Monthly Archives: October 2024

Inherited Retirement Account Rules Need Radical Reform

My hope is that 2025 ushers in an era of simplification when it comes to all federal laws. Justice Neil Gorsuch co-wrote a book arguing we have far too many laws, and I agree with him. The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.

One area that is insanely and needlessly complicated is the inherited retirement account rules. What happens when someone inherits a traditional IRA, Roth IRA, and/or qualified workplace retirement account? It depends on far too many factors and there are far too many potential outcomes! As just one example, financial planner Jeffrey Levine came up with a flow chart of possible outcomes when a successor beneficiary inherits a retirement account.

That Mr. Levine could come up with such a flow chart is an absolute disgrace (to the government, not to Mr. Levine).

Complexity in our tax and retirement account laws shifts power away from ordinary Americans towards lawyers, accountants, advisors (such as me), and the IRS. Let’s shift some power back to ordinary Americans!

It’s time to radically simplify and reform the inherited retirement account rules.

Current Inherited Retirement Account Rules

Upon the death of the owner of an IRA or qualified plan, the following are potential outcomes in terms of potential inherited retirement account distribution rules:

Spousal Rollover
Required Minimum Distributions (“RMDs”)
10 Year Rule
10 Year Rule with RMDs
5 Year Rule

Woah! That there are so many possible outcomes, which require significant analysis to determine, is absolutely ridiculous and an unnecessary burden on American taxpayers.

Proposed Inherited Retirement Account Reform

I propose that the current voluminous, complicated inherited retirement account rules be scrapped. They should be replaced by the following simple rules, all effective January 1, 2025 unless otherwise noted.

At the decedent spouse’s death, any retirement account left to a spouse becomes the surviving spouse’s retirement account in the surviving spouse’s own name automatically and immediately upon death.

All other beneficiaries inherit an inherited retirement account which must be emptied within 10 full years following the owner’s death with no RMDs in years 1 through 9.

The death of a spouse entitles the surviving spouse to a permanent exception to the Section 72(t) 10 percent early withdrawal penalty with respect to distributions from any retirement account.
- This applies even if the widow/widower remarries.
- For fairness and simplicity, this applies even if the spouse died prior to 2025.

Any inherited retirement account a widow or widower treats as an inherited retirement account instead of a spousal rollover account as of the end of 2024 automatically becomes the surviving spouse’s own retirement account in their own name as of January 1, 2025.

The death of the beneficiary of an inherited retirement account does not change the clock. Successor beneficiaries must empty the inherited retirement account by the end of the 10th full calendar year following the original owner’s death.

Existing inherited retirement accounts (as of the end of 2024) are no longer subject to both the 10 year rule and RMDs. For 2025 and beyond, such accounts are subject to only the 10 year rule.

For fairness and simplicity, any retirement account inherited prior to 2025 subject to a 5 year rule will switch to the 10 year rule (measured as of the owner’s date of death).

Reset Day for Inherited Retirement Accounts Subject to an RMD in 2025: If the original owner died in 2024 or earlier and the inherited retirement account is subject to only an RMD in the year 2025 (under any of the old rules), the inherited account will become subject to the 10 year rule, and no longer be subject to RMDs (both as of 2026), as if the original owner died on December 31, 2025.
- The 2025 New Year’s Eve Reset Day applies to both beneficiaries and successor beneficiaries, including those who become successor beneficiaries during 2025.

Simplification

After my proposed reform, there will be two and only two potential treatments for an inherited retirement account: spousal rollovers for spouses and the 10 year rule for everyone else. Note: It takes 8 rules to get to a 2 rule system because in order to get to a 2 rule system there needs to be rules to account for the transition from a very complex system to an understandable system.

Replacing the existing rules with the above 2 rule system would significantly reduce the amount of federal regulations and reduce complexity. Congress stumbled into a great inherited retirement account rule in the SECURE Act: the 10 year rule. It’s time to make that the rule for all inherited retirement accounts except spousal rollovers.

Rules 4, 7, and 8 are simplification and consistency measures. They logically transition the inherited retirement accounts rules to a single, uniform system with only two outcomes: a spousal rollover or the 10 year rule.

Rapid Transition

I propose a rapid, though not overnight, transition to a uniform system. Assuming a bill is passed in early to mid-2025, 2025 can be a transition year and then by New Year’s Day 2026 all inherited retirement accounts would be on the new system, meaning all inherited retirement accounts, regardless of when inherited, would be subject to only one of two rules as of New Year’s Day 2026.

