How To Slash The Burdens Of IRA Required Minimum Distributions
The percentage of the IRA that must be distributed as an RMD rises each year. That often means greater distributions and higher adjusted gross income, which can increase both taxable income and the Stealth Taxes imposed on many retirees.
Shrewd retirees can turn the tables and change RMDs from burdens into opportunities.
Consider these strategies to optimize your RMDs. (These strategies are for traditional IRAs and their original owners, not for Roth IRAs or inherited IRAs.)
Determine the best time for the first RMD. The beginning age for RMDs changed several times in recent years from 72 for those born before 1951, 73 for those born from 1951 through 1959, and 75 for those born in 1960 or later.
The current rule is the first RMD must be taken by April 1 of the year following the year you turn age 73. If you turned 73 in June 2025, you have until April 1, 2026, to take that first RMD.
It is your 2025 RMD, even if you don't take it until early 2026.
Most taxpayers should take the first RMD in the year they turn 73, which is 2025 in this example. If the first RMD is delayed, in 2026 you'll take that 2025 RMD plus the 2026 RMD. Taking two RMDs in one year could increase income taxes and Stealth Taxes.
To calculate the 2025 RMD, use the IRA balance on December 31, 2024, whether you take the RMD in 2025 or 2026.
Know the aggregation rules for multiple IRAs. Someone who owns more than one traditional IRA must first separately compute the RMD for each IRA. Then, the aggregation rules give choices.
The IRAs can be treated separately, taking from each IRA a distribution at least equal to its RMD.
Or all the RMDs can be added to determine the aggregate RMD, which can be withdrawn from the IRAs in any ratio. All the RMD can be taken from one IRA. Roughly equal amounts can be taken from each IRA. Unequal amounts can be taken from each IRA.
The key is that by December 31 the total of the distributions from the traditional IRAs must at least equal the aggregate RMD.
You can use the RMDs to rebalance your portfolio, draw down and eventually eliminate the smallest IRA, or meet other goals.
Know when to aggregate and when not to. Be sure to include all traditional IRAs when calculating the aggregate RMD. For this purpose, IRAs include SEPs and SIMPLE IRAs.
Balances of inherited IRAs and any employer plans, such as 401(k)s, are not included when computing the aggregate RMD. Their RMDs must be separately computed and taken from each account.
Make charitable gifts with RMDs. Your RMD can be taken as a qualified charitable distribution, which would reduce taxable income. The QCD usually is the best way for those older than age 70½ to make charitable gifts. I discussed QCDs in detail in the past, so I won't review them again here.
Consolidate or split IRAs. The tax law allows you to combine or split IRAs without tax consequences. It's best to make any changes with direct trustee-to-trustee rollovers instead of transferring the money yourself.
Some people want multiple IRAs. They want each beneficiary to have a separate IRA, or the IRAs have different assets or strategies.
Or you might want to keep money that was rolled over from a 401(k) separate from other IRA assets. (That used to be required by the tax code but no longer is.)
An IRA owner might buy a qualified longevity annuity contract in an IRA, allowing RMDs on that portion of the IRA to be delayed to as late as age 85. Managing that might be easier when the QLAC is in a separate IRA.
Other IRA owners prefer to consolidate IRAs. They believe multiple IRAs are more difficult to manage. They're also concerned the investment returns and distributions from separate IRAs might be different, so if each IRA has a different beneficiary the beneficiaries might not inherit the same amount.
Distribute assets instead of cash. There's no need to sell assets to make the RMD in cash. RMDs can be made in property, known as an in-kind distribution. That keeps your asset allocation unchanged.
For most IRAs, an in-kind distribution involves simply directing the custodian to transfer a certain number of shares of a fund or stock from the IRA to a taxable account. The value of the shares on the day of the distribution is the amount of the distribution.
That value is the asset's new tax basis in the taxable account. In a future sale of the asset, you'll have a capital gain or loss based on the appreciation or depreciation after that day.
An in-kind distribution can be especially profitable when an asset declined in price and you believe the decline is temporary. Distribute the depressed asset, and the value on that day will be taxed as ordinary income to you. When the price recovers, the appreciation will be a tax-advantaged long-term capital gain when you hold the asset for more than one year after the distribution.
An in-kind distribution also is helpful when the IRA owns unconventional assets, such as real estate, mortgages, or a small business. It's hard to sell portions of such assets to make an RMD in cash. Instead, make an in-kind RMD by creating paperwork that transfers a percentage of the asset's ownership to your name.
Decide the best time of year to take RMDs. You can take the RMD at any time during the year. Some people schedule equal monthly distributions, because they like the regular cash flow. Others take distributions early in the year to be sure the RMD requirement is met.
Still others wait until the near end of the year. They want to maximize the IRA's tax-deferral of gains and income and delay paying estimated taxes on distributions.
Take more than the RMD. The RMD is the minimum that must be distributed each year. You can distribute more.
You might want to take a larger distribution when your income tax rate for the year will be lower than usual because of either higher deductions or lower income. That will reduce the RMD next year, when your tax rate might be higher.
You also might want to distribute more than required in order to reduce future RMDs and the taxes that come along with them.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
3 hours ago
- Fast Company
Trump rollback on clean energy subsidies stalls major solar, wind projects and manufacturing plans
Singapore-based solar panel manufacturer Bila Solar is suspending plans to double capacity at its new factory in Indianapolis. Canadian rival Heliene's plans for a solar cell facility in Minnesota are under review. Norwegian solar wafer maker NorSun is evaluating whether to move forward with a planned factory in Tulsa, Oklahoma. And two fully permitted offshore wind farms in the U.S. Northeast may never get built. These are among the major clean energy investments now in question after Republicans agreed earlier this month to quickly end U.S. subsidies for solar and wind power as part of their budget megabill, and as the White House directed agencies to tighten the rules on who can claim the incentives that remain. This marks a policy U-turn since President Donald Trump's return to office that project developers, manufacturers and analysts say will slash installations of renewable energy over the coming decade, kill investment and jobs in the clean energy manufacturing sector supporting them, and worsen a looming U.S. power supply crunch as energy-hungry AI infrastructure expands. Solar and wind installations could be 17% and 20% lower than previously forecast over the next decade because of the moves, according to research firm Wood Mackenzie, which warned that a dearth of new supplies could slow the expansion of data centers needed to support AI technology. Energy researcher Rhodium, meanwhile, said the law puts at risk $263 billion of wind, solar, and storage facilities and $110 billion of announced manufacturing investment supporting them. It will also increase industrial energy costs by up to $11 billion in 2035, it said. 'One of the administration's stated goals was to bring costs down, and as we demonstrated, this bill doesn't do that,' said Ben King, a director in Rhodium's energy and climate practice. He added the policy 'is not a recipe for continued dominance of the U.S. AI industry.' The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has defended its moves to end support for clean energy by arguing the rapid adoption of solar and wind power has created instability in the grid and raised consumer prices – assertions that are contested by the industry and which do not bear out in renewables-heavy power grids, like Texas' ERCOT. Power industry representatives, however, have said all new generation projects need to be encouraged to meet rising U.S. demand, including both those driven by renewables and fossil fuels. Consulting firm ICF projects that U.S. electricity demand will grow by 25% by 2030, driven by increased AI and cloud computing – a major challenge for the power industry after decades of stagnation. The REPEAT Project, a collaboration between Princeton University and Evolved Energy Research, projects a 2% annual increase in electricity demand. With a restricted pipeline of renewables, tighter electricity supplies stemming from the policy shift could increase household electricity costs by $280 a year in 2035, according to the REPEAT Project. The key provision in the new law is the accelerated phase-out of 30% tax credits for wind and solar projects: it requires projects to begin construction within a year or enter service by the end of 2027 to qualify for the credits. Previously the credits were available through 2032. Now some project developers are scrambling to get projects done while the U.S. incentives are still accessible. But even that strategy has become risky, developers said. Days after signing the law, Trump directed the Treasury Department to review the definition of 'beginning of construction.' A revision to those rules could overturn a long-standing practice giving developers four years to claim tax credits after spending just 5% of project costs. Treasury was given 45 days to draft new rules. 'With so many moving parts, financing of projects, financing of manufacturing is difficult, if not impossible,' said Martin Pochtaruk, CEO of Heliene. 'You are looking to see what is the next baseball bat that's going to hit you on the head.' About face Heliene's planned cell factory, which could cost as much as $350 million, depending on the capacity, and employ more than 600 workers, is also in limbo, Pochtaruk said in an interview earlier this month. The company needs more clarity on both what the new law will mean for U.S. demand, and how Trump's trade policy will impact the solar industry. 'We have a building that is anxiously waiting for us to make a decision,' Pochtaruk said. Similarly, Mick McDaniel, general manager of Bila Solar, said 'a troubling level of uncertainty' has put on hold its $20 million expansion at an Indianapolis factory it opened this year that would create an additional 75 jobs. 'NorSun is still digesting the new legislation and recent executive order to determine the impact to the overall domestic solar manufacturing landscape,' said Todd Templeton, director of the company's U.S. division that is reviewing plans for its $620 million solar wafer facility in Tulsa. Five solar manufacturing companies – T1 Energy, Imperial Star Solar, SEG Solar, Solx and ES Foundry – said they are also concerned about the new law's impact on future demand, but that they have not changed their investment plans. The policy changes have also injected fresh doubt about the fate of the nation's pipeline of offshore wind projects, which depend heavily on tax credits to bring down costs. According to Wood Mackenzie, projects that have yet to start construction or make final investment decisions are unlikely to proceed. Two such projects, which are fully permitted, include a 300-megawatt project by developer US Wind off the coast of Maryland and Iberdrola's 791 MW New England Wind off the coast of Massachusetts. Neither company responded to requests for comment. 'They are effectively ready to begin construction and are now trapped in a timeline that will make it that much harder to be able to take advantage of the remaining days of the tax credits,' said Hillary Bright, executive director of offshore wind advocacy group Turn Forward.
