Jump to content

RMD - age 89 and retiring


Cynchbeast
 Share

Recommended Posts

No. The first distributions from a 401(k) plan in any RMD year must be the RMD.

... and is not rollable.

I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is true that it would not be an RMD year if the participant were still an employee, the original post said that the participant was retiring "this week". Presumably, that would mean that the participant ceased to be an employee during 2013, making 2013 the first RMD year. If the participant elects a lump sum distribution, it appears from the above posts that some of it would have to be treated as RMD and not rolled over. As I understand it, if the lump sum is not paid until 2014, presumably two years' worth of RMD (the amounts that would otherwise have had to be paid for 2013 by 4/1/14 and the amount that would otherwise have had to be paid for 2014 by 12/31/14) would have to be carved out from the rollover.

Always check with your actuary first!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...