Connect with us

Accounting

Financial advisors are torn over this RMD tax strategy

Published

on

Required minimum distributions can be a touchy subject for retirees and their financial advisors, requiring them to liquidate assets that they may prefer to keep in the market. Frustration around RMDs is often compounded by the tax consequences they present, but advisors say one little-known strategy could help ease the burden — especially as investors wait for stocks to fully recover from a tariff-driven downturn.

The strategy hinges on the unique flexibility of tax withholdings on retirement account distributions

The idea of withholding income taxes from a retirement account distribution isn’t new. Retirees often withhold a set percentage, say 20%, of a distribution for taxes. For example, a retiree can say, “Distribute $20,000 from my IRA, withhold 20% for taxes and send the net $16,000 to me.” But what many advisors miss is the ability to delay tax payments until the end of the year, according to Keith Fenstad, vice president and director of wealth planning at Tanglewood Total Wealth Management in Houston, Texas.

READ MORE: Using tax-aware long-short vehicles to track down alpha

Through this strategy, retirees can take smaller monthly or quarterly distributions without any tax withholding and then make a much larger tax withholding on a distribution toward the end of the year. Thanks to flexible RMD tax payment rules, end-of-year tax withholdings can cover distributions that were made much earlier in the same year.

“Even if that request is made in December, the $4,000 of taxes withheld is spread across the previous quarterly tax payment periods,” Fenstad said.

Kicking the tax can down the road

Delaying tax payments on RMDs can offer a few key advantages, according to Fenstad. For some clients who simply don’t want the headache of making multiple tax payments throughout the year, delaying tax withholdings on RMDs can simplify the process.

“We have clients who might withhold 60%, 70% of their RMD just to cover all their taxes,” Fenstad said. That way, “They don’t have to fool with quarterly estimates.”

This approach can also help address a potential underpayment penalty resulting from a previously missed estimated tax payment, he said. Delaying tax withholdings on RMDs could be an especially useful strategy for certain clients who expect their investments to continue to recover from April’s market low, Fenstad said.

READ MORE: HSA limits to get a modest bump

Mark Stancato, founder and lead advisor at VIP Wealth Advisors in Decatur, Georgia, described the strategy as a “calculated risk.”

“Delaying the timing of an RMD until later in the year can be an effective way to improve tax efficiency during a market downturn — but the details matter. The key question to ask is where the tax payment is coming from,” he said. “If taxes are withheld directly from the RMD distribution, delaying until year-end may reduce the number of shares that need to be sold — especially if the market recovers. That can help clients avoid locking in unnecessary losses. But if the market declines further, they could end up selling even more at lower prices.”

Other advisors say that delaying tax withholdings can be a helpful strategy regardless of how the market is performing.

“Waiting to sell shares to pay the tax because of a belief that the market will rise is a market timing decision,” said Sammy Grant, principal at Homrich Berg in Sandy Springs, Georgia. “But even if a client or advisor believes the market will experience further declines, waiting to pay the tax due on early-year distributions until year-end is a wise decision. This more pessimistic client can liquidate enough to pay the tax today while leaving the proceeds in a money market inside the IRA, earning 4%-plus for the remainder of the year.”

Not all advisors are on board

Tim Witham, founder of Balanced Life Planning in Villa Hills, Kentucky, said that delaying RMD tax withholdings is a common strategy among some advisors. However, he explained that this approach is often not ideal for many high net worth clients, as they are typically required to take larger distributions than they need for their living expenses. Instead, Witham and other advisors suggest using in-kind withdrawals from a retirement account to a brokerage account to limit a client’s tax liability.

“In a down market, rather than selling funds for IRA distributions, I have coached clients to push securities out of their IRAs in-kind to a brokerage account,” Witham said. “For example, if a small-cap fund in your IRA is down 20%, you can take that fund from an IRA to a brokerage account. … When the fund rebounds, it will do so outside of the IRA, where, if held over a year, the gain would be eligible for long-term capital gains treatment, rather than ordinary income that would occur as a result of an IRA distribution.”

READ MORE: Forget retirement buckets. Advisors prefer these withdrawal strategies

“This strategy puts control with the client and advisor in a down market, rather than hoping for a market rebound by year-end,” he added. “As we all know, hope is not a strategy.”

Other advisors say that navigating a down market through such strategies simply isn’t necessary if a client is invested properly in their retirement accounts. 

“We advise our clients who have reached the magical age of required minimum distributions that there should be a minimum of five years’ worth of distributions invested in liquid high-quality short-term fixed income,” said Michael DeMassa, founder of Forza Wealth in Sarasota, Florida. “In other terms, at least 20% of the IRA should be accessible for required minimum distributions and not subject to stock market volatility. During times of market stress, we can make distributions from the fixed income allocation and not be forced to sell equities at the wrong time.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Trending