inherited 401ks

[Martha]

It used to be that only spouses could rollover an inherited 401k into their own IRA. Children or others who inherited such plans had to withdraw and pay taxes on the money often within a very short time. Some plans even required immediate withdrawl; most plans required withdrawal in a year to five years. Legislation was just signed into law which provides that 401(k)s and other company sponsored plans can be transfered by any heir directly into an IRA and withdrawn over the heir's life expectancy. You have to do it right. You form what is called an inherited IRA, you don't roll it over into existing IRAs.

This effects far more people than estate taxes and is an important development.

http://www.kiplinger.com/personalfin...sionbill2.html

Today's WSJ also has an article on the new law.

[FinanceDude]

Doubt it would have happened with a Democratic majority in Congress..........................

[wabmester]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

Doubt it would have happened with a Democratic majority in Congress..........................

You mean only Republicans know how to cut taxes while increasing spending?*

[Martha]

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

The pension legislation (which this IRA rule is contained in) is the first step in the two step process.

1) Shore up pensions as much as possible (to lessen future pain that's coming)

2) Roll back Social Security and Medicare

It is now clear more than ever - you are on your own. Don't expect much from your company or from your government.

- And by the way it's coming regardless of which party is in power.

Medicare is a problem. Let's solve it with a national healthcare system.

I think we can be ok with social security with some judicious tweaks.

The motives of those who passed the new pension legislation may be less than pure, but they don't control who is going to be in power two years from now.

EDIT to clarify political position FWIW: I am in support of estate taxes (though this is not an estate tax issue, it is an income tax issue) because in my mind we should minimize taxes on the living before minimizing taxes on the dead. I also have a problem with too much inherited wealth, as class mobility in the United States has declined tremendously from what it was 50 years ago. So, politically I probably would not support the change in the law. On the other hand, the taxes aren't eliminated, they are just not paid at once, so I am not sure where I would come down on this law. Anyway, since I love all you guys out there I am going to pass on changes in the law which may be to your and your families advantage.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by wab

You mean only Republicans know how to cut taxes while increasing spending?*

No.............I think ALL Congressmen have to pass that course before they are sworn in............

[Texas Proud]

Martha...

Strange that you would not be for an estate tax reduction (or elimination)... it is one of the few taxes a big majority would want to eliminate.. Why? It is one of the most unfair taxes... you have paid taxes on almost all of your wealth when it was created.. now they want to take another chunk out when you die... and it is NOT a tax on the dead, but a tax on the heirs of the dead...

Very rich people can get around the tax.. I remember way back when I did estate taxes, Ernest and Julio Gallo (yes the wine people) got some special legislation passed that basically said they did not have to pay estate taxes when they died... so, if you have a few hunderd million or a billion laying around, get an exemption.. let the people with $2 to $5 million estates pay the tax...

sorry for the thread hijak...

[FinanceDude]

Rockefeller was smarter than everyone. He knew the legislation was going to change, so he established his trust before the legislation was passed.........

Bottom line, his trust is worth billions and billions of dollars, has grown for 80 years, even though more and more relatives are drawing from it, etc.

But the rich have ways we don't..............

I read that Ross Perot once made $100 million in one year, but his marginal tax bracket was 2%........so he only got taxed on $2 million..................

[youbet]

Martha et al.....

What's the situation for money already moved from your 401K to a rollover IRA at the time of your death?* Although retired, I still have my 401K intact with my employer.* Would I now be better off, from an estate planning point of view, to leave it there or to roll it over as I was planning to do shortly?* Any comments from the board?

[Martha]

Originally Posted by Texas Proud

Martha...

Strange that you would not be for an estate tax reduction (or elimination)... it is one of the few taxes a big majority would want to eliminate.. Why?* It is one of the most unfair taxes... you have paid taxes on almost all of your wealth when it was created.. now they want to take another chunk out when you die... and it is NOT a tax on the dead, but a tax on the heirs of the dead...