Protecting Young Widows and Widowers

Rule 3 is needed to avoid reform harming pre-age 59 ½ widows and widowers. Under today’s rules, surviving spouses can elect to treat a spouse’s retirement account as an “inherited” account instead of doing a spousal rollover. That inherited treatment avoids the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty on pre-age 59 ½ distributions.

If pre-age 59 ½ widows/widowers must do a spousal rollover (as I propose), they would be subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty if they took taxable distributions prior to their 59 1/2th birthday. To avoid that outcome, why not make becoming a widow/widower an automatic, permanent exception to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty?

Transition Entirely to a New Uniform System

Reform should clean the slate of complexity. Without rules 4, 7, and 8, there would be separate systems of rules for retirement accounts inherited prior to 2025 and those inherited in 2025 or later. There’s no need for two separate systems of rules. These three rules make the rules simple for all inherited retirement accounts going forward.

A Small Net Tax Increase

Rule 8 is a modest tax increase, mostly falling on the wealthiest Americans. Considering the hope that 2025 will bring some popular tax cuts, such as eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security, it is good to have at least some logical tax increases in 2025 that would not significantly impact ordinary Americans. Note also that rules 2 and 5 are also likely to be small tax increases while rules 3 and 7 are likely to be small tax cuts.

Regardless of the likely very modest net tax effect, the simplicity brought by this new system would greatly benefit the administration of the tax rules and ordinary Americans.

Rule 8 Transition Examples

Rule 8, eliminating inherited retirement account RMDs and switching to a 10 year rule as of 2026, is key to transitioning old inherited retirement accounts to the new, uniform system for taxing inherited retirement accounts. Here are three examples of how it would work.

Example 1: In 2017 Jock died and left his $1M traditional IRA to his son JR. JR, 23 years younger than Jock, turned 40 in 2017. JR started taking traditional IRA RMDs based on the IRS Single Life Table in 2018. In 2022 he redetermined the RMD factor such that by 2025 the factor was 37.8 (start with 44.8 for 2018 theoretically, subtract one annually to get down to 37.8 for 2025). For 2025, JR must take his RMD under the old rules (which still apply) by dividing the inherited traditional IRA 12/31/2024 balance by 37.8 and taking that amount by December 31, 2025. In 2026 JR becomes subject to the 10 year rule by Jock’s deemed death on December 31, 2025. Thus, JR has until the end of 2035 to empty the inherited traditional IRA. He has no RMDs other than in 2035 (the entire remaining balance).

Example 2: In 2022 Huey died and left his $1M traditional IRA to his brother Earl. Earl, two years younger than Huey, turned 66 in 2022. Earl, an “eligible designated beneficiary” under the SECURE Act, started taking inherited traditional IRA RMDs based on the IRS Single Life Table in 2023. For 2025, Earl must take his RMD under the old rules (which still apply) by dividing the inherited traditional IRA 12/31/2024 balance by 19.2 and taking that amount by December 31, 2025. In 2026 Earl becomes subject to the 10 year rule by Huey’s deemed death on December 31, 2025. Thus, Earl has until the end of 2035 to empty the inherited traditional IRA. He has no RMDs other than in 2035 (the entire remaining balance).

Example 3: In 2017 Al died and left his $1M traditional IRA to his son Barry. Barry has taken RMDs annually. During 2025 Barry dies and Carl becomes the successor beneficiary. In 2026 Carl becomes subject to the 10 year rule (as Al is deemed to have died December 31, 2025) and Carl has until the end of 2035 to empty the inherited traditional IRA. He has no RMDs other than in 2035 (the entire remaining balance).

Conclusion

The inherited retirement account rules are mindlessly and needlessly complicated. The complexity creates confusion shortly after the death of a loved one. Enough is enough!

It’s time for greatly simplified inherited retirement account rules. That simplifying these rules might help fund popular tax cuts such as eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security is the cherry on top of a great tax reform proposal.

Follow me on X at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Note that a version of this proposal will be posted to the crowd sourced policy website PoliciesforPeople.com. The views reflected in this post are only those of the author, Sean Mullaney, and are not the views of anyone else.

72(t) Payment Plan With a 401(k)

I’ve talked about what I refer to as a “72(t) IRA” both here on the blog and on my YouTube channel.

What I haven’t talked much about, until now, is a 72(t) payment plan coming out of a 401(k). Is it possible? Does it make sense?

Inspired by a comment on a recent video, I’m breaking down taking 72(t) payments from a 401(k) in this post. As you will see, when compared with the 72(t) IRA, the 72(t) 401(k) has significant disadvantages.

