Garland Law Offices, P.A.

How a Charitable Remainder Trust Works

“The most well-known ‘death’ tax is the Federal Estate and Gift Tax. However, the reality is that few people really have to worry about the cost of federal estate taxes.”

The least popular beneficiary is almost always the federal government. Most people are concerned that their estate will need to pay taxes and do what they can through estate planning to keep federal estate tax liability to a minimum. However, with federal estate and gift tax exemptions at $11.58 million per person this year, and twice that when properly used with the spousal exemption, most people don’t need to worry about the federal estate tax, explains The News Enterprise in the article “New federal law resurrects Charitable Remainder Trust.”

The passage of the SECURE Act, effective January 1, 2020, made big changes in how we need to plan for taxes for beneficiaries. Federal estate and gift tax exemptions did not change, but anyone who inherits a retirement account is likely to find fewer options than before the SECURE Act.

Charitable remainder trusts have been used for many years to avoid high capital gains taxes on appreciated assets. Appreciated assets are placed into trusts and no taxes are due on the transfer.  The donor also gets a charitable tax deduction. The amount in the trust grows, while paying out a small amount to beneficiaries in installment payments.

With the passage of the SECURE Act, non-spousal beneficiaries, with certain exceptions, must withdraw the entire amount of the qualified retirement account within ten years. Generally, beneficiaries may not roll the account into their own qualified account, and there are no required annual distributions. However, there’s a ten-year window to empty the account. Taxes are due on every withdrawal, whether it takes place over ten years or as a single withdrawal.

By using a CRT, the full amount of the account may be transferred into the CRT, no taxes are due, and the donor (or the donor’s estate) gets a charitable deduction.

The trust is simply an instrument created, so that a beneficiary may receive regular payments, which may include the donor, beneficiaries or multiple beneficiaries, over the span of their lives, or in a set number of years, with the remainder interest of at least ten percent of the initial contribution paid to a qualified charity at the end of the trust.

This effectively creates a stretch for the IRA, with withdrawals being taxed to the beneficiary, over a longer time span. With only ten percent being required to be donated to a charity, those who plan on making a donation to a charity anyway receive a benefit, and their beneficiaries can receive a lifetime income stream.

Speak with your estate planning attorney to learn how a CRT could be part of your estate plan.

Reference: The News Enterprise (June 2, 2020) “New federal law resurrects Charitable Remainder Trust”

Don’t Shrink Your Estate with Last Minute Tax Planning

“Estate planning strategies such as family limited partnerships and gifts to charitable trusts are part of an estate planning professional’s toolbox to achieve client goals, such as minimizing taxes, effectuating philanthropic plans, teaching younger generations about a family business and passing on wealth.”

In the best-case scenario, you’d start talking with your estate planning attorney early on about your overall goals and the various tools available to minimize tax liability and transfer wealth to the next generation. Whether your estate is modest or significant, the article “A Recipe for Risk—Last-Minute Tax Planning for Estates” from The Legal Intelligencer explains how a last-minute plan failed on a grand scale. A recent memorandum opinion from the U.S. Tax Court provides a cautionary tale.

Howard Moore owned a large amount of property and ran a successful farm. He was admitted to the hospital late in 2004, was discharged to hospice and told he only had six months to live. He created an estate plan that included a family limited partnership (FLP), a living trust, a charitable lead annuity trust, a trust for the adult children, a management trust that acted as the general partner of the family limited partnership and an “Irrevocable Trust No. 1” that was created to act as a conduit for the transfer of funds from the FLP to a charitable foundation.

The primary focus of the plan was to transfer the farm to a living trust and then to transfer 80% of the farm property to the FLP. The management trust was to serve as a partner to the FLP, with the living trust owning almost all the limited partnership interests and with each of the decedent’s children owning a 1% partnership interest. The FLP was to offer protection against liabilities from the use of pesticides, potential bad marriages, creditors and the fact that the family was a bit dysfunctional and would need to work together to manage the FLP. The FLP had many transfer restrictions and the limited partners were not given any rights to participate in business management or operational decisions regarding the FLP.

The trust known as “Irrevocable Trust No. 1” was nominally funded at the time of the decedent’s death and received funding from the FLP. Those funds, in turn, were transferred to the charitable trust to gain a charitable deduction by the estate. Just before he died, Moore used FLP funds to make large transfers to his children that were designated as loans. He also made outright gifts to the children and to one grandchild.

