Can someone explain who came up with the taxation process of income annuities? It has been explained to me that the person receiving income would pay ordinary income tax on the full amount based on the income account value until they have withdrawn enough to get back to the original principal, at which point they will pay no tax on withdrawals until the value reaches $0, at which point they will go back to paying taxes on the full amount for the rest of their life.
Now, if that information is correct, what I don't understand is this.....isn't the income account value sort of an arbitrary number that has no real meaning? What is the difference between an annuity growing from $300k to $1 million, and then the company paying out 5% on a value of $1 million and paying out 1% of the account value on $5 million? The payment to the recipient is the same, but in the first scenario, they would pay taxes on the first $700k paid out, whereas the second they would pay taxes on the first $4.7 million, even though they received the same amount in each case. If all of this is correct, why wouldn't an insurance company offer no growth in value, but a much higher payout percentage (like 15% vs. 5%) of the value? You would end up with the same payouts, but the recipient would owe less taxes.....am I off base here, or am I just confused and the taxation would be on the growth on the accumulation side over the original principal as it is being taken out?
Now, if that information is correct, what I don't understand is this.....isn't the income account value sort of an arbitrary number that has no real meaning? What is the difference between an annuity growing from $300k to $1 million, and then the company paying out 5% on a value of $1 million and paying out 1% of the account value on $5 million? The payment to the recipient is the same, but in the first scenario, they would pay taxes on the first $700k paid out, whereas the second they would pay taxes on the first $4.7 million, even though they received the same amount in each case. If all of this is correct, why wouldn't an insurance company offer no growth in value, but a much higher payout percentage (like 15% vs. 5%) of the value? You would end up with the same payouts, but the recipient would owe less taxes.....am I off base here, or am I just confused and the taxation would be on the growth on the accumulation side over the original principal as it is being taken out?
Last edited: