Yet Another PLR to Factor In

You are here:
< Back

L1: Yet Another PLR to Factor InHave not read the actual PLR yet, but wanted to get the link up here for review: 04:54, By: Alan S., IP: []

L2: Yet Another PLR to Factor InAlan…Interesting PLR, thanks for posting.
Back in the ‘old’ (pre 2002-62) days, COLA increases could be used in a SEPP — PLR 9503631 & PLR 199943050 both dealt with COLA increases. However, since 2002-62, automatic COLA increases in payments haven’t been allowed.
The PLR shouldn’t have an impact if using annual recalculation with either the annuity or amortization methods as long as the recalculation includes an annually adjusted age, account balance and interest rate.2011-05-26 09:49, By: Gfw, IP: []

L3: Yet Another PLR to Factor InSince this was a NQ annuity, I don’t know why they were not penalty exempt under 72(q)(2)(I), the immediate annuity exception. That would have taken 2002-62 out of the equation.
Of course, this is NOT an available remedy under 72t for IRAs or qualified plans.
Supporting link: 00:00, By: Alan S., IP: []

L4: Yet Another PLR to Factor InUnfortunately, what they requested was agreement that the payments were substantually equal under 72(q)(2)(D)…
“The Taxpayers request a ruling that payments made under the Contracts pursuant to Option U are substantially equal periodic payments within the meaning of 72(q)(2)(D).”
72(q)(2)(D) immediately references…
“72(q)(2)(E) from a plan, contract, account, trust, or annuity described in subsection (e)(5)(D),”
“CONTRACTS UNDER QUALIFIED PLANS. Except as provided in paragraph (8), this paragraph shall apply to any amount received ”
Just my opinion, but the ruling should really have no impact on the penalties or taxes associated with immediate annuities on a non-tax qualified plan.2011-05-27 11:50, By: Gfw, IP: []