The estate filed an estate tax return and a gift tax return after Moore’s death. The IRS issued a notice of deficiency for nearly $6.4 million and the case went to tax court. The U. S. Tax Court agreed with the IRS’ findings. The defense of the estate plan, the tax court maintained, was form over substance and the only reason for the estate plan and the numerous transactions was to save estate taxes.

There were a lot of hurdles in this case, in addition to the short time period for the estate plan to have been created. At the time of the decedent’s hospitalization, the sale of the farm to a neighbor was being negotiated. A contract to sell the farm was executed with days of transferring it to the living trust. There were numerous transfers and distributions made between trusts and the FLP, and the court concluded that all decisions about the FLP after its formation were made unilaterally by the decedent. An FLP is supposed to function as a true partnership. Many other issues and errors occurred in the rush to have this estate structured in such a short period of time.

Had Moore engaged in planning five or ten years earlier, there would have been time to create a plan in which both the substance and execution of the plan were sound and the family would have been able to save millions of dollars in taxes. By waiting until his death was imminent, the plan attempted to establish transfer requirements without the opportunity to execute them properly.

Reference: The Legal Intelligencer (May 18, 2020) “A Recipe for Risk—Last-Minute Tax Planning for Estates”

Charitable Giving and Your Estate Plan

“Giving appreciated stock shares, donating your RMDs and using charitable remainder trusts are just a few of the options you may not be aware of to help charities and your heirs at the same time.”

Americans are a country of generous people. We give to organizations that we feel connected to, and we give to charities that we feel are important. We also give to honor our loved ones, to make life better in our communities and to help when disaster strikes.

Most people don’t give to charity purely for the tax benefits, but charitable giving has long been a benefit of lowering income taxes during our lifetimes, as well as helping minimize estate taxes when we die, says the article “5 Ways to Incorporate Charitable Giving into Your Estate Plan” from Kiplinger. Therefore, if you are charitably minded, why not achieve the most tax-savings you can? Here are five ways to do this.

Appreciated Stock. Gifts of publicly traded stock that has grown or appreciated in value is a good way to support a charity while you are living. If you sell appreciated stock, you will need to pay capital gains tax on the appreciation. However, if you donate appreciated stock to a charity, you’ll receive a charitable income tax deduction equal to the full market value of the stock at the time of the gift. That avoids capital gains taxes. You get the benefit on the appreciated amount, without having to sell it. The charity can, if it wants, sell the stock without paying any capital gains taxes, because registered nonprofits are tax exempt.

Charitable Rollovers. If you are older than 70 ½, you may donate up to $100,000 per year to charities directly from your IRA. This is known as a Qualified Charitable Rollover, or a QCD. The QCD counts towards any Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) that you need to take from your IRA annually. Under the recently passed SECURE Act, in the future RMDs must be taken by December 31, 2020, after the account owner celebrates their 72^nd birthday. Because RMDs are taxable income, they are taxed at ordinary income rates.

By donating through a QCD, you can support a charity, fulfill your RMD requirement and exclude the amount that you donate from your taxable income. For those who don’t need their RMDs, that’s a win-win situation.

Bequest by Will or Revocable Trust. A more traditional way to support a charity, is to leave an amount in your will or revocable trust. The bequest is language in your will or trust that states the amount you want to leave to the charity, clearly identifying the charity you want to receive the funds, and if you want, stating the purpose that you’d want the charity to use the funds. An important point: make sure that you use the legally accurate name of the charity to avoid any confusion. This is a common error that causes no many problems for charities.

Consider also giving a donation that can be used for a charity’s “general purpose.” This lets the charity decide where to best allocate your donation, rather than tying the money to a specific program. If you chose to list a specific purpose, meet with the development office or the executive director at the charity to ensure that they are able to fulfill that desire. Otherwise, the charity may need to refuse the bequest.

Name a Charity as the Beneficiary of Retirement Accounts. This can be done by naming the charity as a beneficiary on the account documents. Be sure to use the legally correct name of the charity. The charity will be able to withdraw funds from the retirement account without paying taxes. People who receive funds from retirement accounts pay income tax rates on distributions, but charities do not. You may want to donate retirement account funds to charities, and non-taxable assets to heirs.

