logo
Plan Your 2025 QCDs And RMDs Now

Plan Your 2025 QCDs And RMDs Now

Forbes27-03-2025
The early months of the year are important for taxpayers ages 70½ and older who have traditional IRAs.
The right plan developed early in the year can reduce taxes on required minimum distributions this year and for years to come. Not planning, or waiting until later in the year, can mean lost opportunities and routinely costs taxpayers a bundle.
Traditional IRA owners ages 70½ and older have available to them one of the most powerful tax and charitable-giving tools, the qualified charitable distribution.
RMDs bedevil many traditional IRA owners as they age. The rules force them to take distributions from their IRAs whether they need the money or not. A higher percentage of the IRA must be distributed each year.
The distributions are taxable except to the extent nondeductible contributions were made to the IRA. The distributions increase adjusted gross income and so can trigger or increase the Stealth Taxes, such as the Medicare premium surtax, inclusion of Social Security benefits in gross income, the 3.8% net investment income tax, and more.
For IRA owners who have other resources to pay most of their retirement expenses, the RMDs increase lifetime income taxes.
Other IRA owners need their RMDs to pay living expenses, but they also make charitable contributions from their other funds.
Both groups of IRA owners would increase after-tax income by incorporating QCDs in their annual financial plans.
A QCD converts taxable IRA distributions into tax-free distributions and counts toward the year's RMD. The QCD often is a smarter way to give than writing a check, even if the contribution by check is fully deductible.
The QCD is the most tax-wise way to make charitable contributions, with the possible exception in some situations of donating highly-appreciated investment assets. The QCD was added to the tax code as a temporary tax break in 2006, but a 2015 law made it a permanent fixture.
You could take a distribution from the IRA and give it to charity. Or you could have the IRA custodian transfer money directly to charity. In either case, the non-QCD distribution is included in gross income and taxed.
There might be a tax deduction for the contribution if you itemize expenses on Schedule A. But few people itemize expenses these days, so most people receive no offsetting tax benefit for the contribution.
It's a different story when the distribution qualifies as a QCD.
A charitable contribution from a traditional IRA that qualifies as a QCD isn't included in your gross income. The tradeoff is that you don't receive a charitable deduction for it.
If you're taking RMDs from the traditional IRA, the QCD counts toward the RMD for the year. You can take all or part of the RMD without having to include it in gross income to the extent you have QCDs for the year.
An anomaly in the tax code is that QCDs can be made by any traditional IRA owner who is age 70½ or older, but after recent law changes RMDs don't begin until age 73.
A potential trap is that when you are subject to RMDs, the first distributions from traditional IRAs for the year are considered RMDs and included in gross income.
Some people take distributions from their IRAs early in the year. Later, they learn about QCDs or decide they want to make QCDs. But they can't reverse those earlier RMDs (except in limited cases within 60 days of the distribution) or turn them into QCDs.
The distributions early in the year are part of their RMDs and must be included in gross income. QCDs can make the rest of the year's RMD tax free.
Making QCDs early in the year is a good idea when you're planning to convert all or part of a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA and also have to take an RMD.
The rule is that when you convert IRA assets, you first have to take any RMD for the year. If you take the RMD as a regular distribution, it's included in gross income. Then, the converted amount also is included in gross income. The RMD effectively adds to the tax cost of the conversion, because you have to take the RMD first.
You must jump through certain hoops to have a distribution qualify as a QCD.
To be a QCD, a charitable contribution must be made directly from the traditional IRA to a charity. The IRA owner can direct the IRA custodian to distribute the money directly to a named charity or charities. An IRA custodian also can give the owner a check made out to the charity for the owner to deliver to the charity.
Some custodians give IRA owners checkbooks. The owners take IRA distributions by writing checks against their IRAs. When a check is made out to a charity, that can qualify as a QCD.
The QCD can exceed your RMD for the year. If your RMD is $10,000, and you want to give $20,000 to charity during year, the entire $20,000 contribution can be made from the IRA as a QCD. But only $10,000 will count as an RMD for the year.
The traditional IRA owner must be at least age 70½ on the date of the transfer from the IRA to the charity. Suppose you turn 70½ in September and had money transferred from the traditional IRA to a charity in March. That's not a QCD; it will be included in your gross income. You have to be at least 70½ on the date of the contribution for it to qualify as a QCD.
There's an annual limit per taxpayer (not per IRA) on QCDs that now is adjusted for inflation each year. In 2025, the maximum QCD for the year is $108,000.
In a married couple, each spouse has a separate $108,000 limit, but you can't share the limits or split the QCDs. If one spouse wants to make more than $108,000 of charitable donations for the year, he or she can't use part of the other spouse's QCD limit. If the couple wants to have $216,000 of QCDs, each must donate $108,000 from his or her traditional IRAs.
Even if your RMD for the year exceeds $108,000, you can't have more than $108,000 of QCDs.
Charitable contributions from a traditional IRA that exceed $108,000 in a year will be non-QCD distributions that are taxable.
Unused portions of the annual limit don't carry forward to future years. The annual ceiling is a use-it-or-lose-it limit.
Only pre-tax money can be used to make a QCD. That means any nondeductible contributions (after-tax money) in a traditional IRA can't be used to make QCDs. You can designate that only pre-tax money in the traditional IRA is used to make the QCD and after-tax money stays in the IRA.
In general, QCDs can be made only from traditional IRAs. They can be made from simplified employee pensions (SEPs) and SIMPLE IRAs only when the plan hasn't received an employer contribution in the plan year that ends with or during the calendar year in which the charitable contribution is to be made. In other words, the SEP or SIMPLE IRA must be inactive.
Other employer plans, including 401(k)s, don't qualify for QCDs.
Inherited IRAs can be used to make QCDs.
A contribution isn't a QCD if the IRA owner receives any benefit from the donation. Even a small gift or reward from the charity makes the entire contribution ineligible for a QCD.
Also, you have to follow the basic rules for proving charitable contributions. You must have an acknowledgement in writing from the charity regarding the amount and date of the contribution. For large donations, additional proof might be required.
Only donations to public charities qualify. Contributions to private foundations, donor-advised funds, and tax-exempt groups other than public charities aren't QCDs.
A contribution from an IRA to fund a charitable gift annuity also doesn't receive QCD treatment. But for an exception see the new rules for Legacy IRAs.
The SECURE Act permits contributions to traditional IRAs after age 70½. It also prohibits an individual from combining a QCD and deductible IRA contributions made after age 70½.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

