By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that while in-kind RMDs can be a tactical tool, they come with significant risks and hidden costs. These include immediate tax liabilities, potential bracket creep, loss of compounding benefits, and intergenerational tax inefficiency. The wash-sale rule and state tax complications further complicate the strategy.
Risk: Immediate tax liabilities without corresponding cash liquidation event
Opportunity: Preserving upside if equities rebound
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Forced to Take an RMD in a Down Market? Here’s the Tax Move That Avoids Selling Low
Gerelyn Terzo
5 min read
Quick Read
Retirees can satisfy an RMD by transferring shares in kind to a taxable account, avoiding a forced sale at depressed prices.
In-kind distributions are still taxed as ordinary income at fair market value, so retirees need outside cash to cover the tax bill.
A qualified charitable distribution sent directly from an IRA to a nonprofit satisfies the RMD with zero income tax, up to the annual limit.
Are you ahead, or behind on retirement? SmartAsset's free tool can match you with a financial advisor in minutes to help you answer that today. Each advisor has been carefully vetted, and must act in your best interests. Don't waste another minute; learn more here.
She is 75, retired, and looking at a brokerage statement she would rather not open. The market sold off hard this spring, with the VIX, also known as the stock market's "fear index," soaring and staying elevated. Meanwhile, several of her long-held equity positions are still well off their highs. Her investment custodian has flagged the obvious problem: her annual required minimum distribution (RMD) is due, and the default way to satisfy it is to sell shares. The problem is she does not want to sell low.
This is a familiar bind for retirees in their seventies. RMDs, the yearly withdrawals the IRS forces from traditional IRAs, do not pause for bear markets. Online retirement forums fill up with the same lament every time stocks wobble: a reader needs to pull money she does not actually need, and the calendar does not care what the S&P 500 did last week. Social Security checks keep arriving, including the 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for 2026, but RMDs must be satisfied separately, in full, by year end.
Are you ahead, or behind on retirement? SmartAsset's free tool can match you with a financial advisor in minutes to help you answer that today. Each advisor has been carefully vetted, and must act in your best interests. Don't waste another minute; learn more here.
The move most retirees do not know exists
Here is the detail that changes her situation: an RMD does not have to be taken in cash. The IRS allows an in-kind distribution, where the custodian transfers the actual shares out of the IRA and into a regular taxable brokerage account. The dollar value of those shares on the transfer date counts toward the RMD, exactly as if she had sold them and moved cash.
The practical effect is that she never has to hit the sell button at a depressed price. The same shares she owned inside the IRA on Monday morning are sitting in her taxable account that afternoon, free to recover on their own schedule. If a stock she has held for 15 years is down 22% from its peak, she keeps every share and every future dollar of upside. She has satisfied the IRS without locking in the loss.
To make it happen, she calls the custodian and specifies which shares and how many to distribute in kind. The valuation is whatever they are worth on the day the transfer settles.
The part that is not a loophole
An in-kind RMD is still fully taxable as ordinary income, exactly like a cash RMD. The IRS treats the fair market value of the transferred shares as a distribution, and it lands on her tax return the same way a check would. The in-kind move avoids the forced sale. It does not avoid the tax.
Two consequences follow. First, she needs cash on hand from somewhere else to pay the income tax bill, because the share transfer itself does not generate any. Withholding generally cannot be pulled out of the shares. Second, the shares arrive in the taxable account with a fresh cost basis equal to their value on the transfer date. Any future appreciation from that point forward is taxed at long-term capital gains rates when she eventually sells, which are usually lower than ordinary income rates.
How it fits with the rest of her income
Her Social Security benefit, adjusted by that 2.8% raise, is steady and partially taxable. The RMD stacks on top of it as ordinary income and can push more of her Social Security into the taxable zone, nudge her into a higher bracket, and raise her Medicare premiums two years out. Taking the RMD in kind leaves all of that intact, since the taxable amount is identical. The real shift is whether she is harvesting a loss to fund a withdrawal she did not want to make in the first place.
Two alternatives are worth keeping in mind. A cash and short-term bond bucket inside the IRA, refilled in good years, gives her something to distribute that is not sensitive to equity drawdowns. And if she is charitably inclined, a qualified charitable distribution sent directly from the IRA to a nonprofit satisfies the RMD with no income tax at all, up to the annual limit.
What to think through before making a move
The RMD age is 73 for those born between 1951 and 1959, and 75 for those born in 1960 or later, so the first year this question matters is worth planning for in advance rather than in December. Before the transfer, settle which specific shares to move and where the cash for the tax bill is coming from. The hardest mistake to undo is selling a quality holding at a bad price simply because a deadline forced her hand. Keeping the shares and paying the tax from a savings account is often the calmer trade. A quick conversation with a tax preparer before year end usually pays for itself.
If You've Been Thinking About Retirement, Pay Attention (sponsor)
Retirement planning doesn't have to feel overwhelming. The key is finding expert guidance, and SmartAsset's simple quiz makes it easier than ever for you to connect with a vetted financial advisor. Here's how:
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"In-kind RMDs can avoid forced selling, but they do not reduce taxes or risk; they transfer the tax burden and future tax consequences into a taxable account, making it a tactical move with limited broad benefit."
The article frames in-kind RMDs as a clever way to avoid selling at a trough, but the hidden costs are material. The RMD is still taxed as ordinary income in the year of distribution, and moving shares to a taxable account merely relocates the tax burden and the future tax consequences—plus you may lose the compounding benefit inside the IRA. A lot of the value hinges on future capital gains rates and the holder's ability to cash-flow the tax bill. It can also bump MAGI, affecting Medicare premiums and Social Security taxability, and state treatment varies. Not a universal fix.