Charitable Remainder Trusts. This is a way to help the charity and provide for heirs. Your estate planning attorney would create a Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) and names the CRT as the beneficiary of an IRA. A CRT is a “split interest trust,” where a person receives annual payments for the CRT for a set period of time. When the person or charitable organization’s interest in the CRT ends, the remaining funds are distributed to the charity of your choosing. There are very strict rules about how CRTs are structured, including the percentages that the charity must receive. An estate planning attorney will be able to create this for you.

Reference: Kiplinger (March 2, 2020) “5 Ways to Incorporate Charitable Giving into Your Estate Plan”

Will Your Estate Plan Work Now?

“Under the new law, not only must all of the tax on IRAs and plans benefits be paid much earlier than it was before, but the rate will likely be much higher too, since that income will be bundled into the recipients’ peak earning years.”

The demise of the stretch IRA is causing many IRA owners and their advisors to take a look at how their estate plans will work under the new law. An article from Financial Advisor titled “Navigating The New Estate Planning Realities” offers several different planning alternatives.

Take larger IRA distributions during your lifetime. If possible, take the IRA distributions and reinvest them in a Roth IRA or other assets that will receive a stepped-up income tax basis on the death of the account owner. The idea is to take out significant additional penalty-free amounts from IRAs during your lifetime, so you will hopefully be taxed at a lower rate than you would be otherwise, with the net after-tax funds then reinvested in either a Roth IRA or other assets that will receive a stepped-up income tax basis when you die.

Paying all or part of the IRA portion of the estate to lower-income tax bracket beneficiaries. The theory here is that if we have to learn to live with the new tax law, at least we can attempt to minimize the tax pain by doing estate planning with a focus on tax planning. If a person has four children, two in high-income tax brackets and two who are in lower tax brackets, leave the IRA portion of the assets to the children in the lower tax brackets and assets with a stepped-up basis to the higher earners.

Withdrawing additional funds early and using the after-tax amount to purchase income-tax-free life or long-term care insurance. Rather than withdrawing all of the IRA funds early, freeze the current value of the IRA, by withdrawing only the account growth or the RMD portion, whichever is greater. Note that this won’t work if the withdrawals push the person’s income into the next higher tax bracket. All or a portion of the after-tax withdrawals then go into an income-tax-free life insurance policy, including second-to-die life insurance that pays only upon the death of both spouses.

Paying IRA benefits to an income tax-exempt charitable remainder trust. This involves designating an income-tax exempt charitable remainder trust as the beneficiary of the IRA proceeds. Let’s say a $100,000 IRA is made payable to a charitable remainder unitrust that pays three adult children or their survivors 7.5% of the value of the trust corpus (determined annually) each year, until the last child dies. Assume this occurs over the course of 30 years, and that the trust grows at the same 7.5% rate for the next twenty years. The children would net nearly $400,000. Note that the principal of the trust may not be accessed, until it’s paid out to the children, according to the designated schedule.

Every situation is different, so it is important to sit down with your estate planning attorney and review your entire estate, tax liabilities under the new law and how different scenarios will work to both minimize taxes during your lifetime and for your heirs. It’s possible that your situation benefits from a combination of all four strategies.

Reference: Financial Advisor (Feb. 11, 2020) “Navigating The New Estate Planning Realities,”

Planning for Long-Term Care Before It’s Too Late

“A strong long-term care plan spells out where you would like to live, how you plan to get around, and who will oversee your financial and health decisions when you’re incapacitated.”

Starting to plan for elder care should happen when you are in your 50s or 60s. By the time you are 70, it may be too late. With the national median annual cost of a private room in a nursing facility coming in at more than $100,000, not having a plan can become one of the most expensive mistakes of your financial life. The article “Four steps you can take to safeguard your retirement savings from this risk” from CNBC says that even if care is provided in your own home, the annual median national cost of in-home skilled nursing is $87.50 per visit.

There are fewer and fewer insurance companies that offer long-term care insurance policies, and even with a policy, there are many out-of-pocket costs that also have to be paid. People often fail to prepare for the indirect cost of caregiving, which primarily impacts women who are taking care of older, infirm male spouses and aging parents.

More than 34 million Americans provided unpaid care to older adults in 2015, with an economic value of $522 billion per year.

