Internal Revenue Service posts alert addressing "Required Minimum Distributions: Age 72 (or 70 ½)"

Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) are minimum amounts that you must withdraw from your IRA or retirement plan account each year after you reach age 72 (70 ½ if you reach 70 ½ before Jan. 1, 2020). In a workplace retirement plan, you can delay taking RMDs if you continue working and you’re not a 5% owner of the employer. IRS rules always require you to take RMDs from traditional IRAs, and SEP, SIMPLE, and SARSEP IRAs even if you continue working.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act), made several changes to RMDs in 2020 and 2021.  

2020 RMD Waiver: Required minimum distributions (RMDs) were waived for 2020 for IRA and workplace retirement plan account holders, including individuals who:

• Reached age 70 ½ in 2019 and had their first and second RMDs due in 2020, or
• Had their first RMD due on April 1, 2021, for 2020.

2021 RMD: The waiver of RMDs as part of the CARES Act for 2020 was NOT extended to RMDs for 2021. IRA account holders and participants in retirement plans are subject to RMDs for 2021.

If you reached age 70 ½ in 2019, your RMDs due in 2020 were waived. You have a 2021 RMD due by Dec. 31, 2021, based on your account balance on Dec. 31, 2020.

If you reached age 72 in 2021,(and didn’t reach 70 ½ in 2019) your 2021 RMD is due by April 1, 2022, based on your account balance on Dec. 31, 2020. Your 2022 RMD is due by Dec. 31, 2022, based on your account balance on Dec. 31, 2021.

If you’re still employed by the plan sponsor, and not more than a 5% owner, you can delay RMDs from that workplace retirement plan until you retire. RMDs are always required from traditional IRAs, SEP, SIMPLE and SARSEP IRA plans even if you’re still employed.

If you left your job in 2021and rolled over your workplace retirement plan account into your IRA, the RMD from your IRAs for 2021 won’t be affected by the rollover, but you may have an RMD due from the retirement plan.   

• Amounts rolled over to your IRA from a workplace retirement plan in 2021 don’t affect your IRA RMD calculation since 2021 RMDs are based on your IRA account balances on Dec. 31, 2020.
• If you have a 2021 RMD due from your workplace retirement plan, it cannot be rolled over to your IRA.

RMDs: IRA Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries of IRA accounts must follow special distribution rules. The SECURE Act changed how and when beneficiaries must take distributions when the account holder dies after 2019. Under the CARES Act, beneficiaries do not have to take RMDs for or during 2020.

For a 2019 death, life expectancy distributions, if applicable, would generally be required to start by the end of 2020. Since the CARES Act waived all 2020 RMDs, to use the life expectancy option, generally you must begin taking distributions by the end of 2021. If you don’t begin taking life expectancy distributions by the end of 2021, you’ll be required to take a complete distribution under the 5-year rule.

For distributions based on the 5-year rule for deaths prior to 2020, you do not count 2020 as one of the 5 years. You would have until the end of the 6th year following the year of death for deaths in 2015 through 2019.

For a 2020 death, life expectancy distributions, if applicable under the SECURE Act, would generally be required to start by the end of 2021.

More information

For more detailed information on RMDs, see:

IRS.gov/RMD

Publication 590-B, Distribution from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)

Publication 575, Pension and Annuity Income

New York State's Division of Human Rights applauds federal court decision upholding state’s LGBTQ+ protections

 

December 21, 2021

New York State's Division of Human Rights applauds federal court decision upholding state’s LGBTQ+ protections

New York State Division of Human Rights Acting Commissioner Maria Imperial issued the following statement in response to a federal court ruling upholding the agency’s authority to enforce protections against discrimination for LGBTQ+ New Yorkers.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to dismiss this claim. The New York State Human Rights Law makes clear that a New Yorker’s sexual orientation or gender identity cannot be a barrier to accessing public places, services and businesses,” said Acting Commissioner Maria Imperial. “We thank the office of New York State Attorney General Letitia James for their vigorous defense of the law. The Division of Human Rights remains committed to shielding LGBTQ+ New Yorkers from unlawful discrimination and holding bad actors accountable for their discriminatory behavior.” 

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal advocacy organization that has initiated lawsuits challenging LGBTQ+ protections across the United States, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of an Elmira-based wedding photographer against the Division and the Attorney General in April 2021.  The photographer claimed that the potential enforcement of the New York State Human Rights Law’s prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination violated her constitutional rights. 

In his ruling, US District Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. dismissed the photographer’s claims, writing that New York State “has a compelling interest in ensuring that individuals have equal access to publicly available goods and services.” 

New Yorkers can learn more about the Human Rights Law or report bias and discrimination by contacting the New York State Division of Human Rights at 1-888-392-3644 or visiting https://dhr.ny.gov. 

The doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata bar the litigation of the same issue involving the same parties a second time

In the event a plaintiff has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue and loses, the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the doctrine of res judicata both serve to bar  a plaintiff from litigating the same causes of action involving the same parties with respect to those issues decided in a previous proceedings.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's ruling in this action.

Termination while serving a disciplinary probation period

Petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that his termination was in bad faith or for illegal reasons while serving as a probationary employee pursuant to the terms of a probationary agreement providing that if he violated the employer's sick leave regulations, he was subject to termination "as any other probationary employee."

Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.

The future disease burden of pandemic Covid-19 for individuals, communities, and society

The Environmental Claims Journal, on December 16, 2021, posted Dr. Robert A. Michaels' article entitled The future disease burden of pandemic Covid-19 for individuals, communities, and society. Click HEREto access the Journal's post on the Internet.

This article is also available for download as a pre-print at no charge on ResearchGate by clicking on the following URL:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357115538_The_Future_Disease_Burden_of_Pandemic_Covid-19_for_Individuals_Communities_and_Society

Below is the abstract of Dr. Michaels' article. 

Abstract

Pandemic Covid-19 has exposed tension between personal choice and public health policy. Vaccination has damped pandemic inertia in the U.S., but emergence of highly infectious variants such as delta and omicron has increased infection of fully vaccinated people. This worrisome trend justifies vaccine booster eligibility and access for all vaccinated people in a timeframe responding to waning protection.

In restricting booster eligibility, US FDA and CDC statements indicate failure to consider that SARS-CoV-2 might be persistent, meaning that it might remain dormant in immune-privileged “refugia” such as the central nervous system of previously infected people, even if their Covid-19 symptoms had been mild or non-existent. Opportunistic re-activation of dormant viruses can cause severe illness, as in childhood chickenpox producing adult shingles decades later.

External re-infection is unnecessary. Consistent with the “precautionary principle,” the overriding FDA and CDC public health priority should be to prevent as many SARS-CoV-2 infections as possible, not tolerate them, assuming optimistically that they will not impose major public health and associated economic burdens in the future.

We naturally have focused upon our tragic past losses. We also must focus upon the future, learning from Covid-19 to manage pro-actively the inevitable next pandemic.