Payment default penalties on annuities
"I don't know how annuities work it's all smoke and mirrors to me. This is a huge red flag to me. I would ask the agent what the penalty is to cancel this contract, and see ho much you can get back. If done right, you should be able to transfer these funds to an IRA or other pretax account.  To be clear, I'd make a similar remark if you said your were in a S&P ETF or any investment you don't understand. ""Appropriate investment"" means little if the investor has no understanding of what they are buying.  Update in repose to comments -"
"I think you want to look at companies that buy annuities and give you a lump sum.   They exist to do this for lawsuit payments, lottery winnings, etc. I'm not sure what the fees would be on a relatively small payout of $6K but try searching for ""converting annuity to cash"" and the first several hits were all firms looking to buy structured payment settlements for a lump sum. They make their money by paying less than the present-day value of the annuity, so you will get less money this way than collecting your payments slowly." "Be very careful about terminology when talking about annuities.  You used the phrase ""4% return"" in your question.   What exactly do you mean by that?   An annuity that pays out 4% of its principle is not giving you a ""4% return"" in the sense of ROI, because most of that was your money to begin with.   But to achieve a true 4% return in the current environment where interest rates are at historic lows on anything safe (10 year UK Gilts at 0.91%) would make me very nervous about what the insurance company is investing my annuity in." What I'm going to write is far too long for a comment, so I'll put it here even though its not an answer. That's the closest thing to an answer you'll get here, I'm afraid. I'm not a tax professional, and you cannot rely on anything I say, as you undoubtedly know. But I'll give you some pointers. Things you should be researching when you have international clients: Check if Sec. 402 can apply to the pension funds, if so your life may become much easier. If not, and you have no idea what you're doing - consider referring the client elsewhere. You can end up with quite a liability suit if you make a mistake here, because the penalties on not filing the right piece of paper are enormous. The principal of the contribution can definitely be withdrawn tax-free and penalty-free. However, there is a section that makes me think that the earnings part may be subject to penalty in addition to tax. In Publication 590-A, under Traditional IRAs -> When Can You Withdraw or Use Assets? -> Contributions Returned Before Due Date of Return -> Early Distributions Tax, it says: The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59½   does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions.   However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported   on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to   the age 59½ rule, it will be subject to this tax. This section is only specifically about the return of contributions before the due date of return, not a general withdrawal (as you can see from the first sentence that the penalty doesn't apply to contributions, which wouldn't be true of general withdrawals). Therefore, the second sentence must be about the earnings part of the withdrawal that you must make together with the contribution part as part of the return of contributions before the due date of the return. If the penalty it is talking about is only about other types of withdrawals and doesn't apply to the earnings part of the return of contribution before the due date of the return, then this sentence wouldn't make sense as it's in a part that's only about return of contribution before the due date of the return. This isn't new. In the mid 80s rules were established by the IRS to differentiate life insurance from Modified Endowment Contracts, placing upper limits on how much money could be placed in life insurance accounts relative to the coverage provided and how quickly (fastest a policy can become paid-in-full is 7 years). None of this closes the fundamental loophole, but it exists for a reason, taxation of life insurance is probably unwise and would result in less people using life insurance as a risk mitigation technique, despite the fact that it's very appropriate for that in some situations.  The problem here is that once you get out of everyday-people numbers and into very large sums the vehicle can be clearly abused to avoid taxes on investment gains while living, and possibly avoid them altogether depending on how the estate is structured, and this is bad for the average person who'd like the megarich to pay their percent towards the public needs the same way the average guy does. Make sure you do not buy a variable annuity look for immediate annuity.   Clark Howard has an article Why Variable Annuities Stink  Variable annuities Right now, the 15 largest insurance sellers of variable annuities are being asked to reveal the expensive perks they offer to salespeople who meet quotas for pushing this junk. Those perks include free cars, vacations, jewelry, cash, etc. Immediate Annuities Immediate payout annuities are entirely legitimate, but they have so little in the way of commissions that they're never pushed by salespeople. The penalty for excess contributions is 6 percent. The 6 percent is assessed on the amount of the overage. This penalty is an excise tax. If you remove the excess amount prior to the end of the tax year, you will not be assessed a penalty on the excess contribution amount. Above is from http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/401k/a/401k-Penalties-To-Avoid.htm IANAL, but it sounds like indemnification language. They are saying they have the option to charge expenses to participants if they would like. It should say explicitly (you mention that it does) who the 'default payer' is. Unexpected expenses could be anything that's not in the normal course of business. I know that doesn't help much, but some examples may be plan document restatements or admin expenses from plan failures/corrections. We have language in some of our PFDs that say in the absence of revenue-sharing a participants' share of expenses may be higher. Yes, 'from participant accounts' means they have the authority to deduct from your 401k account. The way the question is worded, it is slightly opinion based. Just to point out;   Tax benefits - Upto 50000 INR is tax free when invested here. This is actually 200,000 INR under 80C. So if you invest max of 150,000 in other instruments in 80C; you can still invest 50,000 into NPS. Hopefully it will provide some lumpsum money that I could probably use to buy a house / kid's education / kid's marriage. There are very few withdrawal options. Generally in the current scenario; By the time you retire; you would already have house, kid would have got married. Answers given the current data is it a worthwhile investment? It is a good investment option available. It is up to individual to select this or invest else where. If yes, would be better to fix choice at 50% in E and 25% in C and E or go for the auto choice? As you are young it is better to have max 50% in Equity and actively monitor this and change the percentage as you near the retirement age. If you don't have time, or are not financial savy, or one is plain simple lazy; going with Auto choice makes sense. bad investment because if you put the same money into equity oriented mutual funds then you will get better returns ... This depends. If you are currently investing everything into Equity; then yes at absolute level, the returns are high. However if you are investing into Equity and debt to achieve a balance, then NPS is doing it automatically for you. As the NPS has very low costs, there is substantial advantage. In some years [2013-2014?] the NPS equity return has been excellent and exceeded leading mutual funds. Other Aspect Edits: The Annuities need to invest in guaranteed risk free instruments; generally bonds. As the rates are locked for life, they need to factor things like average life expectancy, demographics, etc. This is largely statistical. Similar to how the Insurance premiums are decided. This is adjusted periodically. Say they offer 6.5% for 100 people. The investments into bonds is yielding only 6%. Then for next 100 people, they would offer 5.5%. However if the mortality increases, i.e. 50 people die at age of 70, they just need to adjust it to 5.75% for next 100 ... so there are quite a few parameters that go in and statical models output what the rate should be offered. At times the corpus manager may take a hedge to minimize downside. This is a specialized subject and there no dummies that show how rates are determined. It is also a trade secret. This sounds a lot like an Equity-indexed Annuity.  They date from about 1996 (there is a bit of skepticism about them, as they are tricky to understand for the typical investor).  For instance, an equity indexed annuity pays a portion of the gain in an index (like S&P 500) when the stock market rises, and guarantees you won't lose if it falls.  In an arbitrage sense, it is roughly equivalent to buying a mixture of bonds and index (call) options. There are a lot of complicated 'tweaks' on these, such as annual ratchet/annual reset, interest caps, etc. There is quite a bit of debate about whether they are too good to be true, so I'd read a few articles with pros and cons before buying one. These are also commonly called FIA (Fixed indexed annuities). "There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum.  So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said ""ignoring tax implications"". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation." "we can then start taking penalty free withdrawals from it? There's no ""we"" in IRA. There's ""I"". That stands for ""Individual"". So your wife's age has no influence whatsoever on your ability to make qualified distributions from your IRA. The reason courts order distributions from IRAs is due to the community property laws of various States or other considerations that make spouses entitled to the amounts in the IRAs. However, you're talking about family law here, not tax law. For Federal tax purposes, a distribution ordered by the court doesn't trigger penalty (but is taxable), but any other distribution has to follow the regular qualification criteria." IANAL but I'd think common sense would say that if you take advantage of one of the special cases that allow you to withdraw from a retirement plan without penalty, and then for whatever reason you don't use the money for a legal purpose, you would have to either return the money or pay the tax penalty. And I'll go out on a limb here without any documentation and guess that if you lie to the IRS and say that you withdrew the money for an exempt purpose and instead use it to go on vacation and you get caught, that you will not only have to pay the tax penalty but will also be liable for criminal charges of tax fraud. If the law and/or IRS regulations say that the only legal exceptions are A, B, and C, that pretty clearly means that if you do D, you are breaking the law. And in the eyes of the government, failing to pay the taxes you owe is way worse than robbery, murder, or rape. I work for a mortgage company but one that sells the loans we fund to banks. I've never heard of that risk mitigation incentive (lower rate for auto payments) but I know for a fact you will have a higher interest rate if you choose to pay your taxes and insurance out of your own pocket and not escrow them. I would contact the CFPB instead of an attorney and they will be able to tell you very quickly whether this is an acceptable practice or not. "The instructions do specifically mention them, but not as exclusive plans.  Pension and annuity payments include distributions from 401(k),   403(b), and governmental 457(b) plans. The instructions also mention this: An eligible retirement plan is a governmental plan that is a qualified   trust or a section 403(a), 403(b), or 457(b) plan. 414(h) plans are ""qualified"" plans. Employee contribution to a 414(h) plan is qualified under 403(b). Report it there and mark it as ""Rollover"". Talk to a licensed (EA/CPA licensed in your state) professional when in doubt."