Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Retirement Savings

Q&A: Retirement account distribution rules

By

Dear Liz: My husband is 71 and retired. We have started withdrawing from one of his retirement funds but I am unsure if there is a minimum amount that needs to be withdrawn per year. We have a few retirement funds in different places. Do we have to withdraw from each or just a minimum per year no matter where?

Answer: Required minimum distributions from most retirement accounts typically must begin when someone turns 72. The withdrawals must be made by Dec. 31 each year, but your first one can be delayed until April 1. If your husband turns 72 next year, for example, then the first withdrawal wouldn’t be due until April 1, 2024. Your husband would need to take a second distribution by Dec. 31, 2024.

Required minimum distributions are calculated using the tables in IRS Publication 590-B, Distributions From Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs). IRA owners have to calculate the minimum withdrawal separately for each IRA they own, but they’re allowed to draw the total amount from one or more of the IRAs. People who have 403(b) accounts are also allowed to take the total amount from one or more 403(b) contracts after calculating the amount separately for each one.

The rules are different for other types of retirement plans. People who have 401(k) and 457(b) plans must calculate and take minimum withdrawals separately from each of those plan accounts. No distributions are required for Roth IRAs during the owner’s lifetime.

Your brokerage typically can help you calculate required minimum distributions, or you can talk to a tax pro. A tax pro or fee-only financial planner also could help you decide if it makes sense to consolidate your accounts. At your stage of life, you probably could benefit from simplifying your finances and having fewer accounts to monitor.

Q&A: The rules have changed on inherited IRAs. Here’s what you need to know

By

Dear Liz: My husband and I have a combination of traditional and Roth IRAs naming our children and grandchildren as beneficiaries. With the passage of the Secure Act requiring distribution of inherited IRAs within 10 years, we want to revise our plan of leaving all of the investments to our children, as such inherited income would affect their tax bracket also. Do you have recommendations to alter the inherited IRAs to avoid this issue? Our annual fixed income puts us at the top of our tax bracket, meaning we usually cannot manage a traditional IRA to Roth conversion.

Answer: The Secure Act dramatically limited “stretch IRAs,” which allowed people to draw down an inherited IRA over their lifetimes. Now most non-spouse inheritors must empty the accounts within 10 years if they inherited the IRA in 2020 or later.

There are some exceptions if an heir is disabled, chronically ill or not more than 10 years younger than the IRA owner, says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. These “eligible designated beneficiaries” can use the old stretch rules, as can spouses. Minor children of the IRA owner can put off withdrawals until age 21. At that point, the 10-year rule applies.

If you had a potential heir who qualifies, you could consider naming them as the beneficiary of a traditional IRA and leaving the Roth money to the other heirs. (The IRA withdrawals will be taxable while the Roth withdrawals won’t.) Or you could leave the IRA to the children in lower tax brackets and the Roth to those in higher tax brackets.

If you’re trying to divide your estate equally, though, these approaches could vastly complicate matters because the balances in the various accounts could be quite different. Plus, predicting anyone’s future tax brackets can be tough.

Another approach is to name your children along with your spouse as the primary beneficiary of your IRA. That way, the children would get 10 years to spend down this first chunk of your IRA money after you die. When your survivor dies, they would get another 10 years to spend down the remainder, giving them 20 years of tax-deferred growth.

Alternately, you could focus on spending down the IRA to preserve other assets for your kids. The stretch IRA rules encouraged people to preserve their IRAs, but now it may make more sense to focus on passing down assets such as stock or real estate that would get a valuable “step up” in tax basis at your death.

Converting IRAs to Roths is another potential strategy for those willing and able. In essence, you’re paying the tax bill now so your heirs won’t have to pay taxes later (although they’ll still have to drain the account within 10 years). It may be possible to do partial conversions over several years to avoid getting pushed into the next tax bracket.

There are a few other approaches that involve costs and tradeoffs, such as setting up a charitable remainder trust that can provide beneficiaries with income. These are best discussed with an estate planning attorney who can assess your situation and give you individualized advice.

Q&A: Here’s a strategy to avoid going broke in retirement

By

Dear Liz: A lot has been written about how much can safely be withdrawn from a balanced investment portfolio so that it will last a lifetime. A popular strategy is to withdraw a percentage, say 4%, in the first year and then increase that withdrawal each subsequent year by the rate of inflation.

What are your thoughts on an alternate strategy of withdrawing a fixed percentage, say 4%, at the beginning of each year? This has the disadvantage of providing a more variable income stream year to year but has the advantages of simplicity and it can never deplete the portfolio to zero.

Answer: Many retirees would find it hard to cope with incomes that swing wildly from one year to the next. One way to address that volatility is to ensure that retirees have enough guaranteed income — through Social Security, pensions and annuities — to cover their basic, must-have expenses. Retirement plan withdrawals then would provide for their “wants,” such as travel, meals out and so on.

Cutting back on the nice-to-haves isn’t easy, but it’s better than not having enough money to pay the mortgage or buy groceries.

This approach is the core of the “Spend Safely in Retirement Strategy,” created by retirement researchers Wade Pfau, Joe Tomlinson and Steve Vernon with the help of the Society of Actuaries and the Stanford Center on Longevity.

The strategy suggests maximizing Social Security and basing withdrawals on the IRS’ required minimum distribution percentages. Reports detailing the strategy and the research behind it are available on both organizations’ websites, and Vernon’s book “Don’t Go Broke in Retirement” explains the strategy in detail.

Of course, trying to eliminate any possibility of running short means that you may die with a whole lot of unspent money. That may be great news for your heirs, but sad for you if you denied yourself excessively while you were alive. Finding the right balance between security and spending is tough, to say the least.

Q&A: Where to park cash?

By

Dear Liz: I turned 72 in December and took my first required minimum distribution. With the goal of purchasing property next year, should I put the funds — $6,000 — in my Roth IRA or just put it in my bank savings account? Also, should I convert my traditional IRA to a Roth or just leave it alone?

Answer: To contribute to an IRA or Roth IRA, you must have earned income such as wages, salary or self-employment income. If you don’t have earned income, your contribution would be considered an excess contribution that could incur a 6% penalty for each year the money remained in the account.

You don’t have to be working to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth, but there’s typically not much reason to do so at this point unless you intend the money to go to your heirs and want to pay the income taxes rather than have them do so. Even then, you should run this idea past a tax pro or a financial planner since conversions can create other problems, such as higher Medicare premiums.

Q&A: How a fee-only financial planner differs from a fee-based one

By

Dear Liz: What is the difference between a fee-based financial planner and a fee-only financial planner? I have had a few complimentary meetings with a fee-based financial planner regarding retirement planning and income-generating strategy. I am 61 and currently have $325,000 in a traditional IRA and a 401(k) from a former employer, with 70% of both accounts held in stocks. The planner suggests that I put the whole $325,000 into a fixed indexed annuity, which he says is no risk. Is this a good idea?

Answer: Someone who is “fee based” typically accepts commissions or other incentives for selling certain investments in addition to charging fees. “Fee only” advisors accept money only from their clients.

Another important word that starts with f: fiduciary. Fiduciary advisors promise to put your interests ahead of their own. A fiduciary advisor, for example, typically wouldn’t recommend putting all your money in a single investment since having all your eggs in one basket is rarely in your best interest.

Most advisors are not fiduciaries, however, and may recommend poorly performing or expensive products to you when better options are available because those lesser options pay them more. Indexed annuities can pay high commissions to the people selling them, for example, and that can be a powerful incentive for your advisor to gloss over their potential disadvantages.

Indexed annuities are sold as a way to benefit from some of the upside of the stock market without the risk of loss if the market falls. But these annuities are complex and insurers can typically change the rules that govern your returns. In addition, you may face surrender charges if you need to take your money out.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued investor alerts about indexed annuities. These alerts urge potential investors to thoroughly investigate how the contracts are structured, how returns are figured and how the calculations can change. Anyone who is considering an indexed annuity would be smart to run the purchase past a fee-only, fiduciary financial planner to see whether it really makes sense for their situation.

By the way, there’s no such thing as a no-risk investment. Every investment poses some kind of risk, and a fiduciary advisor will take the time to explain those to you so you can make an informed judgment.

Q&A: Ask a tax pro before Roth conversion

By

Dear Liz: I’m almost 70, still working, and I’ve got a decent-size IRA as well as a 403(b) that I plan to move to an IRA when I retire. Because I have a pension and other investments, I don’t think I’ll ever need the money in the IRA and 403(b). Should I convert to a Roth now so my kids (31 and 28) won’t have to pay taxes when they inherit it? I’ve got the cash to cover the taxes for the Roth conversion.

Answer: That would be a generous move, but you should consult a tax pro to make sure you understand the implications.

As you know, converting a pre-tax retirement account such as an IRA, 401(k) or a 403(b) to a Roth IRA can generate a sizable income tax bill. Such conversions can push you into a higher tax bracket and, if you’re on Medicare, also may increase your premiums.

You may want to spread the conversion over several years, converting just enough each year to “fill out” your tax bracket and avoid Medicare surcharges. A tax pro can help with those calculations.