distributions while you still have time to correct any errors. You may also want to consider consolidating your finances to make it easier to monitor your accounts.

Q&A: Should I draw down my 401(k) before accepting Social Security?

March 2, 2026 By Liz Weston Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I am a 66-year-old single male working part-time (not by choice, but it’s the best I can get). I earn about $24,000 per year plus another $4,000 in unemployment during the summer. Work provides healthcare, so I don’t have Medicare premiums yet. With fixed expenses at roughly $50,000 per year, I am withdrawing from my 401(k) to cover the gap until I reach full retirement at the age of 70. If they will let me, I hope to continue to work until 75 because I love my job. At this rate, I will have exhausted the 401(k) by age 70, leaving me with a $100,000 CD earning 4%. Am I right to use the 401(k) as a bridge to full Social Security?

Answer: The advantages of delaying Social Security are typically so great that financial planners often recommend tapping other resources, including retirement funds, if that allows you to put off your application. Social Security’s delayed retirement credits boost your payment by 8% each year between your full retirement age and age 70, when benefits max out. A maxed-out payment is a powerful hedge against longevity risk, which is the danger of living so long that you deplete your savings.

However, a financial planner probably would suggest you also look for ways to decrease your living expenses to avoid completely exhausting your retirement accounts. As you’ve discovered, older people can have a harder time staying employed, even when their health cooperates. You may not be able to work as long as you’d like, and the average Social Security check is closer to $2,000 than the $4,000 or more you would need to meet your fixed expenses.

Consider seeking out a fiduciary financial advisor who can review your situation and offer personalized advice. Your employer or 401(k) provider may offer access to such advisors, or you can look for a financial coach or accredited financial counselor affiliated with the Assn. for Financial Counseling & Planning Education at www.afcpe.org.

Q&A: Could spouse’s early start stunt Social Security survivor benefit?

February 23, 2026 By Liz Weston 4 Comments

Dear Liz: My husband and I plan to delay taking Social Security retirement benefits until the higher-earning spouse is 70. This is to ensure the highest possible survivor benefit. However, the lower-earning spouse will be turning 62 at the same time that the higher earning spouse turns 70. We are concerned that the lower-earning spouse’s future survivor benefit will be reduced if the lower earner starts benefits early. When would be the best time for the lower-earning spouse to take retirement benefits and ensure that the survivor’s benefit remains the same?

Answer: The lower earner won’t reduce the survivor benefit by starting early, but they will permanently reduce their own benefit or any spousal benefit they’re owed. Most people are better off waiting at least until their full retirement age to start Social Security benefits so they can avoid this reduction.