401(k) Plan Rules

Can you do a 72(t) out of your 401(k)? The answer is “maybe.” Qualified plans, including 401(k)s, have all sorts of unique rules. They vary plan to plan.

There’s no guarantee that you can access partial withdrawals from a 401(k) in accordance with a 72(t) payment plan after a separation from service.

By contrast, IRAs allow for easily accessible partial withdrawals regardless of age.

Must Separate From Service

There’s a tax rule to consider: one can only do a 72(t) payment plan from a 401(k) or other qualified plan after a separation from service from the employer.

From a planning perspective, this is not much of an issue. Few would want to do a 72(t) payment plan while still working, as taxable withdrawals from a 401(k) are not ideal if one still has significant W-2 income hitting their tax return.

72(t) Account Size

According to Notice 2022-6, the 72(t) account balance for the fixed amortization calculation must be determined in a reasonable manner. See Section 3.02(d). The Notice goes on to state that using a balance of the account from December 31st of the prior year through the date of the first 72(t) distribution is reasonable. One should document, usually with an account statement, the balance they are using to have in case the IRS ever examines the 72(t) payment.

Account size is one area where a 72(t) IRA is generally preferable to a 72(t) 401(k). As Natalie Choate observes in her classic Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits (8th Ed. 2019), an IRA can be sliced and diced into two or more IRAs, allowing one to take a 72(t) payment from a smaller IRA and remain flexible, in part through having a non-72(t) IRA as well. This flexibility is generally not possible with a 401(k) or other qualified plan. See Choate, page 595. That means without a transfer to an IRA first, the 401(k) account holder is generally stuck with an account size for the fixed amortization calculation, other than the bit of wiggle room given by Notice 2022-6 Section 3.02(d). Further, the entire account is subject to the locked 72(t) cage.

72(t) Locked Cage

A 72(t) 401(k) is entirely subject to the many restrictions on 72(t) retirement accounts. When one uses a 72(t) IRA, they often can have a 72(t) IRA and a non-72(t) IRA. This means less of their retirement account portfolio is subject to the 72(t) rules “locking the cage.” For example, the non-72(t) IRA can be used to accept other IRA roll-ins.

72(t) 401(k) Example

An example can illustrate the problems involved in using a 72(t) 401(k) instead of a 72(t) IRA.

Bob wants to retire early in 2024 at age 53. He has some rental real estate that will generate $40,000 of positive cash flow annually and needs $50,000 more annually from his retirement account to support his lifestyle. He has a $2,000,000 401(k) at his current employer. He sets up a 72(t) 401(k) instead of rolling out to a traditional IRA and establishing a non-72(t) IRA and a 72(t) IRA.

Size: $2,000,000

Life Expectancy: 33.4 (see the IRS Single Life Table)

Payment: $50,000

Solving for interest rate, we get an interest rate of -1.015124%.

Notice that in order to generate a $50K annual payment out of a $2M 401(k), Bob must use a negative interest rate. Bob can’t simply ask his 401(k) administrator to establish two separate 401(k) accounts for him and then use a positive interest rate for the 72(t) payment plan.

72(t) Negative Interest Rate

This raises an issue: can a taxpayer use a negative interest rate for a 72(t) payment plan under the fixed amortization method? I believe the answer is Yes. Notice 2022-6 Section 3.02(c) allows an interest rate “that is not more than the greater of (i) 5% or (ii) 120% of the federal mid-term rate (determined in accordance with section 1274(d) for either of the two months immediately preceding the month in which the distribution begins)” (emphasis added).

In my opinion, that wording in no way precludes using a negative interest rate for a 72(t) payment plan. Further, I see no compelling reason for the IRS to be concerned about using a negative interest rate. That said, there is at least some uncertainty around the issue.

The issue is entirely avoided if Bob rolled out to a traditional IRA and then split that traditional IRA into two IRAs. He could have a 72(t) IRA of about $804K generating an annual $50K payment (using a 5% interest rate) and a non-72(t) IRA of about $1.196M. From a planning perspective, it’s certainly my preference to avoid the issue by using the 72(t) IRA.

72(t) Structuring Alternative

As a structuring alternative that might be available to Bob (depending on the plan’s rules), Bob could roll the $804K out to a traditional IRA and use that as a 72(t) IRA. He could keep the balance inside his 401(k) and effectively use his 401(k) as what I refer to as the “non-72(t) IRA.” This sort of structuring was discussed on the Forget About Money podcast (timestamped here).

