Distribution vs withdrawal for an investment account
A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays  dividends; a stock neither has nor does it  distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you  redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions  either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund.  All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).
You can argue that cash dividend is a kind of split as well by this logic. The stock price on ex-dividend gets a hit coincidental with the dividend to be paid, so one can argue that the investor has the same cash value on the day the dividend was paid as if it wouldn't be paid at all. However, for the company to distribute stocks instead of cash may be advantageous if they have low cash reserves but significant amount of treasury stocks, and the stocks are of high liquidity.  It is also a way for the company to release treasury stocks without diluting the current shareholders and creating taxable income to the company, that's an important factor to consider. This is in fact the real answer to your question. The main difference between split and stock dividend is that in split, the stock distributions proportions don't change. With stock dividend - they do. While the outstanding share proportions do not change, total proportions do, because of the treasury stocks being distributed. So company has less stocks in its vaults, but everyone else still has the same proportions of ownership. Compare this to split: company's treasury stocks would be split as well, and it would continue essentially sitting on the same proportion of stocks. That shift of treasury stocks to the outside shareholders - this is what makes it a dividend. I'm a series 24 securities principle and have explained and trained people on questions like these more times than I can count. Although, my first recommendation is to speak to a qualified tax professional for the appropriate answer for each individual scenario.  Disclosure aside, the source of truth for these questions is always the IRS publications. In this case it's IRS pub 590b: When Must You Withdraw Assets? (Required Minimum Distributions).  IRA stands for Individual Retirement Arrangement. Basically it's an arrangement between you a the government to encourage retirement savings. Tax payers(up to a define taxable income amount) agree to receive a deduction during your working years lowering your taxable income in the present. Your taxable income should drop in retirement because you're not working anymore and any withdraws would most likely be taxed at a lower rate. To be clear the require minimum distribution is based on a life expectancy factor and the ending balance of your pre-tax retirement accounts from the prior year(for ex. 2016 ending balance for a 2017 rmd). The rmd works out to be somewhere around 3-4% of your total balance.  Most retirement account providers(if not all) have established several conveniences to automate the withdraw process. I've believe that moving funds directly to bank deposits or moving the funds to another taxable investment account are most common.  Retirement account providers are required by law to give you notifications about RMDs. Some big firms allow you to setup an auto-distribution a year before you turn 70.5 to start when they need to. Because of the 50% penalty you're given so many notifications about an RMD that it's hard to forget about it. The thing you get wrong is that you think the LLC doesn't pay taxes on gains when it sells assets.  It does. In fact, in many countries LLC are considered separate entities for tax properties and you have double taxation - the LLC pays its own taxes, and then when you withdraw the money from the LLC to your own account (i.e.: take dividends) - you pay income tax on the withdrawal again. Corporate entities usually do not have preferential tax treatment for investments. In the US, LLC is a pass-though entity (unless explicitly chosen to be taxed as a corporation, and then the above scenario happens). Pass-through entities (LLCs and partnerships) don't pay taxes, but instead report the gains to the owners, which then pay taxes as if the transaction was their personal one. So if you're in the US - investing under LLC would have no effect whatsoever on your taxes, or adverse effect if you chose to treat it as a corporation. In any case, investing in stocks is not a deductible expense, and as such doesn't reduce profits. Have you changed how you handle fund distributions?  While it is typical to re-invest the distributions to buy additional shares, this may not make sense if you want to get a little cash to use for the home purchase.  While you may already handle this, it isn't mentioned in the question. While it likely won't make a big difference, it could be a useful factor to consider, potentially if you ponder how risky is it having your down payment fluctuate in value from day to day.  I'd just think it is more convenient to take the distributions in cash and that way have fewer transactions to report in the following year.  Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is no way to definitively predict if the market will be up or down in exactly 2 years from now.  Thus, I suggest taking the distributions in cash and investing in something much lower risk like a money market mutual fund. You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA. "All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the  distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the ""cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before   she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would   not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal?  The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc," Your biggest concern will be what happens during the transition period. In the past when my employer made a switch there has been a lockout period where you couldn't move money between funds. Then over a weekend the money moved from investment company A to investment Company B. All the moves were mapped so that you knew which funds your money would be invested in, then staring Monday morning you could switch them if you didn't like the mapping. No money is lost because the transfer is actually done in $'s. Imagine both investment companies had the same S&P 500 fund, and that the transfer takes a week. If when the first accounts are closed the S&P500 fund has a share value of $100 your 10 hares account has a value of $1000. If the dividend/capital gains are distributed during that week; the price per share when the money arrives in the second investment company will now be $99. So that instead of 10 shares @ $100 you now will buy 10.101 shares @ $99. No money was lost. You want that lookout period to be small, and you want the number of days you are not invested in the market to be zero. The lockout limits your ability to make investment changes, if for instance the central bank raises rates. The number of days out of the market is important if during that period of time there is a big price increase, you wouldn't want to miss it. Of course the market could also go lower during that time. "Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have ""distributions"" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case." "Your premise is false.  When you withdraw money from a Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA), there is no tax due.  Yes, you can read that again:  withdrawals from a TFSA are tax free.  They are labeled ""tax free"" for a good reason!  After-tax money is deposited, and then from that point forward, no tax, no tax, no tax.  :-) On a ""normal"", non-registered investment or savings account with no special treatment, your investment earnings will be taxed whenever gains are realized or income received (e.g. dividends or interest).  You will necessarily have less in a normal non-registered investment or savings account compared to a TFSA, as long as the rate of return was positive, i.e. growing. Perhaps you were thinking not of comparing a regular investment account to a TFSA, but rather to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP)? In the case of an RRSP, there is an up-front tax deduction, then earnings grow tax-deferred, and then on withdrawal, income tax is paid at regular rates.  Even then, with RRSPs, if your marginal tax rate remains the same over time (not necessarily a reasonable assumption, but let's go with it) then you should still realize more after-tax income from your RRSP than from a normal non-registered investment or savings account.  (Though, there's likely an exception case when most income came as qualified dividends and the capital itself hasn't appreciated.)" There are 3 options (option 2 may not be available to you) When you invest 18,000 in a Traditional 401k, you don't pay taxes on the 18k the year you invest, but you pay taxes as you withdraw.  There's a Required Minimum Distribution required after age 70.  If your income is low enough, you won't pay taxes on your withdrawals.  Otherwise, you pay as if it is income.  However, you don't pay payroll tax (Social Security / Medicare) on the withdrawals.  You pay no tax until you withdraw. When you invest 18,000 in a Roth 401k, you pay income tax on the 18,000 in the year it's invested, but you pay nothing after that. When you invest 18,000 in a taxable investment account, you pay income tax on that 18,000 in the year it's invested, you pay tax on dividends (even if they're re-invested), and then you pay capital gains tax when you withdraw. But remember, tax rules and tax rates are only good so long as Congress doesn't change the applicable laws. My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm "Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice.  4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth.  In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of   $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The   tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But,   at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e.   the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%.  I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the ""save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%"" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides.  The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore  that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax.  It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars." Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis. "There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains.  Only long-term gains have a special rate.  Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here).  Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%.  The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total.  Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there.  The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here).  This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income.  If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax.  In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference.  As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account.  But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income.  However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term.  This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty.  See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax.  The IRS will not ""ask"" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock.  The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter.  They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once.  If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty.  It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax.  Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax." There are two basic ways you can separate your investments from the dollar (or any other currency).