life expectancy factor
L1: life expectancy factorin sample reports, in the first five year, life exp is shown (assuming age 55) as: 29.6, 28.7, 27.9, 27.0, and 26.1 for both the minimum distribution method and amortization method. Should the amortization method really show this: 29.6, 28.6, 27.6, 26.6, and 25.6? which life exp is correct for amortization method?2009-09-11 05:07, By: patrick, IP: [220.127.116.11]
L2: life expectancy factorit does not matter how the second and subsequent life exp is shown, only the first one matters because the amortized payment is always the same every year. First life exp for the specific age is used to calculate the equal payments.2009-09-11 07:06, By: patrick, IP: [18.104.22.168]
L2: life expectancy factorThe remaining life expectancy is shown as 29.6, 28.7, 27.9, 27.0, and 26.1 simply because according to the IRS tables, that is the rermaining life expectancy. It does not go down by 1 merely because you are 1 year older.
As previously stated, for the annuity and amortization methods it is calculated once and the payment remains level.
However, if annual recalculation is used with either the annuity or amortization methods, then life expectancy would be recalculated annually and would be 29.6, 28.7, 27.9, 27.0, and 26.1 2009-09-11 10:26, By: Gfw, IP: [22.214.171.124]
L3: life expectancy factorThe answers are all correct.
FYI, while regular REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTRIBUTIONS from IRAs and retirement plans use the indicated factors from the table, INHERITED IRAs start with the first factor, and then they do reduce that facter by 1.0 every year thereafter, but only for INHERITED IRAs.
This complexity came from Congress and the IRS, and it makes no sense to anyone else either.2009-09-12 20:08, By: dlzallestaxes, IP: [126.96.36.199]