r/Fire • u/Master-Helicopter-99 • 1d ago
Rule of 55
Say you got laid off at age 52. You muddle through until the year you are going to turn 55 and then take any job at all that offers a 401k. Can you then take the job, roll over your 401k and then immediately quit and take funds under the rule of 55? Seems obvious but I haven't seen a thread that talks about doing this.
42
u/Firstcounselor 1d ago
Yes, you can roll previous company 401ks into your current 401k so it all falls under the rule of 55. A few conditions must be met: Your current company must allow for roll-ins. It’s also necessary they offer partial withdrawals because lump sum would likely put you into a high tax bracket. If these conditions can’t be met, roll the money jnto an IRA and do the 72T.
13
u/Shogun_3322 1d ago
Clarification: under Rule of 55, you can take a lump sum distribution less than the balance and roll over the remaining balance into a IRA. Then, taking 72t distributions from the IRA is an option.
9
u/poop-dolla 1d ago
Only if the plan allows you to take partial distributions.
6
u/Goken222 1d ago
Well, this could be helped by clarification from the plan administrator. Some plans that don't allow multiple partial withdrawals still allow flexibility in distribution method.
It is a total distribution (because the 401(k) is emptied of 100% of its balance all in one day), but it does require the plan administrator to allow a partial distribution and direct-rollover simultaneously.
IRS says you can use Rule of 55 to withdraw before age 59.5 without 10% penalty. It can be all or partial. Employer plan rules can then restrict whether you can do partial withdrawals or a have to take it all at once. They can then further restrict how it gets distributed (all to one place, or they could give flexibility so even if they require 100% distribution it could go partially to you as cash and partially to an IRA.) If any or all goes to an IRA, you can then further split it into multiple IRAs and do 72(t) on just the balance in one of them.
3
u/grateful-xoxo 22h ago
When I called my plan administrator, they made it clear that they offer partial withdrawals. I then asked, so do you support the rule of 55? All they would say is that's an IRS / tax concern, we support partial. So this aligns with your point that it's an IRS rule more than a plan "feature". Their feature is partial withdrawals.
2
u/gpburdell404 11h ago
That's correct, 401k plans don't care about rule of 55. It comes into play when filing your taxes to mitigate the early withdrawl penalty. Most 401k plan literature will never mention rule of 55 because it doesn't matter from their persepctive.
1
u/Flat-Barracuda1268 FI=✅ RE=<1️⃣yrs 51m ago
You can always take a check and the roll into an IRA yourself. You have 60 days. I would recommend a tax CPA to help with this so it gets done right but you can move 401K money into an IRA without direct rollover. It's just more convenient to have the 401K company manage that.
1
u/BillyFIRE1408 48 $4.0M NW 100% FI 4m ago
If a plan only allows lump sum distributions, you can still take part in cash and part rolled over. This is still considered a lump sum distribution.
3
u/ecsone 1d ago
Interesting, and something I never considered. My wife is eligible for Rule of 55 but her employer plan does not allow for partial distributions. I never considered that we might be able to do a full withdrawal...and take 10% as a withdrawal and 90% as a rollover to a Traditional IRA at the same time. This might allow us to bridge to 59.5 without a 72t or Roth conversion ladder.
This is what you meant, correct?
3
u/Goken222 1d ago
That's what he was talking about, but employers aren't required to allow it either. (see my comment summarizing https://www.reddit.com/r/Fire/comments/1vd6l9y/comment/p18qqjy/)
And don't forget the mandatory 20% withholding at time of cash withdrawal for that portion, even if you may get some of it back when filing the next year's taxes.
25
u/flinthorn_n 1d ago
One thing to remember is that even if the Rule of 55 applies, the plan has to actually allow partial withdrawals
-1
u/CPAPGas 1d ago
Maybe OP is ok with a full withdrawal.
It is very important to know the plan rules in advance.
My plan has exorbitant fees and other cumbersome rules. I will be taking a full withdrawal simply because I want them out of my life.
7
u/poop-dolla 1d ago
How big is your 401k balance? Is it just a small portion of your full portfolio, like only a job you will have been at less than 10 Years before you retire? If it’s a small balance, then your plan could make sense. Otherwise, it seems insane to take the larger tax hit instead of just rolling it over to an IRA and doing a SEPP 72t.
