See below. For those of us that happen to own REIT mutual funds in non-retirement accounts, how exactly does this 'advantage' work, when we file our taxes? Thanks.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/tax-reform-makes-real-estate-investment-trusts-more-attractive-53448.html
FAMag: Tax Reform Makes Real Estate Investment Trusts More Attractive
January 6, 2020 • Jeff Stimpson

... According to the IRS, income from a REIT in a mutual fund will be considered QBI, Cordes said, adding that this deduction is available for all shareholders regardless of their income level or whether they itemize or take the standard deduction.
REITs once had a worse reputation regarding taxes—a bias that lingers even after tax reform. “Most high-net-worth clients are not aware of the additional tax benefits afforded to them for REIT investments created by the TCJA,” said Davin Carey, senior wealth advisor of Carey & Hanna Tax & Wealth Planners in Oxnard, Calif., and a representative of Avantax Investment Services.

Right. Sequence of returns risk is greatest at year 1 of retirement, generally the first 10 years or so of retirement have the major risk (decreasing yearly). The 5 or so years before retirement is also very significant in determining amount of portfolio available for withdrawal. During this 15-year period, be very diversified and if you don't maintain a consistent asset allocation (say, 60/40), be more conservative in this period.

Where is the evidence that the market could "slap (you) in the face" soon?
There is none. With respect, the very person who recently told us to ignore speculative comments like this has just made one himself!
The facts all point to continued growth in the US stockmarket for the foreseeable future. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the recession theory, let alone the crash theory. Volatility, however, is normal and to be expected. For those who are new to investing or some way from retirement do not let the daily "noise" put you off making decisions. Never attempt to time the market; instead drip-feed in your money on a monthly or regular basis if you don't want to commit yourself 100%.

Did Trump just insure his re-election? No way Iran keeps quiet after this. The nuclear deal is off. Iran will do something for sure. US will go to war.
Everyone's retirement will be effed because of Artificial Idiocy. I always thought it would be Artificial Intelligence causing falling wages that would do it. I have another child fixing to go to college next year.
PS - probably should be changed to OT discussion (if possible)

Interesting. I had opened a position in YACKX about 10 years ago for the reasons listed above, with the intention of moving more of my IRA into it as I approached retirement. However, Fidelity or Yacktman placed a hard close on the fund, preventing me from buying any more shares. So, I settled on PRBLX as a suitable replacement and it has far exceeded my expectations. I’m actually glad that YACKX closed because I’ve done better in PRBLX and their investment philosophy is more aligned with my preferences.

About half of our retirement savings is still sitting in the 401K accounts for my wife’s and my former employer. It’s a good 401K plan with a range of index funds, low expenses and a decent stable value fund. We’ve been rolling over some of the funds each year to Roth IRAs, at a rate that doesn’t bump us up to a higher tax bracket. Eventually, I would also like to transfer the remaining funds to our existing Rollover and Roth IRAs.
Here’s the rub. Every time we do a transfer or rollover, the money is out of the market for up to two weeks. The markets often make big moves in two weeks time, and I prefer to stay invested. In almost every case in which I moved funds, the markets went up, so I essentially lost money by being out of the markets. So far, the amounts haven’t been huge because I’ve transferred amounts ranging from $5,000 to $20,000. However, if I decided to move my entire 401K accounts, the amounts could be sizable.
Of course, the transfers could work in my favor if the markets dropped during the time that my 401K funds are sold and reinvested two weeks later — but it never seems to work that way.
Does anyone have any ideas for speeding up the rollover/transfer process or hedging the potential losses?

https://www.businessinsider.com/retirement-saving-advice-2020-from-blackrock-bond-cio-rick-rieder-2019-12
BlackRock’s $1.7 trillion bond chief explains why it’s about to become much harder to save for retirement — and shares his best advice for doing it successfully
Safe, high-yielding investments are shrinking in availability at a time when retirement savers need them the most, according to Rick Rieder, the global chief investment officer of BlackRock’s $1.9 trillion fixed income business.
He estimates that 1.8 million people in the US will hit the retirement age of 65 every six months — double the pace from 20 years ago.

Found this old post by Junkster concerning HOBEX concerning MLPs in retirement accounts:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/110225/#Comment_110225

Bobpa: "Any opinion on LALDX or HOBEX? Thank you for all your input." .
Bobpa, I owned LALDX for years through an employment retirement menu--I considered it a good, relatively low risk, fund, with a large AUM (likely due to its being marketed through company retirement plans). I think Lord Abbot is somewhat more aggressive in their asset management approach for this fund, compared to funds like DBLSX and DHEIX. I think it can be a good fund for ballast portfolio roles, and for a conservative bond oef investor, it looks like a very viable option.
Regarding HOBEX, it is a relatively new fund (about 3 years old), generally looks to be a High Risk/High Return fund for its category. Focuses heavily on Corporate bonds, and with a bit higher volatility than most of its peers. I don't like its very high Expense Ratio (1.81) and I don't care for a relatively steep peak to trough loss in 2018 for this category of funds. It would not fit my criteria for investing, but certainly has had a high return for its category in its 3 year existence. It is not a fund I follow, not a company I am familiar with, so I personally would be careful with what I know.

" For retirees who rely on their investments for retirement income, [the time at which one starts drawing on investments] is also one of the riskiest, if not the riskiest, time in an investor’s life."
If you agree with that (I do), then it must follow, as the night the day, that your later years of retirement are less risky times. Thus it makes sense that you invest most conservatively when you begin retirement, and more aggressively as you move through retirement. In part that is to make up for the very conservative portfolio you start with.
That's the point and conclusion of work by Pfau and Kitces on rising equity glidepaths in retirement. There have been many reports and refinements of that work. I offer just one link below for the basic idea.
https://www.onefpa.org/journal/Pages/Reducing Retirement Risk with a Rising Equity Glide Path.aspx

From the AAII Journal, January 2020. Written by Julie Jason.
"For those who are soon to retire or have recently retired, there is an inflection point between receiving a paycheck from an employer and a paycheck from your portfolio. For retirees who rely on their investments for retirement income, it is also one of the riskiest, if not the riskiest, time in an investor’s life. After all, you won’t go back to work for 45 years to recover from mistakes.
What type of financial service is best for the retiree who needs to “live off of” their investments?"
ARTICLE

In NYS your tax bracket won't be that much lower in retirement - the first dollar of taxable income is taxed at 4%, and it doesn't take much ($23K for couples) to see that go up to 5.25% or even 5.9% (at $28K).
Of course NYS doesn't tax SS, so let's say that you'll be saving around 2% on the difference in rates between now and when you retire. (NY recaptures the deduction by taxing the past contributions when you make nonqualified withdrawals. See IT-201 Line 22.)
Assuming that the excess contributions earn a cumulative return of at least 20% over the years, the 10% penalty on the earnings will more than wipe out any savings on the NYS side.
Beyond that, what you've got is essentially a non-deductible IRA. The money goes in post-tax (federal), the earnings are sheltered, and then taxed as ordinary income rather than cap gains/qualified divs when withdrawn.
Post-tax contributions can make sense if you're planning to invest in very tax-inefficient funds, like the 529 Income Portfolio. But if you're planning on investing in something more tax-efficient, I don't think that nondeductible contributions pay off.
Here's another way to ask the question: are there readers who would contribute to a nondeductible IRA if they could not convert it to a Roth? If this is not a winner, and if the 10% penalty consumes any benefit you get from the (temporary) NYS tax deduction, then there's not an obvious benefit in making the excess contributions.

Here's a page related to the Michigan Retirement/Pension page that Hank linked to. It focuses specifically on Withholding Taxes.
At least for Michigan employers, "Every Michigan employer who is required to withhold federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code must be registered for and withhold Michigan income tax."
This is the concern I was voicing. Direct Roth rollovers from 403(b)s to Roth IRAs are not subject to mandatory federal withholding. But some employer administrators get this wrong and withhold at the state level anyway, viewing the state withholding as mandatory.
With respect to whether employer (public or private) pensions (including defined contribution plans) are subject to taxation based on age in Michigan vs. IRA taxation rules, all I can say is: good luck! That looks like a full employment act for Michigan CPAs.