3 Expat Havens Where Retirees' Social Security Checks Go a Long Way
3 Expat Havens Where Retirees' Social Security Checks Go a Long Way

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

3 Expat Havens Where Retirees' Social Security Checks Go a Long Way

Retirees living on a fixed income of Social Security are feeling the pinch—and they're turning to alternative ways to make their dollar stretch further, with many overseas for a different quality of life. Retired workers will collect an average Social Security check of $2,005.05 as of June 2025, according to the Social Security Administration. If this is your only retirement savings, you might read that number and panic. After all, the average mortgage payment in the country is currently $2,186, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. The median asking rent, according to the latest rental report from in the 50 largest metros registered at $1,711—but it still doesn't mean there would be much left over for other basics such as food, clothing, transportation, home maintenance, insurance, pets and children, and more. The average retired American household spends around $5,000 a month just to live, according to the Federal Reserve's 2023 consumer expenditure survey. 'That's quite the shortfall,' writes Kathleen Peddicord, founder of Live and Invest Overseas, in Forbes. It's no wonder that Americans are increasingly looking abroad for retirement. Not only is the contentious political environment driving people away, but there are many places where that Social Security check will buy you a lot more. 'There are many retirement havens where you can live well on a budget of $2,000 a month or less,' writes Peddicord. What you should know Before you plunk down your credit card for the next flight out of Dodge, remember you will need a visa to legally reside in your chosen country. Retiree visas usually require proving a minimum monthly income (amounts vary by country) and that you carry health insurance. Many countries also require you to prove that you have a place to live and have a clean criminal history. Talk to an immigration attorney or relocation expert, and always check the country's website for current requirements. Also, know that other countries aren't necessarily going to be 'America but better.' They will all have their own customs, cultures, languages, and laws—ones you might be utterly unfamiliar with and perhaps slow to adapt to. 'If you are stuck in your ways and not very tolerant of change, expat life will not work out for you,' warns Cynthia Staton, who relocated from Las Vegas to Cuenca, Ecuador, with her husband, Edd, in search of a cheaper retirement. 'You've got to be really flexible, really patient,' she says. But if that sounds up your alley, here are three expat havens where your Social Security check will go much further. Phuket, Thailand Retiree visa: Non-Immigrant O-A Minimum monthly income: About $2,000 If you like tropical climes, turquoise waters, colorful architecture, and grand palaces, Thailand could be the place for you. That all sounds great, you might be thinking, but what about extreme weather events? It was only 20 years ago that a massive tsunami engulfed Phuket and killed 117 people, with an additional 214 missing, according to the Asian Disaster Reduction Center. Immigration attorney Jean-Francois Harvey, of Harvey Law Group, is bullish on Phuket. He points out that the tsunami, devastating though it was, affected only a small portion of the island, and that it has been rebuilt with much more resiliency in mind. 'Thailand has been dealing with extreme weather forever,' he tells Thailand has about 50,000 Americans living there, says Aaron Henry, owner of Bangkok marketing firm He's lived in the country for nine years, emigrating from Los Angeles. 'For most of us, moving to Thailand is a one-way trip,' he says. He lives in Bangkok but travels frequently to Phuket for business and leisure. Henry agrees that $2,000 would stretch further in Phuket, Thailand's biggest island, than in the U.S. but has some caveats. A $2,000 monthly budget 'is a bit of a lean,' he says, 'even for a single person who is living in Phuket or Bangkok and wanting a lifestyle comparable to the USA.' Phuket rents are slightly lower than $1,000 for a small condo, plus $150 in utilities, he adds. Then there's getting around town. 