Background Image
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  81 / 507 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 81 / 507 Next Page
Page Background

Chapter 1: The Minimum Distribution Rules

81

However, there are plan administrators who take a different view, and require that each

beneficiary to take a proportionate share of the year-of-death RMD.

B.

Must subsequent-year RMDs be apportioned?

When the interests of multiple

beneficiaries do not meet the requirements for “separate accounts,” it is unclear whether

the distribution requirement is imposed on the collective account (so that the requirement

is satisfied as long as the total RMD amount for the account is distributed to any one or

more of the account beneficiaries); or whether, alternatively, each beneficiary must take

such beneficiary’s pro rata share of the total RMD.

Under

§ 401(a)(9)

the portion of the account payable to a Designated Beneficiary must be

distributed over the life expectancy of that beneficiary; this suggests that each beneficiary has a

personal obligation to take an annual distribution from his share. However, arguably the IRS has

“overruled” this Code provision in its separate account regulations, by providing that: “Except as

otherwise provided ...[under Reg.

§ 1.401(a)(9)-8 ,

A-2(a)(2), the separate accounts rule discussed

at

¶ 1.8.01 ]

, if an employee’s benefit under a defined contribution plan is divided into separate

accounts under the plan, the separate accounts

will be aggregated

for purposes of satisfying the

rules in section 401(a)(9). Thus, except as otherwise provided in this A-2, all separate

accounts...

will be aggregated

for purposes of section 401(a)(9).” Reg.

§ 1.401(a)(9)-8 ,

A-2(a)(1).

Emphasis added.

If, as this regulation states, the plan is treated as a single account, then a distribution to

any

of the beneficiaries would satisfy the distribution requirement.

1.7.07

Simultaneous and close-in-time deaths

Different states have different laws regarding the effect of simultaneous or close-in-time

deaths. State A may presume that the beneficiary predeceased the participant if they die

simultaneously, in a common accident or catastrophe, or otherwise under such circumstances that

it cannot be easily determined who survived whom. State B’s law may provide that the beneficiary

is deemed to have predeceased the participant if the beneficiary dies within 120 hours after his

benefactor. Seymour Goldberg, CPA, author of the “E-Guide,”

Inherited IRAs: What the

Practitioner Needs to Know

( www.cpa2biz.com ,

Product #017270PDF), points out that some

states have now adopted the “120-hour rule” as part of the “Uniform Simultaneous Deaths Act.”

Such a law could operate to change the “beneficiary” of an IRA in the case of simultaneous or

close-in-time deaths unless the beneficiary designation form specifically overrides state law

presumptions.

Some beneficiary designation forms provide that if the primary beneficiary fails to survive

the participant by a particular period of time (such as 30 days) he loses the rights to the benefits,

and the contingent beneficiary becomes “the” beneficiary. The IRS has approved a beneficiary

designation that contained such a condition, and recognized the primary beneficiary as the

Designated Beneficiary, where the primary beneficiary

did

survive for the required period of time.

PLR 2006-10026.

There are no IRS pronouncements regarding who is considered the beneficiary for RMD

purposes if the original beneficiary failed to survive for a period of survival required by the

beneficiary designation form or by applicable state law, so that the formerly-contingent beneficiary

becomes the only person entitled to the benefits. Presumably, as long as the required period of