CNN
3 hours ago
- CNN
Tesla's stock is tumbling after Elon Musk failure to shift the narrative
Elon Musk's big promises apparently no longer seem to be enough for many Tesla investors. Shares of Tesla (TSLA) fell 9% on Thursday following another dismal earnings report, released after the bell Wednesday. Tesla's earnings and revenue both fell by double-digit percentages following the biggest sales drop in the company's history. The automaker also faces a number of financial headwinds, including the loss of a $7,500 tax credit for US EV buyers starting in October, and the vanishing market for regulatory credit sales, which has earned Tesla $11 billion since 2019. But Tesla CEO Elon Musk barely talked about that on the earnings call Wednesday, although he did acknowledge the company 'probably could have a few rough quarters.' Instead, he talked about his grand vision for the future, including Tesla's long-promised robotaxi service; and its humanoid robot, Optimus, which is still in development. The lack of details about the company's plans to solve problems in the near term disappointed some investors and analysts. 'Investors have been very forgiving of Tesla for several quarters now, despite obvious headwinds to their business,' Garrett Nelson, analyst at CFRA Research, told CNN Thursday. 'But I think its investors are taking a more realistic view of the story at this point. Some of his brilliance has been his ability to keep investors focused on the long term and ignoring the near term and intermediate term. Now, headwinds are difficult to ignore.' Nelson downgraded the company's stock to a neutral rating in April. But even some of the Tesla bulls on Wall Street are saying that the time for Musk to take action is running out. 'The street is losing some patience,' Wedbush Securities tech analyst Dan Ives told CNN Thursday, although he said he still believes in the autonomous vehicle and artificial intelligence vision laid out by Musk and Tesla. Musk has made big promises about his robotaxi service, including that it would be in service within a year as early as 2019. Tesla's robotaxis finally rolled out in June this year, albeit in a limited portion of Austin, Texas, to friends and fans of the company, and with an employee sitting beside the empty driver's seat. However, that limited rollout wasn't enough to stop Musk from making extraordinary claims on Wednesday that the service would be available to half the nation's population by year's end. To achieve that, Tesla will need to get regulatory permission to operate in two states per week through the rest of the year, including New York, which does not allow autonomous vehicles on its roads. Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein said that while he does believe Tesla will eventually be successful in its robotaxi venture, 'the software will require further testing' and he does not expect a full robotaxi product until 2028. But Musk has a history of making grand promises that do not pan out. Like the Cybertruck – the only new vehicle Tesla has offered in the last six years. Musk said Tesla was supposed to be delivering 250,000 vehicles annually by this year. But full-year sales of the Cybertruck and Tesla's two other expensive models were less than 80,000. Sales of the three plunged 52% in the most recent quarter. Tesla also started the year forecasting it would achieve higher sales following its first annual sales drop in its history in 2024. But after two quarters of record sales declines, most investors now assume that it will not meet that goal either. And with Musk himself barely mentioning car sales during an hour-long conference call, it doesn't appear that is enough for shareholders any longer. 'We are mixed on Tesla's ability to meet its robotaxi timelines, cost targets, and scale,' wrote Ben Kallo, an analyst for Baird, in a note to clients late Wednesday. 'So far Tesla has received a pass due to how ambitious/revolutionary these products are, but we think continued sluggishness in the auto business could cause more focus on the near term.'