'Phuket doesn't have cheap, excellent public transportation like Bangkok does with the sky train and subway, and taxis there are expensive. You'll need a car or motorbike.' He says that a budget of $3,000 a month would allow you to live comfortably, but it doesn't factor in travel or other large expenses. If you want to live even cheaper, he suggests areas outside of Phuket, including lesser known cities of Khon Kaen and Buri Ram. There will be fewer expats here—which you might or might not welcome. Keep in mind that foreigners can't own land in Thailand, only a condo or portable house. Henry believes the country is superior than the U.S. in many ways besides affordability. He calls the food 'better than New York, Paris, or London.' Health care, as in most countries, is more affordable than the U.S. But Henry asserts it is also of higher quality. 'When you go to a doctor, you sense you are being taken care of, not exploited,' he says. In fact, he ranks everything from nightlife to public transport to culture to safety higher than what he experienced in the U.S. and says there is 'nothing' he misses about L.A. But before you pack your bags and catch the next flight to Phuket, he has a warning. 'Phuket can be paradise,' he says. 'But, as living long term or permanently in any other country requires, be prepared to check your preconceptions at the door. Think about what you can contribute as an outsider, not what you can take. 'Don't go seeking a place with better versions of what you're unhappy about at home—those expectations aren't likely to be perfectly met.' Mendoza, Argentina Retiree visa: Pensionado visa Minimum income requirement: About $2,000 Argentina, Mendoza, 'is a good choice for active retirees who aren't ready to sit back and rock on the front porch,' writes Peddicord. If wine is your jam, this is one place you don't want to overlook, as it is located in the middle of Argentina's wine country. Despite being a desert clime, Argentina has an ancient system of canals that distribute snowmelt from the mountains, creating spectacularly rich soil and vineyards, she says. 'Great wine, thick steaks, dramatic landscapes, brilliant weather, friendly people who enjoy nothing better than sitting around an open fire drinking the fruit of their vines, sharing their asado, and indulging in the lost art of conversation,' writes Peddicord on her website. She calls Mendoza 'the good life defined.' Additionally, the country is known for its temperate climate, vibrant culture, and spectacular geographical diversity, from jungles to arid climates to beaches. It also has the modern conveniences of Buenos Aires and other cities. And for those living on that $2,000 Social Security check, Mendoza might be the place. 'A monthly budget of $2,000 would see you living well here,' says Peddicord. Rent for a semifurnished two-bedroom apartment ranges from $400 to $1,000 per month. 'Catch a bus for 50 cents and dine out for $25,' she says. Minus rent, the average single person's expenses in this South American country are about $700 a month, according to citizenship solutions firm Golden Harbors. And you really can't beat the price of the country's health care system—over 60% of medical services are free for everyone, including expats. Santa Marta, Colombia Retiree visa: Migrant (Type M) Minimum income requirement: About $1,000 'Santa Marta is an under-the-radar gem popular with well-heeled, in-the-know Colombians who vacation here for reasons including its affordability, great climate, soft golden sands, and warm Caribbean waters,' says Peddicord. Ranked No. 3 in Live and Invest Overseas' list of the Best Places to Retire in 2025, Colombia has one of the lowest income requirements for retirees, with a basic requirement of only about $1,000 per month. 'Colombia is one of the easiest places we know to establish residency,' Peddicord writes on her blog. While Santa Marta has plenty of history, being one of the country's oldest colonial cities, it also has many new developments, including a seafront park, and plenty of cafes, bars and restaurants, and a large cruise ship port. However, Peddicord cautions that there isn't as much English spoken here as in other parts of the country, so be prepared to brush up on your high school Spanish. A 90-minute flight to the capital of Bogotá means you can hop back to the States relatively easily. A nonstop flight to New York is six hours. Related Articles Single-Family Home Construction Dips as Builders Admit Making Price Cuts To Spur Sales Paying Rent on Time Could Now Help You Get a Mortgage After Key Change at Fannie and Freddie What a Fed Chair Firing Could Mean for the Housing Market Solve the daily Crossword

Trump admin: Social Security policy set for mid-August now optional
Trump admin: Social Security policy set for mid-August now optional

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump admin: Social Security policy set for mid-August now optional