That’s not including the stress of caring for loved ones, watching them decline and needing increasingly more help from other sources.

The best time to start planning for the later years is around age 60. That’s when most people have experienced their parent’s aging and understand that planning and conversations with loved ones need to take place.

Living Transitions. Do you want to remain at home as long as is practicable, or would you rather move to a continuing care retirement community? If you are planning on aging in place in your home, what changes will need to be made to your home to ensure that you can live there safely? How will you protect yourself from loneliness, if you plan on staying at home?

Driving Transitions. Knowing when to turn in your car keys is a big issue for seniors. How will you get around, if and when you are no longer able to drive safely? What transportation alternatives are there in your community?

Financial Caretaking. Cognitive decline can start as early as age 53, leading people to make mistakes that cost them dearly. Forgetting to pay bills, paying some bills twice, or forgetting accounts, are signs that you may need some help with your financial affairs. Simplify things by having one checking, one savings account and three credit cards: one for public use, one for automatic bill-paying and a third for online purchases.

Healthcare Transitions. If you don’t already have an advance directive, you need to have one created, as part of your overall estate plan. This provides an opportunity for you to state how you want to receive care, if you are not able to communicate your wishes. Not having this document may mean that you are kept alive on a respirator, when your preference is to be allowed to die naturally. You’ll also need a Health Care Power of Attorney, a person you name to make medical decisions on your behalf when you cannot do so. This person does not have to be a spouse or an adult child—sometimes it’s best to have a trusted friend who you will be sure will follow your directions. Make sure this person is willing to serve, even when your documented wishes may be challenged.

Reference: CNBC (Jan. 31, 2020) “Four steps you can take to safeguard your retirement savings from this risk”

How Does the SECURE Act Change Your Estate Plan?

“These changes are so significant that every such plan holders should review their wishes and how their estate plans may be affected.”

The SECURE Act has made big changes to how IRA distributions occur after death. Anyone who owns an IRA, regardless of its size, needs to examine their retirement savings plan and their estate plan to see how these changes will have an impact. The article “SECURE Act New IRA Rules: Change Your Estate Plan” from Forbes explains what the changes are and the steps that need be taken.

Some of the changes include revising wills and trusts which include provisions creating conduit trusts that had been created to hold IRAs and preserve the stretch IRA benefit, while the IRA plan owner was still alive.

Existing conduit trusts may need to be modified before the owner’s death to address how the SECURE Act might undermine the intent of the trust.

Rethinking and possibly completely restructuring the planning for the IRA account may need to occur. This may mean making a charity the beneficiary of the account, and possibly using life insurance or other planning strategies to create a replacement for the value of the charitable donation.

Another alternative may be to pay the IRA balance to a Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) on death that will stretch out the distributions to the beneficiary of the CRT over that beneficiary’s lifetime under the CRT rules. Paired with a life insurance trust, this might replace the assets that will ultimately pass to the charity under the CRT rules.

The biggest change in the SECURE Act being examined by estate planning and tax planning attorneys is the loss of the “stretch” IRA for beneficiaries inheriting IRAs after 2019. Most beneficiaries who inherit an IRA after 2019 will be required to completely withdraw all plan assets within ten years of the date of death.

One result of the change of this law will be to generate tax revenues. In the past, the ability to stretch an IRA out over many years, even decades, allowed families to pass wealth across generations with minimal taxes, while the IRAs continued to grow tax tree.

Another interesting change: No withdrawals need be made during that ten-year period, if that is the beneficiary’s wish. However, at the ten-year mark, ALL assets must be withdrawn, and taxes paid.

Under the prior law, the period in which the IRA assets needed to be distributed was based on whether the plan owner died before or after the RMD and the age of the beneficiary.

The deferral of withdrawals and income tax benefits encouraged many IRA owners to bequeath a large IRA balance completely to their heirs. Others, with larger IRAs, used a conduit trust to flow the RMDs to the beneficiary and protect the balance of the plan.

There are exceptions to the 10-year SECURE Act payout rule. Certain “eligible designated beneficiaries” are not required to follow the ten-year rule. They include the surviving spouse, chronically ill heirs and disabled heirs. Minor children are also considered eligible beneficiaries, but when they become legal adults, the ten year distribution rule applies to them. Therefore, by age 28 (ten years after attaining legal majority), they must take all assets from the IRA and pay the taxes as applicable.

The new law and its ramifications are under intense scrutiny by members of the estate planning and elder law bar because of these and other changes. Speak with your estate planning attorney to review your estate plan to ensure that your goals will be achieved in light of these changes.

Reference: Forbes (Dec. 25, 2019) “SECURE Act New IRA Rules: Change Your Estate Plan”

How Did Alzheimer’s Impact the Estate Planning of These Famous People?

“In honor of Alzheimer’s Awareness Month - and the more than five million Americans living with the disease - we highlight our Top 7 Celebrity Estates impacted by Alzheimer’s disease…”

Forbes’ recent article, “Top 7 Celebrity Estates Impacted By Alzheimer’s Disease” looks at seven celebrity estates that were affected by Alzheimer’s disease.

1. Rosa Parks. The civil rights icon died at 92 in 2005. She was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Legal battles over her estate continue to this day. Her estate plan left her assets to a charitable institution she created. However, her nieces and nephews challenged the validity of her will and trust, due to her mental deficiencies and allegations of undue influence. That claim was settled, but there have been fights over broken deals and leaked secrets, claimed mismanagement of her estate and assets, allegations of bribery and corruption and a battle over Rosa’s missing coat that she wore at the time of her famous arrest at the Alabama bus stop in 1955.
2. Gene Wilder. Wilder’s widow–his fourth wife, Karen–and his adopted daughter didn’t fight over Gene’s estate after he died, which shows good estate planning. Wilder makes the list because of how his widow used her husband’s struggle—which she kept private while he was alive—to bring attention to the terrible disease, including permitting his Willy Wonka character to be used in a campaign to raise awareness.
3. Aaron Spelling. The Hollywood producer left behind a reported fortune worth $500 million. His death certificate listed Alzheimer’s disease as a contributing factor. Spelling changed his estate plan just two months before he died, reducing the share to his daughter, actress Tori, and his son, Randy, to $800,000 each.
4. Etta James. Legendary blues singer Etta James passed away in 2012, at 73. Her family said she had been struggling with Alzheimer’s disease for several years, and her illness ignited an ugly court battle between her husband of more than 40 years and her son from a prior relationship, over the right to make her medical and financial decisions, including control of her $1 million account. Her husband, Artis Mills, alleged that the power of attorney she signed appointing her son as decision-maker was invalid, because she was incompetent when she signed it. Mills sued for control of the money to pay for Etta’s care. After some litigation, Etta’s leukemia was determined to be fatal, which led to a settlement. Mills was granted conservatorship and permitted to control sums up to $350,000 to pay for Etta’s care for the last few months of her life.
5. Peter Falk. The Lieutenant Columbo actor died at 83 in 2011, after living with Alzheimer’s disease for years. His wife Shera and his adopted daughter Catherine fought in court for conservatorship to make his decisions. Shera argued that she had power of attorney and could already legally make Peter’s decisions for him, which included banning daughter Catherine from visits. The judge granted Shera conservatorship, but ordered a visitation schedule for Catherine. However, a doctor, who testified at the hearing, said that Falk’s memory was so bad that he probably wouldn’t even remember the visits.
6. Tom Benson. The billionaire owner of the New Orleans Saints and Pelicans was the subject of a lengthy and bitter court battle over control of his professional sports franchises, and hundreds of millions of dollars of other assets. Prior trusts, that he and his late wife established, left the sports franchises and other business interests to his daughter and two grandchildren. One of granddaughters operated the Saints as lead owner, until she was fired by her grandfather. Tom decided to take the controlling stock of the teams out of the trust and substitute other assets in their place, taking over control of the teams. However, his daughter and grandchildren fought the move. A 2015 court ruling declared Benson to be competent, despite allegations he suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. Benson then changed his will and trust and left everything to his third wife, Gayle. They all settled the dispute in 2017, leaving other assets to the daughter and grandchildren—but ultimately leaving Gayle in control of the Saints and Pelicans, after Benson’s death in 2018 at age 90.
7. Glen Campbell. Campbell’s 2007 estate plan left out three of his adult children. They sued to challenge their disinheritance after he died. They dropped the case in 2018, without receiving a settlement. The fact that Campbell’s final will was drafted several years prior to his Alzheimer’s diagnosis was a critical factor in the outcome of the lawsuit.

