How Can We Help?
< Back
You are here:
Print

Beneficiary relationship to 72t calculation / new

Posted
Last Updated On
ByKeith James

L1: Beneficiary relationship to 72t calculation / new Hello Again Seasoned Professionals,
I AM GRATEFUL FOR EVERYONE’S RESPONSE!
I need to make a statement; I have run my calculations over again for that same client and now I get consistent numbers that are different from the first calculations. I have copies of the first set of calculations and they are very different from what I am getting now. SO, did my computer have a stroke or ( I HATE TO EVEN THINK THE FOLLOWING ) did the program make an error? I WANT TO THINK IT WAS ME THAT MADE THE ERROR but I can’t duplicate the same calculations as before and I am using to the best of my knowledge the same input data. I have copies of the first three pages so if anyone would like for me to fax these pages to them, let me know and you can see for yourself. Maybe you can find something that I did wrong to generate those numbers.
I have never run up against this issue before and I have made about 17 calculations for different client scenarios. It was this discrepancy that provoked my concern about whether a beneficiary designation made a difference or not. I have been under the impression that it would not make a difference as long as we use the uniform table and the spousal beneficiary is within the 10-year range.
I do have Bill’s book and I have read it once and perused it several more times for clarification. It is the best I could find and I don’t think there is another book like it.
It has been my intent from the beginning to have a professional check these numbers and issue a letter of approval. I have read many posts that suggest that one would be wasting their time trying to find a CPA or a tax attorney who knew enough about this to even put their tail on the line. There is a tax attorney near my office who I would think would know about this but from first hand experience with Mark, he is a big scary cat when it comes to taking on any liability for something in which he is not sure of. I was going to ask him though. But now I know whom this Badger guy is, I did not know he was CPA Bill Steckler so I would be grateful for his professional opinion and review and opinion letter. I realize that the client may have to engage the Badger and that is no problem and whatever the cost is, WELL THAT IS NO PROBLEM EITHER. Now if my intent was to never have a professional review this plan; I AM GRATEFUL TO ALL OF YOU BECAUSE YOU SURE HAVE MADE AN IMPRESSION THAT ONLY A FOOL WOULD SET UP A SEPP PLAN WITHOUT THE HELP OF A CPA OR ATTORNEY.
I welcome all feedback AND THANKS AGAIN. I LOOK FORWARD TO BUYING SEVERAL LUNCHES; IT IS THE LEAST I CAN DO.
Sincerely,
Keith James2005-08-22 15:55, By: Keith James, IP: [66.127.235.249]

L2: Beneficiary relationship to 72t calculation / new Hello Keith:
Call me.
William J. Stecker, CPA
The Marble Group, Ltd.
30671 Bearcat Trail
Conifer, CO 80433
(303) 816-2543 phone
(303) 200-9269 fax
(aka The Badger)
2005-08-22 16:01, By: TheBadger, IP: [66.250.23.21]

L2: Beneficiary relationship to 72t calculation / new You mention the different results – what calculator are you using? If you are using the calculators on this site and you don”t change the assumptions, then the results should be the same. If you have printed copies of the reports, look at age, interest rate, etc – you will probably see why the results are different.2005-08-22 16:40, By: Gfw, IP: [172.16.1.77]

Table of Contents