(NewsNation) — The Trump administration has clarified that a change to the Social Security Administration's phone policy is optional. The new policy, which had a start date of Aug. 18, would have required millions of Social Security recipients to travel to field offices for routine account updates and have to go online to get a security authentication PIN. AARP sent a letter to SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano on Tuesday, saying that the change would create an obstacle for seniors, people with disabilities and those who lack access to a computer or internet. About 3.4 million more people would have been forced to go to a field office, which has recently seen staffing cuts. 85% of parents worry about tariffs affecting back-to-school cost: Survey The SSA later said that any Social Security beneficiaries and account holders aren't required to visit a field office if they choose not to use the authentication PIN, according to Axios. Some Social Security offices had plans to close this year due to federal spending cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). SSA later said the offices would not close permanently, but only from a 'time to time basis' due to weather, damage or 'facilities issues.' More than 68 million people throughout the U.S. receive Social Security benefits, and more people are starting to rely heavily on the monthly payments. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News

Yahoo

time16 hours ago

  • Yahoo

I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News

No one likes paying taxes. Maybe that's why President Donald Trump has proposed nixing the income tax altogether in favor of tariffs. Tariffs, he believes, would make us so rich we could all kiss the tax man goodbye — at least the income tax man. Tariffs are basically a tax, paid by the importer, and passed onto the consumer. Learn More: Find Out: But what would things really look like if income taxes were a thing of the past? We asked ChatGPT. It had four main points. Constitutional Viability Could Trump put an end to income taxes by executive order or another unilateral way? That, said ChatGPT, is a hard no. 'Income taxes are codified in the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (1913), which explicitly authorizes the federal government to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states,' it said. Abolishing income taxes would require legislation from Congress, with a two-thirds vote by both houses. With that stated, it's not likely to happen. Read Next: Budgetary Reality The fact is, individual and corporate income taxes have made up the bulk of federal revenue for the past 50 years, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. ChatGPT noted that equals $2.2 trillion in personal federal income tax, and $460 billion from corporate income tax, per 2023 figures. The Bipartisan Policy Center puts the figures at $2.4 trillion and $530 billion, respectively. Either way, it's a lot of money, with personal income taxes making up for 49% of total federal government revenue, and corporate income taxes making up 11%. Wipe them out, and the federal government loses 60% of its income. Tariffs, on the other hand, bring in a mere $98 billion, according to ChatGPT — NPR put the figure for the fiscal year ending September of 2024 at $80 billion. Politico, which tracks the tariff income, reported that this year, U.S. tariffs, which include Trump's tariffs, have brought in $100.5 billion as of July 13 — $53 billion more than at this time last year. That is not going to cut it, according to ChatGPT: 'Tariffs would need to be increased more than 20-fold to make up for the loss [in income tax].' It added that everything would have to be tariffed — all consumer goods, tech products, energy and industrial goods — at rates that would be inflationary and spark massive trade wars. Economic and Social Impact ChatGPT did throw some pros in with the cons. Hypothetically, it said, no federal income tax would make all our lives easier, simplifying the month of April. Taxing spending — retail, tariffs, etc. — might also benefit some groups that spend little compared to their income, ChatGPT said. For instance, this would include high earners who are somewhat restrained in their spending and frugal retirees. Now for the flip side. Tariffs and sales taxes are regressive, ChatGPT explained. It disproportionately hits low- and middle-income households who spend more of their income — as a percentage — than the wealthy. In other words, buying a book or computer or car is a larger percentage of income to someone making $50,000 a year than to someone making $5 million. Additionally, because of the shortfall in federal revenue, massive budget cuts would be required. Large cuts to Medicaid and Medicare would be required — much larger than the ones in the One Big Beautiful Bill — in addition to the military and other entitlements and services. So, Would We All Be Richer? According to ChatGPT, that's another hard no (in bold, no less). It claims that according to 'almost all mainstream economists,' tariffs raise prices, reduce efficiency and can hurt job growth. In addition, ending the income tax would destabilize public finances and increase inequality. The move would benefit the wealthy and hurt the poor. For his part, Trump believes that the period between 1870 to 1913, before income taxes were a thing and when tariffs were a very big thing, was America's Golden Age. On April 15, he told Fox Noticias it was that era when we were our richest. That's debatable at best, and very much depends on who you define as 'we.' After all, Mark Twain coined it as the Gilded Age for its massive corruption and rampant inequality. The wealthy were very wealthy, to be sure, but according to Digital History, supported by a consortium of government, university and public organizations, in 1877, the average annual income of an urban family was $738 ($22,594 in today's money). After housing, food, heating and clothing, an average of $44 per year ($1,347) was left over for fun, emergencies and retirement savings — and without Social Security, they'd need it. For that, the average unskilled or semi-skilled person worked 10 hours a day for 20 cents ($6.12) per hour, and 939 out of 1,000 died with no property to pass on to heirs. Frankly, that's not sounding very golden. More From GOBankingRates 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store