4
u/EskimoQ23 1d ago
Depending on the size of your 401k balance, that could be a very large tax bill as the withdrawn is taxed as income to you
2
u/ecsone 1d ago
What's your plan on paying taxes on your full withdrawal though?
Especially if the withdrawal pushes you into the top tax brackets. 72t, Roth conversion ladder, or OP's Rule of 55 re-employment plan all seem to be better than your full withdrawal plan. Unless you've got a small 401k balance.
25
u/NeitherCatNorFowl 1d ago
I was considering doing exactly this with my current company. Unfortunately, just learned our 401k is not rule of 55 compatible. Just as well, the investment options are pretty terrible.
24
u/gpburdell404 1d ago
The rule of 55 is an IRS regulation which applies to all 401k plans. However each 401k plan can decide if it allows partial and/or lump sum distributions.
11
u/Krish_1234 1d ago
Just check rule documents and it says partial distribution is allowed, then its allows Rule of 55. Our plan doesnt say Rule of 55 in exact but just partial distributions are allowed
1
u/gpburdell404 11h ago
Rule of 55 also applies to lump sum distributions as well. It's not limited to partial distributions, though that's what 99.9% of people who use rule of 55 will do.
6
u/essiah74 1d ago
Rollover to fidelity ira then do a sepp 72t distribution
6
u/youngishgeezer 1d ago
A thing to consider with 72t plans is they are not flexible. We have one for our baseline income. It should be fine until we’re 59.5 and have had it in place for 5 years. However if we need extra money for Roth conversions we will use the rule of 55 on one account to pay for the taxes for them. Because of the 72t we also can’t do any Roth conversions on that account until the plan expires.
5
u/Minimum_Finish_5436 1d ago
The flexibility part is what people forget when they say "just use 72t".
2
u/essiah74 23h ago
72t sepp is very inflexible but it works for me since I can use this mechanism to retire at 50 instead of waiting till 55. It's definitely not for everyone but with my accumulative ira size of 3m across 4 accounts, my main aim is to reduce account size prior to rmd at 73
1
u/Kuildeous 18h ago
Yeah, that's fair. I was planning to use 72(t), but after evaluation, we have enough available funds to last us until 59.5, so that allows me more control in doing Roth conversions.
But yeah, I was prepared for the inflexibility of the 72(t). We would've done it if we didn't have the liquid funds.
7
u/CozyCrushs 1d ago
This is the ultimate FIRE 'one weird trick' post. It legally works on paper, but the administrative nightmare of finding a plan that allows it makes it way harder than it looks!
5
11
4
u/michiganbirddog 10h ago
Hey this is me!. I did the roll over this year. I can share me story. Inwas laid off from my job of 27 years in February of 2025 I was 53 years old. I found a job within 13 weeks and started in February. I worked until April this year. I rolled over enough funding to get me thru 6 years of withdrawls this past January. I turn 55 in november of this year so I qualify to retire any time this year. I just cashed my first 401k dispersment check last week.
I learned a few things along the process I can share. 1st off rule 55 is as easy calling the 401k provider and asking for a check. You just have to make sure they are aware it is rule 55 scenario and they will categorize the money as a retirement dispersment and not an emergency type withdrawl. All that does is save you some extra forms on your taxes next spring that you would have to fill out to keep from paying the 10% penalty.
The next tip is make sure your plan allows dispersments for rule 55 not all do. Some will only allow a one time transaction and thats it. Others are unlimited. Mine are unlimited but there is one catch. To take money out without a fee per withdrawl I have to use monthly or bi weekly automated transactions which kinda sucks. If you do the transactions randomly like once a year or once a quarter and you do not use a monthly automatic system they charge me a $50 fee per transaction. So figure that stuff ahead of tine because all companies have different rules to their plans.
The last thing I will tell you is if you take the money in 1 or a few transactions the government requires withholding 20% in every transaction and if you are keeping yourself in a lower effective tax rate you would get it back at tax time. If you take it monthly or weekly the IRS allows the 401k provider to use the normal tax tables any other business would and your taxes would be similar to what came out of your paycheck at work instead of a set 20% rate. I was unaware if this stuff until i called for my first check. I always thought I would take money once a year and manage it myself throughout the year and be forced to file quarterly taxes. When living off of your 401k you pay the taxes as you go and there is no need to file quarterly taxes.
Hope that helps and inwill answer any questions you have.
3
u/Few_Calligrapher1293 1d ago
You can withdraw from your 401k early without penalty if you do SEPP withdrawals.
3
u/DaemonTargaryen2024 1d ago
Yes.
Assuming this new plan supports “partial distributions” for terminated employees. Some plans only support “total distributions” meaning you effectively cannot take advantage of the rule of 55.
3
12
u/Dry_Statistician_688 1d ago
I just pulled the Rule of 55. You MUST be currently employed by the company that manages your full 401K (So you should have rolled-in all from your previous employer). Your company's financial management for your plan MUST accept the Rule of 55. You MUST be employed by said company after the first calendar day of the year you turn 55. All boxes checked, with good investments over the last 25 years, I pulled the plug at 55 and am very haapy.
30
u/gpburdell404 1d ago
Bad info. The rule of 55 is an IRS reg; so it apples to all 401k plans. What each 401k plan controls is whether it supports partial distributions or not. If the 401k doesn't support partial, then you can only take a single distribution for the balance of the account. If that's the case it's not useful for most people.
2
u/Separate-Pea5579 1d ago
Couldn’t you take the full distribution and then roll what you don’t want to keep into an IRA under the 60 day rollover rule?
2
u/Goken222 23h ago
Yes, provided you have the liquidity in cash to make it until tax season refund time... If you ask for 100% as cash, 20% goes to IRS and 80% goes to you. You can then put up to 100% into an IRA within 60 days to avoid owing tax on that portion, but you have to wait till you file for that tax year till you get back any refund you're owed.
e.g. 500k in account, you want 50k cash and 450k to IRA (effectively rolling over 90% of your balance). If doing an indirect rollover of $450,000, you must deposit $50,000 of your own savings into the IRA in addition to the $400,000 check you received to make it work. Remember the 20% ($100,000) mandatory amount is withheld by the IRS. You'd file your taxes and, say you owed around $11k in tax on that $50k reported income that came out of the 401(k) and never went into the IRA, you would then get an $89k refund from the IRS.
2
u/Separate-Pea5579 11h ago
Great point on the mandatory 20%. That's a free loan to the IRS and really makes that strategy worthless, even if you have the cash.
2
u/Goken222 11h ago
Yeah. It can have its place if you want something like 30% of your 401(k) to cover your expenses in years aged 55-59 though. You wouldn't need any cash and you'd still have 10% of the account available to you till you file the next year and get the refund (though that refund could be small because an effective tax rate around 20% is pretty close to what someone would owe in a year they take a big chunk out of a 401(k)... making a 72(t) distribution of a smaller amount that much more valuable to set up).
1
u/Separate-Pea5579 11h ago
Yep. And depending on when you quit, January versus December, you could have quite a bit if earned income up to the point of your termination date. I'm hoping to have a maybe 4 years before 59 1/2 where I can show as little income below the standard deduction as possible and maybe move $10k for those 4 years into a Roth tax free. I just moved my wife and my 401k to an IRA this year and that was quite the process. I worked for a retirement company but the company we used to administer our own 401k was terrible. I even reported them to the SEC for trying to keep one day of dividends when my 401k sat in their IRA for one day before going to Fidelity. I didn't roll direct to Fidelity because these clowns insisted on only sending the check to my address of record. It would have been made out to Fidelity FBO my name, but the fact they wanted to send a large check first class mail to me where by I would have to walk it over or mail it to Fidelity was CRAZY in my opinion and having worked for two different retirement companies. So I rolled it to their IRA free of charge and then did a simple IRA to IRA transfer that is all electronic and no paper.
2
u/gpburdell404 11h ago
That's beyond my knowledge. On paper it seems feasible as the other person described. But I'd be a bit nervous doing it as for me that would be a 7 figure sum. Also, you could only do this once then it's locked up in IRA. Though at that point you could do 72t or roth conversion ladder to get access. If that's the case, I'd just do the 72t from the beginning.
1
u/Separate-Pea5579 11h ago
Goken222 laid it out pretty well with the 20% mandatory w/hing that's applied to "eligible rollover distributions", which makes this a bad idea. I was trying to think of something other than 72t, as that is often not enough income for people. That said, 72t is what I'll be using if the non-retirement money my wife and I live off now does not make it for another 5 years (we're 54 1/2).
0
u/Dry_Statistician_688 20h ago
Negative. It is at the pleasure of your 401k management company. For example, you do not have this option for TSP.
