Liz Weston

Q&A: Don’t need your RMD? Consider a QCD

June 9, 2025 By Liz Weston Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: When you’re writing about required minimum distributions from retirement accounts, please make sure people know about qualified charitable distributions. Those of us lucky enough not to need the money can donate it directly from an IRA to the nonprofits of our choice. That way, we don’t even have it in our income column, and there are no taxes. I am looking forward to making many qualified charitable distributions to my favorite nonprofits when I turn 73.

Answer: You don’t have to wait. Qualified charitable distributions from IRAs can start as early as age 70½. The distribution limit for 2025 is $108,000 per individual. If you’re considering this option, please familiarize with the IRS rules for such distributions and consider consulting a tax pro.

Q&A: Timing a Social Security application

June 9, 2025 By Liz Weston Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I know you work to maximize people’s money. I had a thought about the quality of life with Social Security. I took it at 65, which was then full retirement age. I was fully employed and did not need it to live. However, the extra money allowed us the opportunity to travel to all seven continents, help our kids with debts and down payments, and generally enjoy things with the extra cash. Now the full retirement age is 67, so there are fewer years between full retirement age and when benefits max out at 70. But the difference could still be enough for that motor home or world cruise.

Answer: All financial planning requires a balance between current and future spending. If you spend too much in the early years, you may not have enough to make it through the later ones. Retirement planning is further complicated by the fact that we don’t know how long we’ll live or how our health will hold up. We can delay spending so long that we’re no longer able to do the things we want to do, such as travel.

Still, the fact remains that when one spouse dies, one Social Security check goes away. That can lead to a devastating drop in income for the survivor. Because the survivor receives the larger of the two benefits, and may have to live on that amount for years, it almost always makes sense for the higher earner to delay filing as long as possible.

Q&A: Sharing an inherited house with your siblings? It can get complicated

June 9, 2025 By Liz Weston Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: My husband’s parents, who are 88 and 93, respectively, have decided to leave their house, worth $800,000, equally, to their three children, who are all in their sixties. The children get along well and all decisions will be made as a group. None of the adult children can afford to buy out the other two, and the three adults and their families cannot all live in the house at once. Everyone would like to keep the home, which is paid for, in the family. What solutions exist for this situation? Where do we begin, and what questions do we need to ask, thinking into the next generation?

Answer: Owning real estate with other people can be difficult, even when the individuals get along. Perhaps your generation can pull it off, but there’s no guarantee the next one will.

Let’s say the time has come to replace the roof. How will the group decide how much to spend, and will everyone be equally willing to split that considerable cost? How might the dynamics change if one family is living in the home, but the others are expected to pay for repairs and maintenance? What happens if one inheritor later wants to sell, and the others still can’t buy out that share?

Keeping the family home can feel like an important legacy to offer to your children, but not if ownership creates strife that imperils family relationships. An experienced estate planning attorney can meet with you as a group and discuss the scenarios and legal documents you may need going forward.

Q&A: Selling a house? Don’t confuse the tax rules

June 2, 2025 By Liz Weston 1 Comment

Dear Liz: We read your recent column about capital gains and home sales. Our understanding is that if you sell and then buy a property of equal or greater value within the 180-day window, the basis for tax purposes is the purchase price, plus the $500,000 exemption, plus the improvements to the property, minus the depreciation, whatever that number comes to, and then the profit above that has to be reinvested or it is subject to capital gains. We talked to our CPA about this and he referred us to a site that specializes in 1031 exchanges.

Answer: You’ve mashed together two different sets of tax laws.

Only the sale of your primary residence will qualify for the home sale exemption, which for a married couple can exempt as much as $500,000 of home sale profits from taxation. You must have owned and lived in the home at least two of the previous five years.

Meanwhile, 1031 exchanges allow you to defer capital gains on investment property, such as commercial or rental real estate, as long as you purchase a similar property within 180 days (and follow a bunch of other rules). The replacement property doesn’t have to be more expensive, but if it’s less expensive or has a smaller mortgage than the property you sell, you could owe capital gains taxes on the difference.

It is possible to use both tax laws on the same property, but not simultaneously.

In the past, you could do a 1031 exchange and then convert the rental property into a primary residence to claim the home sale exemption after two years. Current tax law requires waiting at least five years after a 1031 exchange before a home sale exemption can be taken.

You can turn your primary residence into a rental and after two years do a 1031 exchange, but you would be deferring capital gains, while the home sale exemption allows you to avoid them on up to $500,000 of home sale profits.

Q&A: Delaying Medicare enrollment? What to know

June 2, 2025 By Liz Weston Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: When my husband was approaching 65, he was employed and covered by a high-deductible healthcare plan with a health savings account by his employer. Neither his employer nor our local Social Security office had concrete advice on how to proceed about enrolling in Medicare, but after tremendous research, he eventually delayed enrollment. Now I am approaching 65. My husband is still working, and I am still covered by his health insurance, although both are in his name. Do I enroll in Medicare at the appropriate time or do I delay enrollment like he did?

Answer: Delaying Medicare enrollment can result in penalties that can increase your premiums for life. If you or a spouse is still working for an employer with 20 or more employees, however, generally you can opt to keep the employer-provided health insurance and delay applying for Medicare without being penalized. If you lose the coverage or employment ends, you’ll have eight months to sign up before being penalized.

Delaying your Medicare enrollment also allows your husband to continue making contributions on your behalf to his health savings account. In 2025, the HSA contribution limit is $4,300 for self-only coverage and $8,550 for family coverage, plus a $1,000 catch-up contribution for account holders 55 and older. Once you enroll in Medicare, HSA contributions are no longer allowed.

Medicare itself suggests reaching out to the employer’s benefits department to confirm you are appropriately covered and can delay your application. Let’s hope that by now your employer’s human resources department has gotten up to speed on this important topic.