The RMD Timing Detail That Can Put Two Withdrawals in One Tax Year

Why RMD Timing Deserves a Closer Look

Required minimum distributions, or RMDs, are the amounts the IRS requires many retirement account owners to withdraw once they reach a certain age. The rules are often described in a single sentence, but a small timing detail buried in those rules can have an outsized effect on how your retirement income lands across tax years.

The core rule is straightforward: according to the IRS, account owners generally must begin taking RMDs for the year they reach age 73. What makes the timing tricky is a special allowance for the very first distribution, combined with the deadline for the year that follows. Understanding how those two dates work together is the difference between a smooth start and an unexpectedly large income year.

The First-Year Deadline Is Different

For most RMDs, the deadline is clean and consistent: December 31 of the applicable year. But the first RMD comes with a built-in extension. The IRS allows you to delay that first distribution until April 1 of the year after you reach age 73. This later date is often called the required beginning date.

At first glance, the delay looks like a convenience, and in some cases it is. It gives new retirees a few extra months to plan, to review their accounts, or to time a withdrawal around other income. But the extension applies only to that first distribution. It does not shift the schedule for every year afterward.

How Two RMDs Can Land in One Calendar Year

Here is where the calendar becomes important. Suppose you delay your first RMD, using the April 1 allowance. The IRS is clear that the next year's RMD is still due by December 31 of that same calendar year. That means both distributions can fall inside a single 12-month window.

Consider a simplified example. Imagine someone reaches age 73 in one year. Their first RMD is technically for that year, but they choose to delay it until April 1 of the following year. That second year now contains two required distributions: the delayed first one, due by April 1, and the regular second one, due by December 31. Both are received within the same calendar year.

Because traditional retirement account withdrawals are generally treated as taxable income, receiving two RMDs in one year can increase the total income reported for that year. A larger income figure can, in turn, affect other elements of a person's tax picture. That is why the April 1 option is worth examining rather than accepting automatically. Delaying the first RMD is not inherently good or bad. It simply moves income between two tax years, and which arrangement makes more sense depends on the individual's full financial situation.

Spreading Income Versus Stacking It

The alternative to delaying is to take the first RMD by December 31 of the year you turn 73, the same year it applies to. Doing so keeps one distribution in that year and the next distribution in the following year, so the two amounts are separated across two tax years rather than combined into one.

Neither approach is universally correct. Some people prefer to keep income steady from year to year. Others may have a specific reason to concentrate or defer income. The key point is that the choice exists only for the first RMD, and once that first year passes, the December 31 deadline governs every subsequent year without exception.

Roth IRAs Follow a Separate Set of Rules

Account type matters just as much as the calendar. The RMD rules described above apply to traditional retirement accounts, but Roth IRAs are treated differently for their original owners.

According to IRS guidance, lifetime RMDs are not required from Roth IRAs. In other words, the original owner of a Roth IRA is not forced to begin withdrawals at age 73 the way a traditional account owner is. The money can remain in the account for the owner's lifetime without a mandatory annual distribution.

That exception has limits. The IRS notes that beneficiaries who inherit a Roth IRA can be subject to distribution rules. So while the original owner enjoys freedom from lifetime RMDs, the accounts do not remain entirely rule-free once they pass to someone else. Anyone inheriting a Roth account should read the beneficiary rules carefully rather than assuming the original owner's exemption carries over.

Reading an RMD Deadline Correctly

The practical takeaway is that an RMD deadline cannot be read in isolation. Two questions shape what actually applies to you. First, what type of account is involved, since traditional and Roth accounts follow different requirements? Second, where does the date fall on the calendar, since the first-year April 1 allowance interacts with the following year's December 31 deadline?

Hold both of those questions in mind and the rule becomes far more legible. The age-73 starting point, the one-time first-year extension, the steady December 31 deadline afterward, and the Roth exception for original owners are all pieces of the same picture. Seeing how they fit together is what keeps a routine requirement from turning into a surprise.