Estate planning Category
Dear Liz: I’m 65 and my wife is 62. We recently sold a business for over $900,000 and will net somewhere between $550,000 and $600,000. Should we use the proceeds to pay off our mortgage? Our home is worth about $1.5 million with a mortgage of $390,000 at 3.586%. We contribute an extra $200 per month to reduce the principal. We have no other debt. Our savings, retirement and brokerage accounts total $1.2 million. My wife receives a pension of $483 a month and works part time as a substitute teacher. I plan to continue working until age 70 with a salary of about $170,000 per year. On retirement we should receive about $4,400 per month in Social Security benefits.
Answer: Many people feel more comfortable having their mortgages paid off by the time they reach retirement age — even when the interest rates on the loans are so low they’d almost certainly get better returns elsewhere. (The after-tax cost of your mortgage is likely less than the longtime inflation rate of about 3%.) Not having a mortgage payment can substantially reduce your monthly expenses, which means you have to take less from your retirement accounts. Such withdrawals often trigger taxes, so you essentially save twice.
Other people feel perfectly comfortable carrying a mortgage into retirement. They’re happy to take advantage of extraordinarily cheap interest rates and keep themselves more liquid by deploying their savings elsewhere. And many people have to carry debt because they can’t pay it off before they retire, or paying off the mortgage would eat up too much of their available funds.
Because you do have choices, discuss them with a fee-only financial planner. If you pay off the mortgage and invest what’s left, you could draw about $50,000 from your retirement funds the first year without a huge risk of running out of money. That plus your Social Security and your wife’s pension may give you enough to live on. If not, you may want to invest your windfall and continue paying the mortgage down over time.
Dear Liz: You’ve been writing about people who expect inheritances they don’t get. Here’s another situation. My elderly dad thought he’d tied up everything in a trust, but his surviving elderly second spouse regularly invaded the principal instead of just receiving the interest. She would simply call her broker and ask for whatever she wanted. The broker, not being a knowledgeable trust officer, would send her the money. Finally, to soothe a fretting sibling, my husband and I paid for an estate lawyer to move the trust from Stepmom’s broker to a good third-party trust institution. It took more than a year plus paying a fee (OK, a bribe) for Stepmom to relinquish her direct access to the trust. She continued to receive the interest and was quite well off. She never did understand why we thought she was doing something wrong.
Answer: People set up trusts for a variety of reasons, but the type you’re describing is usually used to preserve an inheritance for the children while allowing the surviving spouse to live off the income. These trusts typically allow the survivor to tap the principal for certain purposes (“health, education, maintenance and support” is the usual phrase used). A trustee who’s asleep at the switch may allow the spouse to dig too deep, which not only reduces the children’s inheritance but also endangers the whole structure of the trust, which is designed to save future estate taxes. Your investment in hiring a competent trustee could save a lot of expense and hassle in the long run.
Dear Liz: I am 70 and my wife is 59. My pension covers us for both our lifetimes. We have no debt. My wife and I do not need the required minimum distributions I will soon have to start taking from my 457 deferred compensation plan, which is currently worth $1 million. I planned to invest these distributions in an index fund to leave to our son. My accountant recommends instead that I buy a joint whole life insurance policy for me and my wife because it will be tax free when our son inherits our estate years from now. Does it make sense to buy insurance as an estate planning tool?
Answer: Does your accountant sell insurance on the side, by any chance?
Because a tax pro should know that the money in that index fund would get a so-called step up in tax basis when you die and your son inherits the account. If he promptly sold the investments, he wouldn’t owe any taxes on the growth in the account (the capital gains) that happened while you were alive. Even if he hangs on to the investments for a while, he would owe capital gains tax only on the growth in value since your death. That’s a pretty awesome deal.
If you buy life insurance, by contrast, you’d have to weigh any tax benefit against the not-insubstantial amount you’d pay the insurer for coverage. At your ages, such a policy would be far from cheap.
Any time someone suggests that you buy life insurance when you don’t actually need life insurance, you would be smart to run the proposed policy past a fee-only advisor — one who doesn’t receive commissions or other incentives to sell insurance.