Entrepreneur
3 hours ago
- Entrepreneur
4 Signs It's Time to Abandon Your Patent
How to make smart, strategic calls on when to abandon patents — and why doing so is essential to long-term innovation and budget health Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Patents are often filed early, before a startup knows what the market really wants. That's smart, but it comes with a challenge: Not every idea turns out to be worth protecting. Markets shift. Products pivot. And eventually, founders ask: Should we keep paying for this patent or cut our losses? It's a tough call. Abandoning a patent midway can feel like giving up. But continuing just because you've already spent money? That's the sunk cost trap, and it quietly drains your budget. Many startups keep prosecuting every idea, paying rejections, annuities and attorney fees. But a smart IP strategy means knowing what to keep and what to walk away from. Here's how to make that call strategically. Related: How to Identify the Patent-Worthy Innovations in Your Business Built-in checkpoints in patent lifecycle — use them Roughly, you can split a patent's entire lifecycle cost into three parts. The first third goes to drafting the application, another third is for arguing the patent through issuance, and the final third covers patent maintenance fees for the next 20+ years. In a way, these financial checkpoints are decision checkpoints, too. When drafting, consider whether the invention aligns with your core business or is just a side experiment that may never get to market. During prosecution, evaluate whether it's still worth the legal wrangling, as each round of argument is costly. And when renewal fees come due, ask if the patent still supports your product, blocks competitors or adds leverage against others in the market. Unfortunately, many startups treat these pivotal stages as administrative formalities. Instead of evaluating whether continued investment is justified at each stage, many companies default to pushing forward — whether by extending prosecution unnecessarily, filing continuations without a clear purpose, or simply paying maintenance fees — without assessing strategic alignment. That's how portfolios get bloated with low-impact patents. The only solution here is patent pruning: Abandon some patent filings at the right checkpoints. Related: Don't Let Patent Costs Crush Your Startup — Here's How to Protect Your IP Without Breaking the Bank What are the signs that it's time to abandon a patent? Every dollar spent defending or maintaining a weak patent is a dollar not spent protecting something truly valuable. Therefore, you must look for the signs at different checkpoints to spot a patent to discard. Here are some signs to look for: 1. No market validation A patent is only valuable if the protected product actually sells. If your invention fails to gain customer traction, the patent will be a failure. Experts emphasize focusing on "high-impact" problems with real demand. Without that market pull, even a granted patent is a dead weight. For example, Google Glass — once hyped as the future of AR eyewear — never found a viable consumer market. It was pulled from sale in 2015 (and again in 2023) due to poor adoption, illustrating how patents tied to unvalidated products offer no return. 2. Shifting industry direction Industries evolve, and a patent can lose value if the tech horizon moves on. In practice, companies are advised to ask whether their invention still aligns with "the target industry and market." If adjacent innovations eclipse your solution (for example, cloud services replacing old networking hardware), the patent's relevance vanishes. In that scenario, it makes little sense to keep paying maintenance fees. Better to refocus on protections for innovations that fit the new direction of your field. 3. Prior art kills the novelty Sometimes, what initially feels like a breakthrough ends up being something others have already attempted or fully disclosed. If prior art eclipses your claims, the chances of securing meaningful protection drop significantly. At that point, even if you receive a patent, it may be so narrow that it offers little real-world value. Continuing to prosecute a case like this can quickly become a drain on time and legal budget. 4. Weak business use case Every patent in your portfolio should earn its keep through business impact or the potential to do so on your current roadmap. If it's not protecting a revenue-generating product, blocking a competitor or supporting licensing efforts, its value is questionable. Startups often hang on to patents without a clear path to monetization or strategic use. But unless a patent strengthens your market position or serves a legal or commercial purpose, it's just another expense on the books. To actively prune your patent portfolio, just looking for signs isn't enough. As the portfolio grows, you need a deliberate, repeatable process for patent abandonment assessment. Build a patent pruning system: Health checks and ranking framework An effective patent pruning system should take two things into consideration: 1) lifecycle stage and 2) multiple perspectives. For the first one, you want to start by ranking each patent across key lifecycle stages: At the idea stage : Is this innovation aligned with your product roadmap or market differentiation? Post-filing : Has the landscape shifted? Is the application still strategically relevant? Pre-renewal: Is the granted patent still supporting revenue, blocking competitors or enhancing leverage? The higher a patent scores at a certain stage, the more you want to invest in it. Please note that not only your legal counsel team but also others, such as product, technology, marketing and finance, must contribute to this ranking system, as pruning cannot be undone. The goal is to ensure that patents are evaluated through a business lens, not just a legal one. Consider using patent management tools that provide full portfolio visibility and enable seamless collaboration as part of your patent pruning process. Related: 4 Surprising Patent Myths That Could Cost You Big — What You Need to Know Now Pruning a patent portfolio isn't just about saving money; it's about fueling what's next with the reclaimed budget. In 2020, IBM stepped back from chasing patent volume. "We're no longer pursuing patent leadership," they said. "We're being more selective." The result? Fewer filings, stronger focus and more investment in high-growth areas like AI and quantum computing. That's the lesson: Pruning isn't cutting back. It's reallocating toward where your business is growing. Because IP should follow your future, not fund your past.
