msmith Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 RMD was paid for 2013 (due date 12/31/2013) and calculated based upon the Account Balance of 08/31/2012. Subsequently, the Plan Year changed to a Calendar Year, with a short Plan Year from 09/01/2012 to 12/31/2012. Assuming the account balance had investment gains during the short Plan Year, should the 2013 RMD be recalculated, with an additional amount to be paid by 12/31/2013?
Belgarath Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 Good question. I suppose it depends upon how you wish to interpret 1.401(a)(9)-5, Q&A-3(b).I think a strict reading would require the additional amount you mention. The earnings are not a "contribution" that is "allocated but not actually made," and therefore can't be excluded. In real life, I'm very dubious that this is actually done most of the time - not that this is a high volume situation anyway. However, I think you are correct to recalculate and distribute the additional amount.
msmith Posted June 10, 2013 Author Posted June 10, 2013 Thank you, Belgarath. I would prefer to take the conservative approach and distribute.
Lou S. Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 Maybe I'm obtuse but how do you process a 2013 minium distribution and then retroactively amend to a short prior year? Wouldn't the short year amenedment have to be adopted before 12/31/12 thus rendering the 8/31/12 valuation moot for calculating the 2013 RMD?
msmith Posted June 10, 2013 Author Posted June 10, 2013 Amendment timely adopted - but Client did not wait for RMD revisions for short plan year - and the 2013 RMD was processed.
BG5150 Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 Two scenarios: 1) the RMD wasn't enough--do another 2) the RMD was too much--all you have is a small "we didn't withhold enough" problem on the distribution over the RMD QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPATwo wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
Lou S. Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 Amendment timely adopted - but Client did not wait for RMD revisions for short plan year - and the 2013 RMD was processed. That make sense. I agree with Belgarth. Given that the failure to make RMD is 50% excise tax, I'd advise the client to make additional distribution to satisfy the RMD if any required. I would not worry about it if there was a loss and RMD is smaller than actual distribution.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now