There’s an outside chance that your accountant recommended a permanent life insurance policy for estate tax purposes. These taxes will be an issue only if the combined estate of you and your wife is worth more than $10 million. If that’s the case, you should consult an estate planning attorney about your options.
Dear Liz: Both of our sons, ages 63 and 59, are currently unemployed. We are 93 and self-supporting with Social Security and my retirement benefits. We live in our own home and are able to handle all our expenses, even though my wife requires a companion for 12 hours each day.
I believe we should financially aid both sons, to the limit of our ability, but my wife disagrees.
They are the two main beneficiaries of our estate. Each one is scheduled to receive about $40,000 upon our deaths. How should we proceed?
Answer: If your estates won’t amount to much more than $80,000 at your deaths, it doesn’t sound as if you have the financial wiggle room to help your sons. Your wife already requires significant care and may need more in the future. Plus, she’s likely to outlive you, which would mean getting by on less (certainly a smaller Social Security benefit, and perhaps a smaller pension amount as well). Any money you give them, in other words, is likely to be to her detriment.
Dear Liz: If your in-laws promised you and their son their house, and have for over 20 years, and the whole family is aware that was the plan — your mother-in-law even had a will and a deed made up — do you think the executor of the estate has the right to do away with the will and take matters into her own hands? Do you think the daughter-in-law and the son have a right to stick up for what the parents wanted?
Answer: There’s a big difference between drafting documents and executing them.
Presumably the deed wasn’t executed, or used to legally transfer the house into your names. Otherwise this dispute wouldn’t be happening. Is the same true of the will? In other words, did your mother-in-law sign it in the presence of disinterested witnesses (people who don’t inherit)?
If the will was properly executed, then in most states it must be filed with the probate court. The executor is supposed to follow the will’s dictates to the extent possible. (If your mother-in-law left more debts than assets, for example, there might not be enough left over to distribute according to a will.)
What seems likely is that your husband’s mother failed to follow through on her promise. If that’s the case, and there is no will, then the executor is obliged to follow state law to determine who gets what.
The results may not be what you hope. The home may need to be sold to pay creditors or to allow an equitable distribution of assets among all the legal heirs.
This assumes the executor is living up to her fiduciary duty. If she truly is taking matters into her own hands, however — deciding how the estate will be distributed without reference to a will or state law — then you and your husband should hire an attorney to file a lawsuit in probate court to get her removed and replaced with someone more responsible.
Dear Liz: My brother passed away, and for one of his bank accounts, he had named me as his beneficiary. Do I have to pay taxes on the $100,000 I received? Is it subject to a gift tax?
Answer: Estate taxes are paid by estates, not by inheritors, said estate attorney Burton A. Mitchell of Los Angeles firm Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell. The vast majority of estates don’t owe taxes anyway, now that the estate tax exemption limit is over $5 million.
Some states have estate taxes with lower exemption limits, and a few have what are called “inheritance” taxes, which are levied based on the relationship of the heir to the deceased, Mitchell said. The more distant the relation, the higher the tax rate. Siblings typically face a higher rate than spouses or children. Ask the executor of your brother’s estate whether any of these taxes apply.
Gift taxes, meanwhile, are the responsibility of the giver and again aren’t an issue for the vast majority of people. Your brother would have had to give away more than $5 million in his lifetime for federal gift taxes to be an issue.
Your inheritance may, however, be subject to creditors’ claims if your brother didn’t leave enough money to satisfy his debts, Mitchell said. Check with the executor of his estate and consult an attorney if necessary.
Dear Liz: I inherited my brother’s Roth IRA about three years ago. I find it hard to get any information about non-spousal inherited Roths. Can you tell me more about this type of Roth IRA?
Answer: It may be unfortunate that you didn’t ask sooner.
When a spouse inherits a Roth IRA, he can roll it into his own Roth IRA, and it’s as if he or she was the owner of the inherited funds all along. There’s no minimum distribution requirement, so the money can continue to grow.
If you’re not a spouse, you have the option of transferring it into an account titled as an inherited Roth IRA. You also have the option of taking distributions over your lifetime — which means keeping the bulk of the money growing for you tax-free — but to do that you must begin taking required minimum distributions by Dec. 31 of the year after the year in which the owner died.
If you didn’t start these required distributions on time, you have to withdraw all the assets in the account by Dec. 31 of the fifth year after the year your brother died, said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for CCH Tax & Accounting North America. You won’t have to pay taxes on this withdrawal, but it would have been better to let the money continue to grow tax-free in the account.
Dear Liz: I am 64. My grown children, ages 23 and 25, are the beneficiaries of my retirement accounts. I have a Roth IRA, a SIMPLE IRA and a Rollover IRA. When I die, what will be the tax consequences for them? Will they have to pay any tax upon inheriting the accounts, and will they have to pay any tax when they withdraw the money over time?
Answer: If your estate is worth less than $5 million, it’s unlikely it will incur federal estate taxes. Some states have lower exemption limits and a few have inheritance taxes. New Jersey and Delaware have both. An online search for “state estate and inheritance taxes” should turn up the situation for your state.
Your children won’t have to pay income taxes on distributions from your Roth, but unlike you or a spouse they are required to take distributions once they inherit the account. They can either do so within five years of your death or they can opt to spread the distributions over their lifetimes (which is usually the better option).
Minimum distributions also will be required from your IRAs. Your heirs will have to pay income taxes on those distributions.
Advise your children to consult a tax pro after you die, since these accounts need to be properly handled and titled to get the most benefit.
Dear Liz: I am a CPA and fairly knowledgeable about investing, but I have a question about my IRAs. I am 58 and my husband is in his mid-80s. We both are retired with federal pensions and no debt other than a mortgage. My plan is to start taking money annually from my traditional IRA in two or three years. I want to reduce the required minimum distribution I will need to start taking at age 701/2 and lessen the tax impact at that time. Should I put these annual withdrawals in my regular investment account or should I put them in the Roth IRA? My goal is to lessen the tax impact on my only child when he ultimately inherits this money. Does my plan make sense?
Answer: Your letter is proof that our tax code is too complex if it can stymie even a CPA. Still, it’s hard to imagine any scenario where you’d be better off accelerating withdrawals from an IRA and putting them in a taxable account.
A required minimum distribution “is merely a requirement to take the money out anyway,” said Certified Financial Planner Michael Kitces, an expert in taxation. “All you’re doing by taking money out early to ‘avoid’ an RMD [required minimum distribution] is voluntarily inflicting an even more severe and earlier RMD on yourself.”
In other words, you’d be giving up future tax-advantaged growth of your money for no good reason.
What might make sense, in some circumstances, is moving the money to a Roth. You can’t make contributions to a Roth if you’re not working, because Roths require contributions be made from “earned income.” What you can do is convert your traditional IRA to a Roth, either all at once or over time. You have to pay taxes on amounts you convert, but then the money can grow tax-free inside the Roth and doesn’t have to be withdrawn again during your lifetime, since Roths don’t have required minimum distributions. Whether you should convert depends on a number of factors, including your current and future tax rates and those of your child.
“In other words, if your tax rate is 25% and your child’s is 15%, just let them inherit the [traditional IRA] account and pay the lower tax burden,” said Kitces, who has blogged about the Roth vs. traditional IRA decision at http://www.kitces.com. “In reverse, though, if the parents’ tax rate is lower … then yes, it’s absolutely better to convert at the parents’ rates than the child’s. In either scenario, the fundamental goal remains the same — get the money out when the tax rate is lowest.”
If you do decide to convert, remember that the conversion itself could put you in a higher tax bracket.
“It will be important not to convert so much that it drives up the tax rate to the point where it defeats the value in the first place,” Kitces said. “Which means the optimal strategy, if it’s to convert anything at all, will be to do partial Roth conversions to fill lower tax brackets but avoid being pushed into the upper ones.”