The estate planning of these celebrities show the importance of proper estate planning, before it is too late. Wills and trusts that are created or changed after someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, or similar conditions are more apt to be challenged in court.

Reference: Forbes (November 25, 2019) “Top 7 Celebrity Estates Impacted By Alzheimer’s Disease”

What’s the Latest on Paul Allen’s Estate?

“The many, wide-ranging constituencies for Allen’s endeavors—from Seattle and Portland sports fans to connoisseurs of fine art and pop culture to nonprofits, real-estate investors and academic and scientific leaders—have questions: What will be kept and what will be sold? What form will the promised philanthropy take and what will its focus be? When will it all happen?”

Paul Allen wanted to give away most of the $20 billion-plus fortune he accumulated as Microsoft co-founder, technology investor, real estate magnate and NFL and NBA team owner.

However, about a year after his death, the plans he made are still a closely guarded secret, and its execution is a complex, high-stakes work in progress.

The Seattle Times’s recent article, “What’s happening to Paul Allen’s billions? A year after his death, it’s complicated” says that it can take years to unwind holdings like Allen’s.

The process of giving away as much as $10 billion or more of his estate falls to Jody Allen, trustee, sister and, with her family, sole heir.

Jody Allen “has responsibility for preserving and implementing Paul Allen’s vision for generations to come,” says her biography on the website of Vulcan, the business they co-founded that serves as the hub of the Allen empire.

Jody’s specific intentions are not known outside of her inner circle. However, the expectations are great, based in large part on Paul and Jody Allen’s record of philanthropy. Paul gave away about $2 billion, while he was alive.

The sale of Allen’s cash-consuming assets, like yachts or space ventures, is a regular task in cleaning up an estate, so that when it’s time to distribute cash, there’s liquidity.

However, this clean-up can take several years for estates of this size. Estates have up to 15 months from the date of death, including extensions, to file estate tax returns.

The executor must pay estimated taxes, which can be up to 52% of assets not going to charity.

Any major distributions usually must wait until after state and federal tax officials sign off.

Reference: The Seattle Times (November 26, 2019) “What’s happening to Paul Allen’s billions? A year after his death, it’s complicated”

What’s the Best Way to Take My Required Minimum Distribution?

“If you miss the deadline for taking an RMD, you’ll be hit with a tax penalty. If you’re retired or have inherited a retirement account, you must take your required minimum distributions by December 31.”

CNBC’s recent article, “These tips can help retirees make required minimum distributions easy and tax penalty free,” gives the steps to follow, so we don’t leave money on the table.

RMDs or required minimum distributions, are the minimum amount people age 70½ and older must withdraw from their retirement funds. If you’ve inherited a retirement account, you may also have to make a withdrawal. The amount you need to withdraw varies from year to year and is based on specific calculations, including what your account values were as of December 31 the prior year and your age.

The time to get started on your RMD for this year is right now, because the paperwork may take some time. You have until April 1, if you just turned 70½ this year. Let’s look at a few tips:

Get your paperwork organized. In order to know how much you have to withdraw, you have to have an accurate picture of what you own. Create a list of accounts and take an inventory first, so you know where all your retirement accounts are located.

Know what you can take from what account. If you have multiple IRAs, you can take your total RMD from any one of those accounts because of the aggregation rule. However, with multiple IRAs, you still must calculate the amount you take out based on the value of all of them. It’s that same with multiple 403(b) retirement accounts. The rule doesn’t apply to 401(k) plans. If you have multiple 401(k) accounts, you must take money from each one, and you can’t take an RMD from an IRA to satisfy a 401(k), or vice versa.

Understand the rules, if you’re still working. If you’re 70½ and still employed, you could get a break from taking your RMD in certain circumstances. Generally, 401(k) plans have a still-working rule, which stipulates that you don’t have to take the RMD until you retire. However, you can only delay the RMDs, if the plan is attached to the company where you’re currently employed. Other accounts from a previous employer are excluded, so you must still take distributions from those.

