Basic IRA query

[MZB]

I am confused about this item:

Suppose I turned 70 1/2 in December of 2008. I have IRAs.
So I have to take mandatory withdrawals.
I understand I would have until April 2009 to take the money.

Do I still declare the income in 2008?

If I can declare it in 2009, then does that mean I would declare my 2008 and
2009 distributions in 2009?

Mel

[P. Maffia]

If you wait until 2009 to make the withdrawal, it is 2009 income. But note
well, by Dec. 31, 2009 you will be required to make a 2009 withdrawal also.
So you would have two withdrawals to report as income in 2009.

You could take your first mandatory withdrawal in the next week. It would
then be a 2008 income item.

"MZB" <m...@noway.prudigy.net> wrote in message
news:mru4l.3411$mE3....@newsfe14.iad...

[MZB]

Thanks. As indicated on my last sentence, that was my read on it!

Mel

"P. Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:etednThcdsxc5s_U...@centurytel.net...

[P. Maffia]

I forgot to add a further complication. As part of one of the economic
salvation acts Congress passed. you can elect to forgo your required 2009
RMD. That does not affect your required first distribution no later than
April.

I have not seen anything that says whether or not the 2009 deferral is a
permanent deferral or if will have to be made up later. I believe it is a
permanent deferral but I could be wrong on that.

"P. Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:etednThcdsxc5s_U...@centurytel.net...

[Phil Marti]

"P. Maffia" wrote:

> I have not seen anything that says whether or not the 2009 deferral is a
> permanent deferral or if will have to be made up later. I believe it is a
> permanent deferral but I could be wrong on that.

The legislation (still unsigned the last time I looked) waives the RMD for
2009. It makes no other changes, so that means you wouldn't have to somehow
make it up.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD