The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing


Subject:  Re: Roth IRA transfer Date:  4/27/1998  11:53 AM
Author:  TMFPixy Number:  3072 of 100111


<<Am I to understand that there is no current law covering traditional-to-Roth transfers? That the law is still in the works and could change to anything that Congressional whimsy dictates? I guess the odds are against a significant change at this point, but if the law is not yet on the books then why should we count on it at all?

Me, pessimistic about the government? Why, yes. Yes I am. :-) >>

Don't let your antipathy to Congress and our government blind you to the facts. The law already exists, but it had some gaping holes and problems. That's why the technical corrections were introduced in the House and the Senate. KAT is merely trying to point out that some of the obvious flaws in existing law and in the technical corrections version introduced in the House are about to be - at long last - fixed. When - and if - the Senate version passes, we may ELECT to claim converted IRA as income in 1998 instead of HAVING to spread that income over the next four years. Additionally, we won't have to worry about the withdrawal pecking order specified in the House version that caused the IRS to recommend maintenance of separate conversion and contributory Roth IRA. Instead, we need open only one account for both contributions and conversions.

And yes, the rules of the game can change at any time Congress chooses. There's nothing new about that. What passes this year can be changed next year. Typically, though, those acting under the provisions of prior law are grandfathered from adverse effects. Want a guarantee of that? You ain't gonna get any, just precedence based on prior Congressional actions that show it to be the case.


Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us