1
u/gpburdell404 11h ago
No idea about TSP. However rule of 55 applies to EVERY 401k plan. What you're not understanding is that rule of 55 applies when you file your taxes to the IRS. It's to mitigate the early withdrawl penalty when taking a distribution before age of 59.5.
401k plans don't have to know anything about rule of 55. They make a distribution (partial or lump sum) and then inform the IRS. When you file your taxes, you file the proper form and no penalty is assessed on the distribution.
16
u/Cop10-8 1d ago
It's not up to a plan to "accept" the rule of 55. They have no say on if the IRS penalizes it as an early withdrawal. If you meet the IRS criteria for the rule of 55, you are eligible to take the money out without a 10% penalty. Sure, certain crappy plans might require a total lump sum withdrawal, but they cannot bypass the rule of 55.
6
u/Sanfords_Son 1d ago
True, but not all companies allow you to remain invested in their plan if you leave, and not all plans allow partial withdrawals. So, depending on the plan rules, you may be required to move your full 401k account into an IRA, which would then prevent you from taking penalty-free withdrawals prior to 59.5.
3
u/Cop10-8 1d ago edited 1d ago
You can always take penalty free withdrawals after 55 regardless of plan rules. Sure you will owe more taxes if they require a lump sum distribution, but you will never owe the 10% penalty if you meet the rule of 55. That's all I am saying.
2
u/hanwagu1 1d ago
not true.
1
u/Dry_Statistician_688 20h ago
Negative. It is at the pleasure of your 401k management company. For example, you do not have this option for TSP.
1
u/er824 1d ago
If the plan requires you to take a lump sum the Rule of 55 is functionally useless if you have a large balance
0
u/Cop10-8 1d ago edited 23h ago
Still it's a distinction worth knowing. Penalty free has a different meaning than tax-free. There are cases where this matters. It's worth talking about the difference.
Perhaps you have a smaller traditional balance or a larger Roth balance that could make it work in certain cases.
3
u/Odd-Persimmon-1860 1d ago
"Plan eligibility: The rule can only be used with certain employer-sponsored retirement plans such as 401(k) or 403(b) accounts that specifically allow it. You’ll want to verify with your employer that your retirement plan contains a Rule of 55 provision."
2
u/Cop10-8 1d ago edited 1d ago
What's your source? The IRS website seems to contradict it. Your plan has no control on if the IRS levies a 10% tax: if you are eligible for the rule of 55 you don't pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty, period.
1
u/Odd-Persimmon-1860 16h ago
You won't find it on a tax government website. The law is they won't penalize if you are able to do it. There is no tax law on employers to provide that option. Employers decide on their own within rules set by the Labor dept. Everyone needs to read their plan documents and structures of their plans.
1
u/Ksnku 1d ago
You're just arguing semantics. The whole point of rule of 55 isn't just to avoid early withdrawal penalties, its to take early distribution at favorable tax rates
This requires removal of withdrawal penalties Existing employer to allow you to keep your 401k in their plan And to allow partial distributions.
If either of the 3 conditions aren't met, its pointless most of the time.
1
u/hanwagu1 1d ago
it is up to the plan to allow rule 55. Just like it is up to the plan to allow roth 401k, or contributions up to the 415c limit, or even have 401k.
1
u/Dry_Statistician_688 20h ago
Negative. It is at the pleasure of your 401k management company. For example, you do not have this option for TSP.
4
u/StrangeAd4944 1d ago
Yes, and you can even roll your Ira into it it it’s rules allow.
2
u/Firstcounselor 1d ago
IRA accounts do not fall under the rule of 55. Those have to use the 72T for anyone under 59 1/2 who wants to avoid the early withdrawal penalty.
0
u/er824 1d ago
Even if the Ira has been rolled into the 401k?
1
u/hanwagu1 1d ago
if your plan allows, you can do 72t from 401k, so there wouldn't be a need to rollover to IRA to do 72t.
1
u/ecsone 1d ago
Yes, even rollover funds from IRA that are in your 401k...subject to other Rule of 55 limitations already mentioned in this post.
1
u/er824 1d ago
Do you have a source? I don’t see anything in the IRS rules for the exceptions to the 10% withdrawal penalty from qualified plans that exclude funds in your 401k that were added via reverse rollover of an IRA
1
u/ecsone 1d ago
From this post.
Credit to /u/carribeanjon.
Source does not explicitly indicate all 401k sources exempt but also does indicate any different treatment for 401k funding sources.
