What changed in IRS distribution period tables from 2025 to 2026?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The IRS distribution period tables used to calculate Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) did not change between 2025 and 2026; the Uniform Lifetime and related tables in Publication 590‑B remain the operative source for distribution periods and have been reported as unchanged since 2022 [1] [2]. What did change in the policy landscape were timing and regulatory implementation issues — notably IRS delays of new RMD regulations to the 2026 distribution year and broader tax-law adjustments that affect withholding and taxable outcomes but not the numeric distribution-period factors themselves [3] [4] [5].
1. The core fact: the distribution-period numbers stayed the same
Multiple compilations and the IRS publication itself show the same distribution-period denominators (the “life expectancy” or “distribution period” numbers) in 2025 and 2026, and third‑party trackers explicitly state the table “has remained unchanged since 2022,” meaning taxpayers continue to divide their prior‑year December 31 balance by the same denominators to compute RMDs [1] [2]. Industry tables and calculators that list the Uniform Lifetime, Single Life, and Joint Life tables use the same factors for ages (for example, age 73’s denominator of 26.5 used to compute a 2026 RMD) — illustrating no numerical changes to the tables themselves [6] [7].
2. Where reporting diverges: timing, first‑year grace, and the tax hit
Although the distribution‑period numbers didn’t move, reporting has emphasized a different, consequential change: the increase in RMD starting age to 73 for many taxpayers and the related timing rule that allows a first RMD to be delayed until April 1 of the year after reaching RMD age — a choice that can force two taxable distributions into a single calendar year if delayed [8] [9] [10]. Financial outlets stress the tax planning consequences of that timing choice — not a change in the table numbers — and advise evaluating whether to take the first RMD in the year the birthday is reached to avoid doubling income in the later year [9] [10].
3. Regulatory delay, not a table rewrite: the IRS pushed back new RMD regs to 2026
Separately, the IRS announced it would not make certain proposed RMD regulations effective until at least the 2026 distribution calendar year, a procedural shift that affects how some SECURE 2.0 and other rule clarifications are applied, but that delay does not alter the numerical distribution periods taxpayers use under Publication 590‑B [3]. In plain terms, taxpayers still use the familiar tables to compute amounts for 2025 and 2026, while the agency phases in new regulatory interpretations on schedule no earlier than 2026 [3].
4. Confusion fueled by tax‑law changes and employer withholding updates — separate from the tables
Broad 2026 tax‑code changes (for example, inflation adjustments, standard deduction shifts, and items from the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act) and the IRS’s release of draft 2026 withholding tables have dominated coverage; those changes affect taxable income and withholding obligations but do not rewrite the RMD distribution‑period factors in Publication 590‑B [5] [4]. Commentary from tax guidance firms and financial firms points to these withholding and timing shifts as the practical concerns for retirees, which can create the impression that the RMD tables themselves moved when what actually changed were tax brackets, deductions, and implementation dates [4] [11].
5. Practical takeaway and the messaging incentives of the sources
Practical guides and banks emphasize timing choices (take the first RMD in the birthday year versus delay), while aggregators provide unchanged tables for calculation — a messaging split driven by planning implications rather than table revision [9] [10] [1]. Readers should note the incentive structure: financial firms often frame the story to promote proactive planning (and services), while IRS and tax‑advisory notices focus on implementation dates and administrative relief; neither category of source provides evidence that the distribution‑period denominators themselves were revised between 2025 and 2026 [12] [3] [1].