Cashing In, Annuitizing, and Two Very Different Contracts
Nora, 62, retired in January and was born in 1963. She owns two annuity contracts. The first is a nonqualified deferred annuity purchased three years ago with $250,000; it is now worth $400,000, its surrender charge is 7% in year one and declines by 1% each year, and it allows a 10% annual free withdrawal. The second is a $300,000 annuity held inside a traditional IRA, purchased 12 years ago and past its surrender period. Nora needs about $40,000 a year of income starting now, wants to leave as much as possible to her two adult children, and asks whether she should 'just cash in the $400,000 contract.'
1. If Nora withdraws $40,000 from the nonqualified contract this year, how much is taxable and is a surrender charge due? Why is cashing out the whole contract a bad idea?
Read the worked answer
The $40,000 withdrawal: 10% of the $400,000 account value is $40,000, so it falls entirely inside the free-withdrawal amount and no surrender charge applies. But the tax result is not what clients expect: nonqualified annuity withdrawals are taxed LIFO - gain first. Her gain is $400,000 − $250,000 = $150,000, so the entire $40,000 is ordinary income. She is past 59½, so no 10% penalty applies.
Full surrender is the wrong move for four reasons:
- Surrender charge. Three years in, the schedule is 5%. Applied to the amount above the free withdrawal, that is roughly 5% × $360,000 ≈ $18,000 of pure cost.
- Tax bunching. The whole $150,000 gain lands in one year as ordinary income, which can raise her marginal bracket, increase the taxable portion of Social Security, and raise Medicare IRMAA two years later.
- Loss of the death benefit and tax deferral.
- No step-up at death. Annuity gains never receive a basis step-up - they are income in respect of a decedent to her children. If legacy is the priority, this contract is a poor asset to leave behind; life insurance or other assets are more efficient for that goal.
Caution on the plan's durability: the free withdrawal is 10% of a declining balance. Once the account falls below $400,000, $40,000 a year will exceed the free amount and surrender charges will begin to bite.
2. Instead of withdrawing, Nora annuitizes the nonqualified contract over her life with a 10-year period certain. How is each payment taxed, and how does that compare with the withdrawal strategy?
Read the worked answer
Exclusion ratio mechanics: at the annuity starting date the insurer computes the investment in the contract ($250,000) divided by the expected return (the monthly payment × the number of payments under the IRS annuity tables, adjusted for the 10-year certain feature). That fraction of every payment is a tax-free return of basis; the remainder is ordinary income. The ratio is fixed at issue and applies to each payment until her entire $250,000 basis has been recovered; after that, payments are fully taxable.
Comparison with the withdrawal strategy:
- Annuitization waives the surrender charge and converts the entire $150,000 of gain into a stream spread over many years rather than bunching it - better bracket management.
- Withdrawals are 100% taxable from dollar one, while annuitized payments are partly tax-free until basis is recovered. For a client who wants income rather than a lump sum, annuitization is usually the more tax-efficient route.
- The trade-off is control and legacy. Irrevocable annuitization gives up access to the principal. The 10-year period certain guarantees that if she dies early, payments continue to her children for the balance of the ten years - which is why the certain period matters for her stated goal, but it also lowers the monthly payment versus a straight life annuity.
Judgement: she does not have to choose wholesale. A partial annuitization, or a series of free withdrawals in the near years paired with a later annuitization decision, preserves flexibility while the surrender schedule burns off.
3. What does Nora need to understand about the IRA annuity - required minimum distributions and whether the annuity adds anything?
Read the worked answer
No extra tax deferral. Assets inside an IRA are already tax-deferred; wrapping an annuity around them adds cost (mortality and expense charges, rider fees) without adding a tax benefit. The only justification is a contractual guarantee - a living benefit, a fixed rate, or mortality protection - that she actually values.
RMD timing: born in 1963, Nora falls under SECURE 2.0's age 75 threshold (born 1960 or later). So:
- Her first RMD year is the year she turns 75 (2038), and she may delay that first payment until April 1 of 2039 - but then she must take two in 2039.
- Every later RMD is due by December 31.
- RMDs are computed on the prior December 31 value and may be aggregated across her traditional IRAs, giving her the flexibility to take the dollars from the lower-cost contract.
The nonqualified contract has no RMDs at all. That asymmetry shapes the sequencing decision: she can spend the nonqualified money first and let the IRA compound untouched until 75. But because the nonqualified withdrawal is fully taxable anyway, there is no rate arbitrage in doing so - the real arguments are (a) the nonqualified contract's gain is not stepped up at death while the IRA can be distributed to the children over 10 years under the SECURE Act, and (b) she should avoid letting the IRA balloon into large, forced taxable RMDs at 75.