Picture this: You just turned 73, and you’re finally facing your first required minimum distribution. You’ve heard you can delay it until April 1st of the following year, so you decide to wait. Smart move, right? Not so fast. That delay could mean taking two RMDs in one year and pushing yourself into a higher tax bracket, costing you thousands of dollars you didn’t need to pay.

After more than 35 years helping Pasadena families navigate retirement planning, I’ve seen this scenario play out more times than I’d like to admit. The two RMD traps are among the most common and costly mistakes retirees make, yet they’re completely avoidable with the right planning.

Understanding Required Minimum Distributions

Let’s start with the basics. Required minimum distributions are exactly what they sound like: the minimum amount the IRS requires you to withdraw from your traditional IRAs, 401(k)s, and other tax-deferred retirement accounts each year once you reach age 73.

Why does the IRS care? Simple. You received a tax deduction when you contributed to these accounts, and the money has been growing tax-deferred for decades. Now Uncle Sam wants his share. The RMD rules ensure the government eventually collects taxes on that money.

Your RMD amount is calculated by dividing your prior year-end account balance by a life expectancy factory provided by the IRS. For most people, this works out to roughly 3.8% of your account balance at age 73, increasing slightly each year as you age.

Here’s where it gets tricky. While your first RMD is technically required for the year you turn 73, the IRS gives you a one-time grace period to delay it until April 1st of the following year. Every subsequent RMD must be taken by December 31st of that year.

The First-Year Exception: A Trap in Disguise

This April 1st deadline seems generous at first glance. You turn 73 in 2026? Great, you have until April 1, 2027, to take your first distribution. What could go wrong?

Everything, if you’re not careful.

Let’s walk through a real example I encountered with a Pasadena couple last year. Tom turned 73 in March 2025. His IRA balance at the end of 2024 was $800,000, meaning his first RMD was roughly $30,400. Tom’s tax advisor mentioned he could wait until April 2026 to take it, so he did.

But here’s the problem: Tom’s second RMD for 2026 was still due by December 31, 2026. His account had grown to $850,000 by the end of 2025, requiring another distribution of approximately $32,300.

Tom ended up taking over $62,000 in RMDs in 2026, nearly double what he would have taken in any single year. For Tom and his wife, who were comfortably in the 22% tax bracket, this extra income pushed them into the 24% bracket. It also increased their Medicare Part B premiums through IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) for 2028.

The kicker? Tom didn’t even need the money from either distribution. He was taking it purely because the law required it.

When Delaying Actually Makes Sense

Now, before you think delaying is always a mistake, there are scenarios where it makes perfect sense.

If you retired mid-year at 73 and had significant W-2 income for part of that year, spreading your first RMD into the following year might keep you in a lower bracket overall. I worked with a JPL engineer who retired in September of his RMD year. His salary through September already had him near the top of his tax bracket, so delaying his first RMD to the following year, when he’d have no employment income, saved him several thousand dollars.

Similarly, if you’re expecting unusually high income in your first RMD year (perhaps from a one-time consulting project or a large capital gain from selling investment property), delaying might make sense. The key is looking at your total tax picture for both years, not just one in isolation.

The Better Strategy: Take It in Year One

For most Pasadena retirees I work with, taking that first RMD in the year they turn 73 is the smarter move. Here’s why.

First, it keeps your tax situation predictable. You’re taking roughly the same amount each year, making it easier to plan estimated tax payments, budget for the tax liability, and manage other income sources.

Second, it avoids the Medicare IRMAA surcharge surprise. Those premium increases are based on your income from two years prior, so the effects of a double RMD year can hit you when you’ve forgotten all about it.

Third, it gives you more flexibility with the money. Maybe you don’t need it now, but taking it in year one means you can invest it in a taxable account, make Roth conversions with other funds, or use it for planned expenses. Bunching two years’ worth of RMDs into one calendar year limits your options.

Planning Before Your First RMD

The best time to think about your RMD strategy isn’t at 73, it’s in your late 60s and early 70s. This is when you have the most control over your retirement account balances and tax situation.

Consider Roth conversions in the years before RMDs begin. If you’re in a relatively low tax bracket between retirement and age 73, converting some traditional IRA funds to Roth can reduce your future RMD burden. I’ve seen this strategy work beautifully for former JPL and aerospace professionals who retire at 62 or 65 with a few years of lower income before Social Security and RMDs kick in.

Another often-overlooked strategy: if you’re still working at 73 and participating in your employer’s 401(k), you may not have to take RMDs from that specific account (though you still need to take them from IRAs and previous employers’ plans). This exception can be valuable for those who continue working part-time.

For charitably inclined clients, I often recommend starting Qualified Charitable Distributions (QCDs) right at age 73. You can donate up to $105,000 per year directly from your IRA to charity, and it counts toward your RMD without increasing your taxable income.

What If You’re Already Facing the Double RMD?

If you delayed your first RMD and are now staring down two distributions in one year, you still have options to minimize the damage.

First, consider taking both distributions early in the year rather than waiting until December for the second one. This gives you more time to plan around the tax impact and potentially make estimated tax payments to avoid underpayment penalties.

Second, look at your withholding strategy. You can have taxes withheld from the RMD itself, which might be simpler than making quarterly estimated payments. Just make sure you’re withholding enough to cover the tax on both distributions.

Third, maximize any available deductions for that year. If you’re planning charitable contributions, bunch them into the double RMD year. Consider making deductible contributions to a Health Savings Account if you’re HSA-eligible. Every deduction helps offset the extra income.

Finally, have a conversation with your tax advisor about whether Roth conversions still make sense in future years. If you’re already getting pushed into a higher bracket, converting more money might not be the right strategy.

The Bottom Line

The two RMD traps are entirely avoidable with proper planning. For most Pasadena retirees, taking that first required minimum distribution in the year you turn 73, rather than delaying until April of the following year, is the straightforward path that keeps your taxes predictable and avoids unnecessary complexity.

But every situation is unique. Your income sources, tax bracket, charitable intentions, and long-term planning goals all factor into what makes sense for you. The key is to make an informed decision rather than default to delay simply because you can.

If you’re approaching 73 or have already taken your first RMD, it’s worth reviewing your distribution strategy to ensure it aligns with your overall retirement plan. A few hours of planning now can save thousands in taxes and Medicare premiums down the road.