Decreasing the 72(t) Payment

What if Bob wants to reduce his 72(t) 401(k) annual payment (perhaps because he inherits a significant traditional IRA)? Bob can do a one-time change to the RMD method, which is the primary method of reducing the annual taxable 72(t) payment.

Unfortunately, using a 72(t) 401(k) boxed Bob into a bad corner. Say Bob is age 57 and the 72(t) 401(k) is still worth exactly $2M. He could use the age 57 factor from the Notice 2022-6 Uniform Life Table (41.6) and reduce his annual payment to $48,077. Not much of a reduction from his $50,000 required annual payment.

Had he used a 72(t) IRA/non-72(t) IRA structure instead, and the 72(t) IRA was worth $804K, he could reduce his $50,000 annual payment all the way down to $19,327.

For those looking for protection against significant tax in the event of an inheritance or other income producing event, the 72(t) IRA is preferable to the 72(t) 401(k).

Increasing the 72(t) Payment

But maybe Bob wants to increase his 72(t) annual payment from $50,000 to $60,000 at age 57. For those with a non-72(t) IRA, this is easy: simply slice and dice that non-72(t) IRA into two IRAs, one of which is a small new 72(t) IRA supporting the additional $10,000 annual 72(t) payment.

What if Bob has a 72(t) 401(k)? I believe that establishing a second 72(t) payment from his 72(t) 401(k) would blow up his existing 72(t) payment plan. The second 72(t) payment would be an impermissible modification of the original 72(t) payment plan, triggering the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty and interest charges with respect to all prior distributions.

I am uncomfortable with any modification to a 72(t) retirement account unless it is specifically allowed by IRS guidance such as Notice 2022-6, and I see no evidence that a second 72(t) payment plan out of the same retirement account is permissible. Natalie Choate is also of the opinion that taking a second 72(t) payment from an existing 72(t) account is an impermissible modification of the first 72(t) payment plan. See Choate, page 594. See also IRS Q&A 9 (nonbinding), allowing a new 72(t) payment plan from the retirement account only after the taxpayer has blown up their original 72(t) payment plan.

That said, there is a single 2009 Tax Court case, Benz v. Commissioner, that gives the slightest glimmer of hope. In that case an additional distribution from a 72(t) IRA excepted from the 10% early withdrawal penalty as being for higher education expenses did not blow up an existing 72(t) payment plan, because the additional distribution itself qualified for a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty exception under Section 72(t)(2)(E).

It’s likely a stretch to apply Benz to a second 72(t) payment plan from the same retirement account. That said, I don’t believe it is an impossible outcome. But note that Benz is a single 15 year old court case binding neither on any federal district court nor on any federal appellate court. Further, the IRS never acquiesced to the decision in Benz, meaning they may still disagree with it. Even if the IRS now agrees with Benz they (and more importantly, a court) may not believe the logic of Benz goes so far as to allow a second 72(t) payment plan from the same retirement account.

Asset Protection

Depending on the circumstances and on the state, it can be true that IRAs offer materially less creditor protection than 401(k)s and other qualified plans. That could be a reason to use a 72(t) 401(k) instead of a 72(t) IRA.

I believe that, as a practical matter, sufficient personal liability umbrella insurance, which tends to be affordable, can adequately fill-in gaps between IRA and 401(k) creditor protection. Of course, everyone needs to do their own analysis, possibly in consultation with their lawyers and/or insurance professionals, as to the adequacy of their creditor protection arrangements.

72(t) Payment Plan Resources

72(t) payment plans are complex. Here are some resources from me and other content creators for your consideration:

Retire on 72(t) Payments

Tax Basketing for 72(t) Payment Plan

IRS 72(t) Questions and Answers

Jeffrey Levine Strategies For Maximizing (Or Minimizing!) Rule 72(t) Early Distribution Payments Using IRS Notice 2022-6

Denise Appleby Watch this before starting a Substantially Equal Periodic Payment – SEPP 72t program

Natalie B. Choate Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits (8th Ed. 2019), particularly pages 582 to 605.

Florida Retirement System 72(t) Calculator (not validated by me).

The 72(t) is far from the only option available for those looking to retire prior to age 59 ½.

Conclusion

The 72(t) 401(k) is a possibility if one’s 401(k) plan allows it. I usually strongly disfavor doing a 72(t) payment plan out of a 401(k) considering how rigid it is compared to the 72(t) IRA alternative. Further, as discussed above, 72(t) 401(k)s can create situations where the tax law has not, to my knowledge, definitely stated the governing rules. For these reasons, I generally favor using 72(t) IRAs in conjunction with non-72(t) IRAs instead of the more inflexible 72(t) 401(k).

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters.Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.