Very rich people can get around the tax.. I remember way back when I did estate taxes, Ernest and Julio Gallo (yes the wine people) got some special legislation passed that basically said they did not have to pay estate taxes when they died...* so, if you have a few hunderd million or a billion laying around, get an exemption..* let the people with $2 to $5 million estates pay the tax...

sorry for the thread hijak...

I don't find it unfair in the least. You are dead. Your heirs did not earn the money. The tax is not on them. Also, they do get the benefit of a step up in basis. For those without a taxable estate they still get a step up in basis. That gain that could be immediately realized will never be taxed.

I am uncomfortable with perpetuating wealth anymore than we already do.

[Martha]

Originally Posted by youbet

Martha et al.....

What's the situation for money already moved from your 401K to a rollover IRA at the time of your death?* Although retired, I still have my 401K intact with my employer.* Would I now be better off, from an estate planning point of view, to leave it there or to roll it over as I was planning to do shortly?* Any comments from the board?

I believe that you can chose to have that IRA distributed to you over your life expectancy.* I will double check unless someone beats me to it.

EDIT: Publication 590 discusses the issue. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch01.html#d0e5724

The rules are a bit complex.

[saluki9]

Originally Posted by Martha

I don't find it unfair in the least. You are dead. Your heirs did not earn the money. The tax is not on them. Also, they do get the benefit of a step up in basis. For those without a taxable estate they still get a step up in basis. That gain that could be immediately realized will never be taxed.

I am uncomfortable with perpetuating wealth anymore than we already do.

Martha, to honestly believe that don't you have to be a person who thinks that wealth belongs to the government and not the individual?

The thought of it being ok because you're heirs "didn't earn that money" makes me ill

I happen to think it is the most unfair tax our govt subjects its people to

[retire@40]

Originally Posted by saluki9

Martha, to honestly believe that don't you have to be a person who thinks that wealth belongs to the government and not the individual?*

I happen to think it is the most unfair tax our govt subjects its people to

Unfair, but necessary. The strength of this country is in maintaining a robust and reasonably happy middle class.

Without the estate tax, we would be a country of have-lots and have-nones.

I'd like to see the estate tax threshhold at the $5 million and above level right now.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by saluki9

I happen to think it is the most unfair tax our govt subjects its people to

How about the "marriage penalty tax"

[Andre1969]

The thought of it being ok because you're heirs "didn't earn that money" makes me ill

Heck, the government "didn't earn that money" either!

[saluki9]

Originally Posted by Andre1969

The thought of it being ok because you're heirs "didn't earn that money" makes me ill

Heck, the government "didn't earn that money" either!

I know, some people here seem to think that everything belongs to the govt. Out of their infinite kindness they let us keep some

[retire@40]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

How about the "marriage penalty tax"

There is no "marriage penalty tax."

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Martha

EDIT: Publication 590 discusses the issue. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch01.html#d0e5724

The rules are a bit complex.

Now there is an understatement!* ** Thanks for the reference.* I'll dig into it right after I get tonight's dinner into the marinade. DW is substitute teaching today and I don't want her to be disappointed when she returns from the salt mine.

On the general subject of inheritance taxes.........* I've always believed that laws, rules, regulations, etc., are judged for fairness by their equity across groups.* For example, the marriage tax is hated by dual career married couples because couples "living together," don't have to pay it.* In the case of the inheritance tax, I think the problem is that the folks with the big bux seem able to avoid it.* Only those worth a million, or two, or four, etc., seem to get hit.* I'd like to see the rules adjusted so that all of the famous Kennedy clan would be regular ole middle class folks next generation unless they make every dollar they have themselves.* No benefit from intergenerational wealth whatsoever. Of course, that will never happen. The ultra-rich will continue to essentially escape the inheritance tax regardless of how it is changed.* *

*

[youbet]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

No.............I think ALL Congressmen have to pass that course before they are sworn in............

FinanceDude....

A word of caution..... that type of independent thinking is sometimes frowned upon on this board. 100% party loyalty seems to be more mainstream.

If you care.......!