Replace the Stretch IRA?
Today's rules have created a lottery system, and those under consideration in Washington would only make things more complicated.
Under today's law, a beneficiary who inherits an IRA (or other tax-favored retirement plan) has the option to continue the tax-deferred status of the benefits by electing a "life expectancy payout." Code section 401(a)(9) requires the beneficiary to take annual "required minimum distributions" over his life expectancy. Except for this annual distribution, the IRA can stay in its tax-deferred state for years or even decades, depending on how old that beneficiary was when she inherited the account. A newborn beneficiary could achieve an 80-year deferred payout!
This "life expectancy payout" system is great ... for a few people. Namely, the few beneficiaries who are lucky enough to inherit an IRA that was properly set up for them to qualify for the life expectancy payout, and who are young enough to have a long life expectancy to "stretch" the payments over, and who are knowledgeable enough to take advantage of it.
But what about the rest of us? As it turns out, unfortunately, most IRA owners and beneficiaries do not benefit from the "stretch," because:
In short, today's rules have created a lottery system; the payout period for your IRA depends on such wild cards as how old your beneficiaries are, how good your estate planning lawyer is, and whether you remember to fill out a beneficiary designation when you move your IRA to a new company.
There's only one guaranteed way to make today's system worse--pass the "reform" legislation recently under consideration in Washington. "RESA" would exponentially increase the complications of today's system. It would require vast IRS and private lawyer/accountant resources to be devoted to the issue of how fast benefits are to be paid out after the owner's death. It would not replace the complicated and uncertain life expectancy payout system in place today. Rather, that would be preserved, but only for certain people: namely, the IRAs of people who died before the new rules are enacted; benefits payable to minor, disabled, or "chronically ill" beneficiaries, or to beneficiaries who are less than 10 years younger than the decedent; and the first $450,000 of benefits payable to everybody else.
So all the drawbacks of today's system would be preserved--with the added complication of allocating a $450,000 "life expectancy payout" amount among beneficiaries! Is this intended to be the tax advisors' full employment act?
The IRS would have to create new regulations declaring how the $450,000 "stretch-eligible" amount would be allocated among a decedent's retirement accounts and beneficiaries. The IRS, and all practitioners, would have to remain expert in the old system (which would still apply to many benefits) while also learning the new system. And the "lottery" feature of today's rules would be preserved--so if you forget to fill out your beneficiary form, or get poor advice about how to name a beneficiary, you and your family still lose big!
Meanwhile, most IRAs would be forced to pay out everything within five years after the owner's death. Benefits accumulated over a lifetime would thus be taxed in an accelerated and punitive fashion. This prospect will surely discourage people from saving for retirement in the first place.
There is a way Congress could replace today's system, and simplify it, without punishing those who saved much and invested well--legally--in reliance on today's tax system: Yes, get rid of the life expectancy payout, which currently operates like a lottery system. And, yes, replace it with a fixed term payout--just not a five-year payout.
The problem with the five-year payout is it's too short--it's punitive when it applies, so you have to make numerous exceptions (at least seven under current proposals). Instead, why not use a mandatory 21-year payout for everybody and all benefits? That period of time is long enough that it would not create unfairly highly taxed lump sums, so you would not need to make exceptions for sad cases, and it would not discourage people from contributing to retirement plans.
It would eliminate the lottery system, so that no longer would failure to name a beneficiary (or failure to hire an expert estate planning lawyer) destroy your IRA. Every beneficiary--whether young or old, including an estate or a trust--would get the same 21 years. It would be long enough so it should not be considered necessary to "grandfather" the benefits of people who died before the new law became effective--just let them switch to a fresh-start 21-year payout when the new law is enacted.
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management. We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.