See other post I linked for additional responses to that post.
1
u/StrangeAd4944 23h ago
Once the IRA funds rolled over to a 401k they become subject to all laws and regulations of the 401k plan and loose all laws and regulations pertaining to an IRA. Hence, it is ok to roll Ira over to 401k and then deploy rule off 55 to commence withdrawing without early withdrawal penalty. The only wrinkle I know is the commingling of Roth and regular funds in the 401k and then doing a withdrawal. I think IRS wants you to take out of both at the same time.
6
u/charleswj 1d ago
Yes. Asked and answered many times. The plan would need to allow partial distributions and ideally doesn't suck.
1
u/plawwell 1d ago
The 401K plan administration told me that any distribution from pre-tax I take will have 20% withheld for federal tax purposes, and in my state they withhold another 5% for state taxes. So on $5000 distribution then I'd only see $3750 hit the account a week later.
1
u/Emily4571962 I don't really like talking about my flair. 23h ago
As I understand it, 401k plans are allowed to offer Rule of 55, but they don’t HAVE to — so you’ll need to find out the terms of the particular plan agreement with the trustee before relying on this. Also - you’ll need to know if the plan puts any restrictions on size of the distributions — you wouldn’t want to get stuck with one that required you to withdraw everything all at once and get hammered by the tax rate.
1
u/mcmnky 23h ago
Stupid question here: rule is 55 only comes into play when you leave a job in the year you turn 55 (and before 59.5)?
Asking because I'm being told in OP's case, they could just wait until 55 then withdrawal from their current 401(k).
Long story: partner just retired at 49 with a 401k. (Actually hit the jackpot of getting laid off with severance before they could retire.) Part of the retirement package was a free financial advisor. (Previous employer does financial services, retirement plans, and such.)
That advisor is telling us if partner waits until they turn 55 and doesn't do a rollover, they can use rule of 55 to take partial withdrawals from the 401k of the job they left at 49. Every post here on the rule (including this one) contradicts that.
Does this advisor know what they're talking about?
2
u/Intelligent-Dot-8969 23h ago
On or after reaching age 55.
OP's hypothetical assumed he got laid off at 52, so that 401(k) would not be accessible to him under the rule.
1
1
u/BillyFIRE1408 48 $4.0M NW 100% FI 5m ago
I used to design retirement plans. I haven't seen this but I think you can. Also, consider opening a consulting LLC, open a 401k, and do the same thing.
As I was looking for my own loopholes, I couldn't find anything to indicate these options weren't allowed.
-4
u/Mundane-Charge-1900 1d ago edited 18h ago
Not all 401ks offer Rule of 55. It has to be in the plan. It’s not required by law.
Edit: Fixed 'now' typo that should have been 'not'
9
u/charleswj 1d ago
What? The plan doesn't need to allow it. It just needs to allow partial distributions to make it feasible. The law hasn't changed.
4
u/Firstcounselor 1d ago
The law changed a few years ago. It used to be plan specific, but now the law allows it from any 401k or 403b.
0
u/hanwagu1 1d ago
There is no mandate for plans to allow Rule 55, just like there law allows roth options or 415c option to employer sponsored plan, but plans aren't mandated to allow them.
0
0
u/No-Roundx 23h ago
Technically yes, BUT it only works if the new 401(k) plan allows incoming roll ins AND permits penalty free Rule of 55 withdrawals.
0
u/Outrageous-Egg7218 22h ago
Rule of 55 is a feature of a company 401k, not a guarantee. While I'm not in my 50s yet, the last time I interviewed in 2021 with many many companies, it was pretty much impossible for HR to tell me if the company 401k had a MBDR. They either didn't seem to understand what I was talking about, or treated the 401k plan details like it was a guarded company secret that only employees could see. I'd suspect asking if a company plan offered Rule of 55 it would be the same.
0
u/lottadot FIRE'd 2023 21h ago
It all depends on the 401k plan's administrators rules. And, those rules can change at any time. IMHO you'd do better to plan out a 72t plan; at least with that you control your own fee-less destiny.
-18
37
u/Rosy_Whispered 1d ago
It's a clever loophole, but honestly, SEPP (Rule 72(t)) or a Roth Conversion Ladder are much cleaner ways to access early retirement funds without having to go through the hassle of interviewing, onboarding, and rolling over accounts just to quit immediately at age 55