Post a Reply Message

Help

Preview: Use the [Preview] button to see how your post will appear on the forum. The preview area is at the bottom of the page.

Close Preview: Close the Preview Window.

A CAPTCHA is a program that can generate and grade tests that most humans can pass, but most current computer programs can't pass. As a precaution to protect against automated "bots", we also ask that you enter the sum of the numbers that appear on the screen. If the numbers that you see are "4+1 =", you would enter 5.

Click the [Help] button again to collapse this window

IP Address:67.195.111.166, Browser: Unknown0.0


Enter the Sum of the 2 Numbers: 3 + 2 = Example: 2+2=4
Nickname:
Email Address:
Subject:
Password:	Enter a Password if you wish to edit/delete this post at a later date.
Preview

Enter Your Post/Reply Below

Good morning Alan:
I think we are all going in the same direction with this concept.&nbsp; Let me try an example to see what you think.
Assume a 58 year old&nbsp;starts a&nbsp;SEPP IRA which will terminate at age 63,&nbsp;and he has a separate, Non-SEPP IRA.&nbsp; At age 59 he takes a penalty-free, first-time home buyer distribution from the Non-SEPP IRA.&nbsp; Then at age 62 he takes a&nbsp; distribution from the SEPP IRA for education which, following the Benz Case logic, is also penalty-free.
We now have two different controlling elements to determine penalty-free status of the distributions.&nbsp; Age 59 1/2 is the controlling element for the Non-SEPP IRA, and the 5 years of distributions, not age 59 1/2,&nbsp;is the controlling element for the SEPP IRA.&nbsp; Of course if the SEPP IRA were started at age 51 and a distribution was made at age 55, then age 59 1/2 would control&nbsp;since the 5 year requirement would be satisfied first.
Thoughts?
Jim

Page Top