Most people think it is easy to leave an IRA to their heirs. But is it? The following is a quick quiz. How many of these beneficiary questions can you get correct? The answers are at the end of the quiz.
On Sunday night we were treated to the first ever overtime in Superbowl history. It was a great game (with a lousy outcome – sorry, not a Pats fan). Of course, what most people will remember is that the Patriots finished off what may be the greatest comeback in sports history (that hurts to say), and that it was only the score at the end of the game that mattered. That may be true for the Superbowl, but it’s not always the case. As it turns out, sometimes the score at halftime does matter.
Are you one of the growing number of savers who has a Roth IRA? If so, there will come a time when you will want to take funds from your account. Here are 5 things that every Roth IRA owner should know before taking a distribution.
Generally, the goal when naming IRA beneficiaries is that they will stretch out their distributions on the inherited IRA for as long as possible. The tax code and regulations currently support this goal by stating that the stretch option is the default option. But, of course, there are certain rules that must be followed. The IRA agreement must allow for a stretch option. As unbelievable as it may seem, there are still IRA custodians that do not offer a stretch option to beneficiaries.
IRAs have been around for decades. You may have had your IRA for years. Maybe many years ago, when you established your IRA, you named a trust as the beneficiary and haven’t thought a lot about it since. You likely spent both time and money drafting the trust and were careful to name the trust on your IRA beneficiary form. Here are some reasons why it might be worth it to reconsider that decision.
Last week my Slott Report article created something of a firestorm in my email inbox. Shortly after it was posted I began to receive a litany of emails, all written very respectfully, but all of which said my post was incorrect and that revisions were necessary in order to avoid Slott Report readers from making errors with respect to their planning. To recap the article and the point of contention in a nutshell; I gave the hypothetical of a married couple, of which one spouse was about to pass and owned stock in his name only at a loss. I then suggested that a sly strategy would be to gift that stock to the other spouse prior to the owner-spouse’s death so as to preserve the potential loss.
In my opinion, expanding the availability of HSAs to more Americans is not going to solve the problem of providing health insurance to all Americans. Here is why I believe that statement.
Healthcare is in the news. Talk of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is everywhere. There is also much speculation about what could follow and what would replace it. At this point, no one really knows for sure. However, there is some basis for believing that Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) may play an important role in whatever comes next for this country’s healthcare system.
It’s not exactly a fun thing to think about, but death is an absolute inevitability. When that time comes or more aptly, sometime before that time comes, there are a number of planning strategies that you can implement to make sure that you preserve tax benefits and minimize present and future income taxes for your heirs. One such planning opportunity may present itself if you own an investment with a loss as your time nears. The issue and possible planning options are best explained by example, so with that in mind, consider the following case of “Bob and Betty:”
There were few changes to the retirement contribution limits for 2017. IRA and Roth IRA limits remain the same. The maximum an individual with earned income can contribute is $5,500 split any way they want between traditional and Roth IRAs. An individual age 50 or older during the year can contribute an additional $1,000 for a total contribution of $6,500.
