Inherited IRA strategy: Advisor vs CPA

Hi, I am an advisor. I have a client who passed and his only child inherited 330k in an IRA. Father was 66. he and his wife are 35, make about 300k per year with 2 kids . They are savers.

I am sure there is a happy medium to serve the clients. figured I would throw this out and see what fellow forum folks have to add. I have never met or spoken to the new CPA, but I believe he has clients best overall interest in mind.

I recommended he use lifetime stretch at this point and draw enough money to contribute to Traditional IRAs and the convert to Roths. He has an IRA, but I am recommending he either move that money into his 401k or convert as well to a ROth this tax year to take advantage of lower rates this year.

If market has a significant correction, I could see the wisdom in drawing out faster, taking advantage of the lower current rates and reinvest into an efficient investment portfolio that we can control taxation through harvesting.

At issue, clients new CPA is recommending the take the money out over 5 years to take advantage of lower rates.
however he then recommended ( via email to me) that they could max out their 401ks to offset tax consequences if they wish. This seems contradictory as they would be selling to then sell at higher tax rates ( presumed by him) at their retirement age. he said ” this is a better strategy then slowly withdrawing money over a long period of time”

he says he believes in paying the right amount of tax, but also that he believes in having access to capital without restrictions, which is also contradictory to me.

He has pushed off a conversation until after 3/15 due to tax season ( which I GET) . I believe financial planning is a bit of an art form, I just don’t see wisdom in taking something out of something that is tax deferred and 100% liquid at any time to them ( with taxes due of course) to putting money into their 401ks which would create tax later again at unfavorable rates and be essentially illiquid until 59.5. the remainder of the money would then also be taxable any time we make a sale of an investment or switch investment philosophies as they age.

other factors:
clients have about 260k liquid from sale of inherited home and personal savings.
they have approx 100k in retirement accounts currently.
2 children who will be going to college.

Thoughts? thanks in advance for the conversations.



  • I would elect RMDs by taking the 1st RMD by 12/31 of the year following the year of death. You can always take more than the RMDs. If they are not maximizing tax advantaged contribution space:
  • I would certainly make tax nuetral matching withdrawals from inherited pre-tax/after-tax accounts to fund matching traditional/Roth contributions to owned retirement accounts. Where like withdrwals = contributions, there is no tax liability.
  • Where it would make sense to make pre-tax withdrawals and Roth contributions and pay the taxes from other funds I would also do that.
  • This serves several functions.
  • In 2014, the SCOTUS ruled Inherited accounts do not have asset protection. Congress and the vast majority of states have not moved to protect them.
  • It allows your spouse to fully assume ownership of the assets.
  • It allows your non-spouse beneficiaries to use their own age to establish a new divisor rather continue to use your divisor.
  • It reduces future RMDs.
  • Yes, inherited accounts have penalty-free withdrawals, but clearly they have enough liquidity.
  • I see no reason to take any more out of the inherited account(s) than the lesser of the RMD or amounts necssary to max tax-advataged accounts. At $300K in income and the other inheritances, there should not be a need to take a penny more.
  • If they don’t have adequate 529 account balances for the children. I would consider contributing to what is conservatively necssary up to the 529 five year ($75K) annual exclusion limit.
  • I would make sure that they have adequate emergency funds and then invest the remainder in taxable investments.
  • I’m sorry if they are 35, make $300k/year and only have $100K in retirement accounts. That is woefully inadequate. At this stage of their life, if they are not contributing $50K out of $300K to retirement, college, taxable investments, thay are not savers.
  • They should be in accumulation phase where they should be increasing tax-advantaged accounts. To recommend the shouldd withdraw from such accounts andd pay taxes to invest in taxable accounts at this stage would verge on fiduciary irresponsbility.
    • The value of the stretch for a 35-year-old is substantial.  Absent some compelling reason not mentioned, why wouldn’t they want to take advantage of it?
    • Where is the lawyer for the father’s estate?  He/she should have explained this.
    • Note that the son can’t do a 60-day rollover.  If he takes out more than his required distribution, he can’t put it back.  

    Add new comment

    Log in or register to post comments