Strongest counter: you still pay ordinary income tax now, you reset cost basis which can backfire if stocks rally, and you risk higher MAGI/IRMAA now or later; it's not tax relief, it's tax timing shuffling.
"While in-kind distributions prevent forced selling, they shift the burden to cash-flow management, often forcing retirees to liquidate high-yield cash equivalents to pay taxes on non-liquid assets."
The article correctly highlights 'in-kind' RMDs as a tactical liquidity management tool, but it ignores the significant 'tax drag' and cash-flow mismatch risks. By moving shares to a taxable account, the investor faces an immediate, non-deferrable income tax liability without a corresponding cash liquidation event. This creates a 'tax-liquidity trap' where the retiree must deplete external cash reserves—which may be earning 4-5% in money market funds—to satisfy an IRS bill on unrealized gains. Furthermore, the article fails to address the potential for 'bracket creep,' where the RMD pushes the retiree into a higher marginal tax bracket, effectively increasing the cost of the portfolio's recovery.
The strategy is essentially a form of 'tax-deferred arbitrage' that preserves equity exposure during volatility, which is mathematically superior to selling at a cyclical bottom if the investor has sufficient liquidity.
"In-kind RMD distributions avoid forced selling at depressed prices but require external cash reserves and don't reduce the tax bill—making them useful only for retirees with both liquidity and conviction about specific holdings recovering."
The article presents in-kind RMD distributions as a clever tax-planning move, but it's actually just basic mechanics that custodians have offered for decades—not a hidden loophole. The real insight is narrower: it's useful only if you have *external cash* to cover the tax bill and genuinely believe specific holdings will recover. The article glosses over the behavioral risk: retirees often convince themselves depressed stocks will bounce back when they won't, and in-kind transfers can enable that bias. The tax math is also incomplete—holding appreciated shares in a taxable account triggers annual capital gains taxes on dividends and forces wash-sale discipline. For most retirees, a boring cash-and-bonds bucket inside the IRA (mentioned briefly) or qualified charitable distributions eliminate the problem entirely without requiring conviction calls on individual stocks.
If you lack external cash reserves, in-kind distributions don't actually solve the problem—you're just deferring the forced sale to whenever you need liquidity next, potentially at an even worse price. The article's framing makes this sound like a universally smart move when it's really only useful for a narrow slice of retirees with specific balance sheets.
"In-kind RMDs avoid selling specific shares but still require external cash for the unchanged ordinary-income tax, risking sales elsewhere."
The article correctly notes that in-kind RMD transfers let retirees move depressed shares into a taxable account at current FMV without triggering a sale, preserving upside if equities rebound. Yet it underplays liquidity risk: retirees still owe ordinary income tax on the full FMV and must source that cash elsewhere, which may force sales of other holdings or drawdowns from cash buffers precisely when markets are weak. The fresh cost basis helps future gains but does nothing to blunt the immediate ordinary-income hit, bracket creep, or IRMAA surcharges two years later. A QCD remains cleaner for charitably inclined investors, while pre-building a short-term bond sleeve inside the IRA would have avoided the bind altogether.
If the retiree already holds ample taxable cash or bonds outside the IRA, the tax bill creates no forced sale, making the in-kind move strictly additive to flexibility with no offsetting liquidity cost.
"In-kind RMDs can erode intergenerational tax efficiency by transferring assets to a taxable bucket with a new basis, potentially increasing taxes for heirs."
One angle Claude missed: moving positions out of an IRA via in-kind RMDs can erase the stepped-up basis for heirs. The taxable account will carry a new cost basis, and at death beneficiaries often get a tax-basis step-up only for inherited assets—so you may shift the tax burden to your estate rather than eliminating it. This weakens intergenerational tax efficiency and changes future gains/taxes dynamics.
"The in-kind distribution risks triggering wash-sale rules that prevent harvesting losses, effectively trapping the investor in a tax-inefficient position."
ChatGPT is right about the intergenerational cost, but the panel is missing the 'wash-sale' elephant in the room. If you distribute an in-kind security that is currently at a loss, you cannot claim that loss in your taxable account if you purchased a 'substantially identical' security within 30 days in any other account. This trap effectively locks in a tax liability without the benefit of a realized loss, making the in-kind move a potential double-jeopardy for the retiree's tax strategy.
"Wash-sale risk is real but narrow; state tax treatment of in-kind RMDs is a blind spot the panel hasn't addressed."
Gemini's wash-sale trap is real but overstated for *most* cases—it only bites if you're distributing a loss position, which contradicts the article's premise (depressed but unrealized-gain holdings). The bigger miss: nobody's flagged that in-kind RMDs can trigger *state* tax complications. Some states tax IRA distributions differently than capital gains, and moving appreciated shares into a taxable account may reset state-level cost basis rules unpredictably. That's custodian-dependent and rarely disclosed.
"State-level basis resets from in-kind RMDs can compound the loss of stepped-up basis for heirs in certain jurisdictions."
Claude correctly notes wash sales apply mainly to losses, but overlooks that depressed holdings can still embed losses relative to basis even if above original cost. More critically, the state tax basis reset he flags interacts with ChatGPT's stepped-up basis erosion: heirs inheriting taxable shares may face mismatched federal-state carryover rules, amplifying the intergenerational tax drag in high-tax states like California or New York.
The panel generally agrees that while in-kind RMDs can be a tactical tool, they come with significant risks and hidden costs. These include immediate tax liabilities, potential bracket creep, loss of compounding benefits, and intergenerational tax inefficiency. The wash-sale rule and state tax complications further complicate the strategy.
Preserving upside if equities rebound
Immediate tax liabilities without corresponding cash liquidation event