Keep an eye on any inherited accounts. If you’ve inherited a retirement account, you may have to take an RMD by the end of this year. That generally doesn’t apply if you inherited the money from your spouse, because spouses can do a rollover and keep postponing the distributions. However, if you’re a non-spouse beneficiary, you probably must take a distribution by the end of 2019. If you inherited the account in 2018, you’ll need to take your first RMD in 2019.

RMDs from a Roth IRA will likely be tax-free. However, if you’ve inherited one of these accounts and you didn’t take that money out, you’ll have to pay a 50% penalty on the funds you should’ve withdrawn.

Consider giving to charity. A good way to avoid paying taxes on your RMD, is to give the money to charity. A qualified charitable distribution lets you to make donations to a charity directly from your IRA, instead of taking the RMD yourself. Therefore, if your RMD is $5,000, and you typically give $5,000 to charity each year, you can donate that money directly and not pay tax on it.

Reference: CNBC (November 29, 2019) “These tips can help retirees make required minimum distributions easy and tax penalty free”

If I Roll All My IRA Money to a Roth, Will I Forfeit Some Tax Benefits?

“Anyone planning to roll over all their assets from a traditional individual retirement account to a Roth version, might want to pause before making the move.”

Rolling over all of your assets from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA can mean tax-free income down the road. However, remember that you’ll also pay taxes on the amount moved. That means there will be no future opportunity to reduce your tax rate further.

CNBC’s recent article, “Moving all your IRA money to a Roth means losing some tax benefits,” says that those lost tax benefits generally relate to medical expenses, charitable contributions and business losses. In contrast, if you leave too much in the IRA, the result may not be good. You may have higher required minimum distributions and taxes.

Roth IRAs grow tax-free and withdrawals generally are also untaxed. They also have no lifetime required minimum distributions, or RMDs. However, traditional IRAs have some potential tax benefits that are gone for good, once the money is moved.

The primary concept in managing taxes in retirement is that you want to get as much money out of your accounts at the lowest possible cost. When you roll over money from a traditional IRA to a Roth, the amount moved is taxed as ordinary income. As a result, you should complete the rollover when you’re in as low a tax bracket as possible. This means tax-free income available down the road, but it also means you’ll have already paid taxes on the rollover. Thus, there’s no opportunity to reduce your rate further. However, if you leave too much in the IRA, the result may not be good. If you think that you might have these future expenses, then it might make sense to keep money in the traditional IRA.

Medical expenses. These are usually a major expense for older Americans and that’s not including the cost of long-term care. However, a tax break for medical expenses is one of the few remaining deductions available to individuals, since the new tax law in 2018. It’s limited to the amount that exceeds 10% of your adjusted gross income and you must itemize your deductions to take advantage of it. However, those with high medical bills can potentially reduce their taxes by applying it. To take the deduction, you must have taxable income to weigh it against. So, if much of your income is coming from a Roth IRA tax-free, you could be restricted in whether you can take advantage of the break. If you took money from an IRA (whose withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income) to cover those health costs, you could use the medical deduction against that withdrawal. This could result in paying less in taxes than what you had paid by rolling that money to a Roth.

Qualified charitable distributions. If you give money to charity each year, keeping money in your traditional IRA to make those donations could be wise, because contributions made through qualified charitable distributions—funds sent directly to the charity from a traditional IRA—are excluded from your taxable income. However, the tax break for charitable contributions can only be used if you itemize your deductions, and generally, a deduction isn’t as valuable as an income exclusion.

Note that this strategy is only available to IRA owners and beneficiaries who are age 70½ or older. Since that is the age when RMDs kick in, the move could reduce your tax liability on the RMD to zero. If your RMD is $5,000, but you give $5,000 to charity anyway, do the qualified charitable distribution, and you don’t have to pick up any of the income.

Business losses. These can only be claimed on your tax return, if you have income to claim them against.

General tax considerations. No matter your overall income, any amount that falls into each of seven defined brackets is taxed at a specific rate. Therefore, the more income you can get taxed at those lower rates, the better. If you could leave some money in the IRA to soak up some of those lower tax rates in the future, you may pay less in taxes on the money than if you converted it.

The current tax brackets and rates will go back to pre-2018 levels at the end of 2025, unless Congress takes action before that time. Therefore, while tax rates are low now, odds are good that they’ll be higher after 2025.

Reference: CNBC (November 27, 2019) “Moving all your IRA money to a Roth means losing some tax benefits”