April 11, 2022 By

Q&A: The rules have changed on inherited IRAs. Here’s what you need to know

Dear Liz: My husband and I have a combination of traditional and Roth IRAs naming our children and grandchildren as beneficiaries. With the passage of the Secure Act requiring distribution of inherited IRAs within 10 years, we want to revise our plan of leaving all of the investments to our children, as such inherited income would affect their tax bracket also. Do you have recommendations to alter the inherited IRAs to avoid this issue? Our annual fixed income puts us at the top of our tax bracket, meaning we usually cannot manage a traditional IRA to Roth conversion.

Answer: The Secure Act dramatically limited “stretch IRAs,” which allowed people to draw down an inherited IRA over their lifetimes. Now most non-spouse inheritors must empty the accounts within 10 years if they inherited the IRA in 2020 or later.

There are some exceptions if an heir is disabled, chronically ill or not more than 10 years younger than the IRA owner, says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. These “eligible designated beneficiaries” can use the old stretch rules, as can spouses. Minor children of the IRA owner can put off withdrawals until age 21. At that point, the 10-year rule applies.

If you had a potential heir who qualifies, you could consider naming them as the beneficiary of a traditional IRA and leaving the Roth money to the other heirs. (The IRA withdrawals will be taxable while the Roth withdrawals won’t.) Or you could leave the IRA to the children in lower tax brackets and the Roth to those in higher tax brackets.

If you’re trying to divide your estate equally, though, these approaches could vastly complicate matters because the balances in the various accounts could be quite different. Plus, predicting anyone’s future tax brackets can be tough.

Another approach is to name your children along with your spouse as the primary beneficiary of your IRA. That way, the children would get 10 years to spend down this first chunk of your IRA money after you die. When your survivor dies, they would get another 10 years to spend down the remainder, giving them 20 years of tax-deferred growth.

Alternately, you could focus on spending down the IRA to preserve other assets for your kids. The stretch IRA rules encouraged people to preserve their IRAs, but now it may make more sense to focus on passing down assets such as stock or real estate that would get a valuable “step up” in tax basis at your death.

Converting IRAs to Roths is another potential strategy for those willing and able. In essence, you’re paying the tax bill now so your heirs won’t have to pay taxes later (although they’ll still have to drain the account within 10 years). It may be possible to do partial conversions over several years to avoid getting pushed into the next tax bracket.

There are a few other approaches that involve costs and tradeoffs, such as setting up a charitable remainder trust that can provide beneficiaries with income. These are best discussed with an estate planning attorney who can assess your situation and give you individualized advice.

Filed Under: Inheritance, Q&A, Retirement Savings Tagged With: , , ,
July 22, 2013 By

Inherited IRA may have more options than you’re told

Dear Liz: My partner passed away a little more than a year ago. I inherited his 401(k) and life insurance. I opened an IRA in which to place the amount of the 401(k), but the company told me that after a year (which is now), I have to withdraw the money over five years. Is that really required? I’d like to be able to have it on hand in case of an emergency but at the same time save it for our 2-year-old son’s college education.

Answer: Since you weren’t married, you don’t have the option of treating this inherited account as your own. That would have allowed you to delay withdrawals until after you turned 70 1/2 , if you wanted.

The fact that this is a non-spouse inherited IRA, however, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re bound by the five-year rule. That rule requires the IRA be distributed by Dec. 31 of the fifth year following the year of the original retirement account owner’s death. You may also have the option of beginning distributions based on your life expectancy. That would allow the bulk of the money to remain in the IRA, continuing to earn tax-deferred returns, and is usually a better choice.

Whether you have this second option depends on the terms of the IRA and the original 401(k) plan.

“It is important to check the IRA terms rather than rely on oral statements since the five-year option may be pushed when it is not required,” said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for CCH Tax & Accounting North America. “It is also important to make a determination on the availability on the life-expectancy rule in the year after death since distributions must start under the life-expectancy rule in that year. Waiting too long could force one into the five-year rule by default.”

Filed Under: Estate planning, Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , ,
July 30, 2012 By

Parents’ estate plan triggers IRA tax bill

Dear Liz: My sister and I are in the middle of distributing our parents’ estate. The beneficiary of the estate is a trust. Part of the estate consists of a traditional IRA, which will be split between my sister and me. The problem is that because the IRA will be distributed from the trust and is considered a non-spouse distribution, I’m told that we’ll have to pay taxes on the entire distribution. It’s a good chunk of change. I’m almost 60. Is there any way that I can roll the IRA into my own and take minimum distributions? I’d rather not pay the tax all upfront.

Answer: That’s understandable, since it’s typically much better to stretch distributions out as long as possible so that the money can continue to grow (and you can replace one big tax bill with smaller ones as you take distributions).

Unfortunately, the way your parents structured their estate ties your hands, although perhaps not to the extent you’ve been told.

It appears from your question that the IRA either failed to name a beneficiary or named the estate as the beneficiary, said Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst for tax research firm CCH.

“Assuming that is the case, since estates do not have life expectancies, the IRA cannot be distributed over a beneficiary life expectancy as it could have been had an individual been named the IRA beneficiary,” Luscombe said. “Instead, it must be distributed under the terms of the IRA document over a period that cannot exceed five years.”

The exception is if the IRA owner before dying had already reached the age of 701/2 and begun distributions, Luscombe said. In that case, distributions can continue to the estate over the IRA owner’s life expectancy. If the IRA owner was quite elderly when he or she died, this might not give you much time to stretch out the distributions, but it probably would be better than paying all the taxes at once.

Another exception, which doesn’t appear to apply in your case, is if the IRA named the trust as the beneficiary. If that were true, “it is possible that the distributions could be based on the life expectancy of the oldest trust beneficiary,” Luscombe noted.

As you can see, this is a complicated area of estate planning and taxation. Getting good advice about how to name beneficiaries for your accounts can save your heirs a lot of money.

Filed Under: Estate planning, Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , , , ,