@VolvoGirl because the RMD is the IRS-specified total amount required to be withdrawn from all IRAs in a given year. A distribution itself is not an RMD. It might satisfy the RMD requirement but it is not an RMD. If you have two IRA's with two different RMD's, lets say 5k for the first and 6k for the second, and you get a distribution from the first IRA of 5k that meets THAT IRA's RMD, but you get a distribution from the second IRA of 1k which is insufficient, you might answer turbotax's question as "the entire distribution was a RMD" for the first IRA and "only part of this distribution was a RMD" for the second. OR if you got a distribution of 7k for the second, you could ALSO interpret the question to be "only part of this distribution was a RMD" for the second, because you got 7k, and only 6k of that distribution was required in order to satisfy the RMD. If you got 15k from the first IRA and $100 from the second, you've met your RMD for both, but you could answer for the second that "none of this distribution was a RMD" because you met the RMD with your distribution from the first. See why the wording has to change?
