BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- Save the market's decline, 2008 might seem like any other year for individual retirement accounts. But that's not so.

There were many new laws, court decisions, IRS notices and other rule changes affecting the retirement plan of choice for millions of Americans, according to Ed Slott, the nation's preeminent IRA expert.

Here's a snapshot of the top IRA changes in 2008.

New laws on distributions

By far, the biggest changes came as part of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008, or WRERA (which might be an acronym for "we're in big trouble").

Under that law, required minimum distributions for IRA owners, plan participants and beneficiaries are waived for 2009. Of note, you are still required to take your RMD if you turned 701/2 in 2008 but decided to wait until this year to take that distribution.

Another provision of WRERA: Starting in 2010, non-spouse beneficiaries aren't allowed to leave retirement plans with the former IRA owner's employer. They will have to transfer those plans to an IRA at a bank, brokerage or mutual-fund firm.

Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, sometimes called the bailout bill, IRA owners who are 701/2 can transfer up to $100,000 to a charity in 2009 without having the amount included in their gross income.

Court decisions

If an IRA owner dies and has designated a revocable trust as the beneficiary, the expectation is that the money in the IRA would be exempt from claims by creditors of the decedent, as they say in estate planning circles.

Not so, according to Seymour Goldberg, author of J.K. Lasser's "Inherited IRAs" and contributor to Slott's newsletter.

In a recent Kansas court case, creditors were able to get at the money in an IRA that named a revocable trust as the beneficiary. According to Goldberg, the lesson learned is this: Don't designate a revocable trust as the IRA beneficiary. Instead, name an irrevocable discretionary trust with spendthrift language as the beneficiary, he said.

IRS takes note of Roth conversions

Uncle Sam cleared up a big issue with IRS Notice 2008-30: A non-spouse beneficiary of a qualified retirement plan can transfer the account to an inherited Roth IRA so long as the transfer is allowed by the plan and the beneficiary meets the Roth conversion eligibility requirements, according to Slott's newsletter. Starting in 2010, plans must allow such transfers.

IRS private letter rulings

In its private letter rulings (PLRs), the IRS responds to a specific taxpayer's request for relief. But sometimes these rulings can help other IRA owners who might need guidance with similar problems. Take, for instance, PLRs 200840054 and 200835033, both of which deal with substantially equal periodic payments or 72(t) payment plans.

Some IRA owners who are under age 591/2 can avoid having to pay the 10% penalty on IRA distributions by taking money out in substantially equal periodic payments or SEPP.

In those two rulings, the IRA owner failed -- because of a mistake by the account custodian -- to take a distribution and then did a make-up distribution. Typically, the IRA owner has to pay the 10% penalty on all early distributions if he fails to take the SEPP. But the IRS ruled in these cases that the custodian was at fault and the IRA owner didn't have to pay the penalty.

Given all the mergers of financial firms lately, it's likely mistakes of this sort will increase, Slott said. If you're using a SEPP plan to withdraw money from your IRA and the custodian fails to make a payment, consider asking the IRS for relief.

Saving the 'stretch' IRA

People who inherit IRAs use their life expectancy to calculate the amount of the distribution, in effect "stretching" the IRA over their lifetimes. But in PLR 200811028, the beneficiary failed to take the required distribution for a couple of years. After realizing the mistake, the beneficiary took three years of distributions and even paid the 50% penalty due on the late RMD.

In years past, the IRS would have forced the beneficiary to withdraw the rest of the IRA money over five years. But in this PLR, the IRS gave the beneficiary permission to continue taking required distributions over her life expectancy. "This PLR now indicates that IRS now treats a stretch IRA as the default mode," according to Slott's newsletter.

Identifying the beneficiary

No matter what else you do this year, be sure to designate a beneficiary on your IRA. In PLR 200846028, the IRA owner wrote that the beneficiary is "as stated in the will." Well, the IRS says the beneficiary must be "identifiable" and forced the IRA beneficiaries "as stated in the will" to take the IRA money out in five years instead over their life expectancies - the more tax-friendly way. The takeaway? Make sure your beneficiary or beneficiaries are "readily identifiable."

Rules on disclaimers

Often IRA beneficiaries will disclaim an inherited IRA to reduce any potential tax bills. But there are right and wrong ways to do a disclaimer, according to Slott.

PLR 200837046 points to the right way. In that case, two children, one of whom was the named beneficiary and the other who was born after the IRA owner had named the older child as beneficiary. When the owner died, the oldest child disclaimed half of the IRA, in effect giving half of the IRA to the younger sibling. The older brother got to use his life expectancy for the distributions and the younger brother had to take his share of the IRA over five years.

PLR 200846003, meanwhile, was the wrong way to disclaim. In effect, an IRA owner signed a prenuptial agreement saying a trust for her new husband would be the beneficiary. Well, the wife died before she actually changed the beneficiary and all heck broke loose. Her children, who were the named beneficiaries, disclaimed the IRA. Now estate taxes might be due because the children failed to disclaim the IRA and trust assets the right way. Suffice to say: If you plan to disclaim IRAs, make sure you talk to a qualified professional.

IRA trust rulings

Many problems that arise with IRAs are the result of owners not naming beneficiaries correctly.

In PLR 200826028, the IRA owner said in his estate plan that after specific gifts were made, all remaining assets, including an IRA, would go to charity. Well, the IRS said the estate failed to pay any income tax when it transferred the IRA to the charity. This tax could have been avoided, according to Slott's newsletter, if the IRA owner had simply named the charity as the beneficiary.

In PLR 2008260008, an IRA owner named his two children as beneficiaries, one of whom was a minor. The minor's guardian asked the court for permission to create a trust for the minor's share of the IRA. Not surprisingly, the IRS ruled that the transfer of the IRA to a trust would trigger taxable income, though that tax wouldn't be due until distributions came out of the IRA.

The lesson? If you have a beneficiary who's a minor, it's best to designate "a custodian or a trust to hold an inherited IRA for the minor" rather than have to ask for a ruling later.

What the future holds

What will be the top IRA rulings in 2009? That's impossible to say just yet. The only certainty is that that there will be a list next year, too.