Hi @hank
Thank you for your added information.
NOTE: this conversation is not fully in line with this post subject,except to the point of current and/or future taxation regarding the tax status of retirement monies, as to how variations exist within state jurisdictions, aside from whatever personal taxable status may exist at the federal level.
A few pieces of info from 2012 regarding the "new pension tax" in Michigan. Hank, the below item 1 is part of what did cause confusion, from wording within the new tax code, with some pertinent wording in bold by me.
--- 1. Payers Subject to the New Withholding Rules, Michigan (note: there was a last minute scramble to provide payers with withholding instructions for the new calendar year 2012, as the Michigan Supreme Court had just ruled on the Constitutional status of taxing pensions for a narrow portion of the population (read, those born between 1946-1952
)
Only those subject to Michigan jurisdiction are required to withhold Michigan income tax under the new rules. Other payers need not withhold, even though the payee resides in Michigan.
The Withholding Guide refers to the pension “administrator” as the person responsible for withholding. If the administrator is registered with Michigan Department of Treasury only for reasons other than withholding, the administrator must register again as a “pension administrator.” It is not entirely clear whether an administrator who administers payments to one person from more than one plan would have to aggregate the payments for withholding purposes. Analogy to federal law would indicate that aggregation is allowed but not required.
Mandatory Use of the MI W-4P
As mentioned above, the State of Michigan's current position is that an administrator must withhold at the prescribed rate unless the participant provides different instructions on a MI W-4P. We understand that a number of payers are disregarding that position and are continuing to use their own version of the W-4P.
Next for item 2, is a short reply to friends and family at the time (2012) asking what the hell is going on with this new pension tax. Do not imply I retain a bias favoring one political party over another. This is not the case. However, at the time; this form of tax legislation was a strange path for a Republican controlled state government. Thus, the words to help identify the pathway of the legislation for those asking the questions of me (as in, who the hell promoted and favored this legislation?).
--- 2.
I had several email exchanges with legislators, including the Lt. Governor and the state Treasurer during the beginning of this process.
The tax came to birth when the Republicans decided to reduce some business taxes.
The overview:
1. Reduce some business taxes and companies will hire more people and/or new companies will move to Michigan.
2. Michigan's budget is required to be balanced.
3. So, if one is reducing business taxes by $1.6 billion dollars, this needs to be offset from some other source.
4. Thus, the tax the pensions came to be as a source to recover the lose revenue to the state.
The legislation was introduced by a Republican, the final passage was supported by enough Republicans, with the exception of a tie vote in the MI senate, with the tie breaking vote being cast by the Lt. Governor and signed by Gov. Snyder.
The legislation was challenged in court as unconstitutional and eventually traveled to the MI Supreme court for a final decision. The court at the time was Republican dominated. The legislation was passed with a 4-3 vote as not violating the constitution.
Summary: many republicans were not in favor of this tax, but enough voted in favor to set up the tie breaking vote by the Lt. Governor and of course, favored by Gov. Snyder.
My main points in email exchanges (my opinions,2011) with legislators from both political parties were:
1. that whatever amounts would be taken away from retirees in tax, would be monies not spent locally to support those businesses.
2. the tax was targeted at a specific group (baby boomers) does violate tax code by age discrimination
3. those voting in favor are targeting their own retired parents and/or grandparents...duh!
4. a number of Michigan residents will indeed retire to a state that does not tax pensions......this has take place to some extent, so the tax money is forever gone from Michigan, as these "snow birds" stay long enough in another state to claim residence in that state as a taxpayer; although they may return to Michigan during the warmer months. (2019 update, this indeed has taken place in larger numbers; so Michigan has lost this tax base from pension monies)
This link takes you to the legislation path:
https://votesmart.org/bill/13363/35098/tax-exemption-and-pension-bill#.XgiijGYyeM_
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, Hank; wife and I both receive defined pensions from payers not domiciled in Michigan. We have taxes "only" withheld from 1 pension for federal taxes, so as to not "hit" the federal underpayment penalty box at tax time. No Michigan taxes are withheld from either pension. Generally, we pay the remainder of federal and state taxes owed when filing taxes in the next year, without underpayment penalty. As noted in my previous post, Fidelity only asks; for my IRA RMD, as to whether I choose to have any federal or state tax deducted (tell us how much or none).
Take care,
Catch

Thanks @Catch22 - Apparently T Rowe is interpreting Michigan’s law more conservatively. However, one wonders than what the purpose of the Michigan W-4P opt-out form is if funds and their shareholders aren’t required to observe the mandatory withholding regulation. I’m not doubting your word. I’ve spoke to other funds’ personnel who also seem to interpret the law more loosely than Price does. Different cultures. Different legal professionals I assume.
Here’s form W-4P https://www.michigan.gov/documents/taxes/4924_365368_7.pdf
Here’s a clarification of Michigan's law. Note that it specifically notes that IRAs are treated the same as “pensions” within the purview of the law. What are retirement and pension benefits? - https://www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,4676,7-238-43513-397990--,00.html

“ undesired withholding done by the custodian, without them communicating with us?”
Depends on the definition of “communicate.” With T. Rowe when withdrawing tax-sheltered funds online a pop-up appears stating that Michigan requires “mandatory withholding” and that a specified percentage will be withheld. Unlike Federal withholding, you do not have the option to “decline” at that time.
That’s the “default” option. However, Michigan also allows taxpayers to “opt-out” of mandatory withholding in advance by submitting form W-4P to the custodian ahead of time. I send in a new one every January 1 to custodians where I expect to take IRA withdrawals during the year. Doing that, I’ve had no trouble taking distributions free of withholding. As a safeguard, I first deposit the proceeds into a non-retirement account with the same custodian. This, I believe, would make any later corrections, if needed, easier to transact. Don’t put too much faith in what the custodian says over the phone beforehand. The knowledge level varies greatly. It’s best to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s in advance.
Re Roth Conversions. My best recollection is that all 4 firms where I did in-house conversions (Traditional to Roth) had a check-off box in the paperwork allowing one to decline Federal withholding on the amount being converted. There were no problems.
I’ll be forever grateful to the front office folks at D&C and Oakmark. I phoned both on Friday March 6, 2009 to inquire about a Roth conversion. The stock market was plummeting - as it had been for over a year. Both advised me to download the paperwork, which I completed over the weekend, and provided instruction. I called the PO and was informed the documents could be delivered on March 10 if I got them to the post office by 1:00 Monday the 9th. On the 9th a terrible snowstorm hit our area in the early morning hours. I remember driving 10 miles over barely passable roads to get the documents to the nearest post office by 1:00. But it worked. Both firms received the documents on Tuesday, March 9 and effected the Roth conversion at that day’s close. As it turned out, the market bottomed Monday, the 9th. Tuesday the Dow bounced around 300 points. So my conversion missed the absolute market bottom by 1 day. :)
(Note: I tend to think of those 2 conversions a being just 1, as they occurred together on the same date. And I’ve long since co-mingled / transferred those accounts.)

@John - why would you stop the Roth and start a SEP-IRA?

...small business owner, tax reasons...save much more in tax long term since we contribute upward of 60s K [both of us] ...
You can have 401k /sepIRA /pensions at same time as long as we don't contribute more than certain amount per yr
About 15s year til retirement probably best route to go w sep IRA in our situations

Still not clear. Having self-employed income explains why one would start a small business retirement plan such as as SEP. But it doesn't explain why one wouldn't continue funding a Roth IRA.
The only requirements for contributing to a Roth are that you have compensation and that your MAGI does not exceed certain values. A SEP reduces your MAGI (see #5 in this Kiplinger piece). So if you met the MAGI requirement before starting the SEP, you should be able to meet the MAGI requirement now; the SEP just makes it easier.
The other requirement is that you have compensation. The SEP limits your contributions to 25% of your business' profits (that's 20% after counting the SEP contribution as a profit-reducing expense). So you've still got 80% of the business profits as income. That income could be used to contribute to the Roth.
Hence the confusion. Why stop contributing to a Roth IRA?

Thanks for the input john. The new muni fund would be a small part of my portfolio. I have a large CG from AKREX in my taxable account that I plan to capture next year and buy the muni fund with that CG. I have set up my retirement to use saved cash to supplement my SS for a couple of years. I plan to be in the 0% tax bracket. This muni fund may be used to extend the cash allowing me to do some Roth conversions.

@_mark hi sir...small business owner, tax reasons...save much more in tax long term since we contribute upward of 60s K [both of us] annually...we were looking at defined benefits bit it was not worth or unless you and woife contribute >200 300k per year
..we talked w our advisor and several persons who known each uchnabout tax before starting
You can have 401k /sepIRA /pensions at same time as long as we don't contribute more than certain amount per yr
About 15s year til retirement probably best route to go w sep IRA in our situations

From the IRS:
https://irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-iras-rollovers-and-roth-conversions