Navigating the Pitfalls of Delaying Your First Required Minimum Distribution
January 29, 2026
Business News

Navigating the Pitfalls of Delaying Your First Required Minimum Distribution

Why deferring your initial RMD after age 73 might lead to unforeseen financial consequences

Summary

Many individuals opt to save for retirement in traditional IRAs or 401(k)s, benefiting from tax-deferred growth and initial deductions. However, required minimum distributions (RMDs) starting at age 73 introduce complexities that can impact one’s tax situation significantly. Delaying the first RMD until after the year of turning 73 may result in two distributions within a single year, potentially increasing tax liabilities and affecting Medicare premiums adversely.

Key Points

Traditional IRAs and 401(k)s provide tax benefits via pre-tax contributions but mandate required minimum distributions (RMDs) starting at age 73.
The IRS allows deferral of the initial RMD until April 1 of the year after turning 73, but this causes two RMDs in one calendar year.
Taking two RMDs in the same year may elevate taxable income, subject Social Security benefits to taxation, and increase Medicare premiums through IRMAA surcharges.

Traditional retirement accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s are popular among savers primarily because contributions are made before taxes, providing immediate tax relief during their peak earning years. This pre-tax advantage often makes these plans attractive for building retirement assets.

However, these tax benefits come with future obligations. Unlike Roth accounts, traditional plans enforce required minimum distributions (RMDs) once account holders reach certain ages, compelling them to withdraw minimum amounts each year to avoid tax penalties. Specifically, for individuals reaching 73, the time arrives to consider these mandatory withdrawals.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) offers some leniency for those newly subject to RMDs. Instead of withdrawing in the year they turn 73, account holders can defer their initial RMD to April 1 of the subsequent year. At first glance, this option appears beneficial, especially to postpone the immediate tax impact. Nonetheless, this deferral comes with significant considerations that might pose financial challenges.

Deferring the first RMD until the year after turning 73 means that two RMDs must be taken within that calendar year: the delayed initial distribution and the subsequent year's scheduled RMD. This overlapping withdrawal schedule can elevate taxable income considerably for that year.

The immediate tax implications of receiving two distributions in one year include the likelihood of bumping into a higher federal tax bracket, thereby increasing the overall tax owed for that period. Additionally, such an income surge could result in a portion of Social Security benefits becoming taxable, further adding to the tax burden.

Beyond immediate taxes, the elevated income in the year of double distributions carries consequences for Medicare premiums. Specifically, higher income levels may trigger income-related monthly adjustment amounts (IRMAAs), which increase the cost of Medicare Part B and Part D drug coverage. These surcharges, assessed two years after the income spike, represent a longer-term financial impact that beneficiaries should weigh carefully.

While the option to postpone the first RMD provides flexibility, it is not always the optimal choice. Individuals with high earnings or sizable taxable gains in the year they reach 73 might benefit from delaying the withdrawal to manage their tax exposure strategically. Conversely, without compelling reasons, taking the first RMD in the year one turns 73 can avoid the pitfalls associated with double distributions and their accompanying financial strains.

In essence, the decision about when to begin mandatory withdrawals from traditional retirement accounts requires a nuanced understanding of one’s current and projected financial picture. Unlike the seemingly straightforward appeal of deferral, the tax and premium implications suggest a need for prudence to prevent unintended consequences.

Risks
  • Delaying the first RMD can push taxpayers into a higher federal tax bracket in the year two distributions are taken.
  • Increased income from double RMDs could make Social Security benefits partially taxable, increasing tax liabilities.
  • Higher income reported due to two RMDs within a year may result in increased Medicare Part B and D premiums due to IRMAA surcharges years later.
Disclosure
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, tax, or legal advice. Individuals should consult with professional advisors to tailor decisions to their specific financial situations.
Search Articles
Category
Business News

Business News

Ticker Sentiment
NIA - neutral
Related Articles
Strategic Stress Testing of a Retirement Tax Plan with $1.8 Million in Savings at Age 58

A 58-year-old nearing retirement with $1.8 million across various accounts assessed the robustness o...

Why Florida Emerges as a Leading Retirement Destination in 2026

Florida ranks highest among states for retirees in 2026 according to a comprehensive evaluation base...

Maximizing Your 401(k): Understanding the Power of Employer Matching

Overestimating investment returns can jeopardize retirement savings. While it's prudent to plan cons...

Why Retirement Savings Remain Stagnant and How to Address Common Pitfalls

Many individuals find themselves concerned about the insufficient growth of their retirement account...

Social Security to Revamp Appointment Scheduling and Claims Processing from March 7, 2026

Starting March 7, 2026, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will implement significant operatio...

Adjusting to Retirement: The Unexpected Challenge of Transitioning from Work to Freedom

Retirement is often portrayed as a period of leisure and freedom, but many retirees encounter unexpe...