Jump to content

Transfer Tax Consequences of Irrevocable Beni Designation


Recommended Posts

Posted

A spouse who is the beneficiary of her spouse's IRA elects to treat the IRA as her own upon the spouse's death. If the spouse names the children of the decedent's prior marriage as irrevocable beneficiaries of the IRA, is this a taxable transfer? If it were a qualified plan, I believe the anti-alienation provisions would prevent a completed gift but I am not sure what the rule is in the IRA context.

------------------

Guest Taxcontrol
Posted

I believe you are making this much more complicated than it is. If the wife rolls over her deceased husband's IRA into her own, she starts from scratch and can name any beneficiaries she chooses. There are no taxable events until the wife takes her first distribution at her RBD or the beneficiaries start receiving payouts upon her death, whichever comes first.

Don

Posted

The idea behind the question is that an irrevocable designation is needed to get the surviving spouse to name, as beneficiaries, someone she may not want to name voluntarily, such as children from the participant spouse's prior marriage.

Posted

There is no tax because nothing is actually transferred. The spouse can take any amount she wishes from her IRA, and could thereby "disinherit" the children entirely.

Incidentally, this possibility makes the irrevocable beneficiary designation a poor instrument to use to protect the children.

------------------

Jeffrey Ellis

Attorney

Milwaukee, WI

Posted

I agree with JAE.

In some instances "qualified disclaimers" could accomplish your goal. See GCM 39858 and Section 2518(B) of the Code. I haven't looked at this in a while, but I think that the husband would have had to name his children from a prior marriage as contingent beneficiaries and the surviving spouse could not have taken "possession" of the IRA for this to work. This could be used as a method for the spouse to immediately "give" the IRA to the children from the previous marriage and incur no tax. Of course, there would be tax consequences to the children from the previous marriage and they would presumably have to take non-spouse MRDs. This is a tricky area so be careful. (This also works in a qualified plan context--IRS says that qualified disclaimers do not violate anti-alienation).

Posted

If W is primary beneficiary of H's IRA, with Children as continent beneficiaries, and H dies after RBD, children can take, but their RMD is based upon W's life expectancy, not their own.

The facts situation you describe suggests that the IRA be payable to a QTIP Trust. Of course, you lose the spousal rollover opportunity, but you're going to lose that opportunity unless you want to give the spouse the right to behave as if this money is hers because it becomes just that.

------------------

John L. Olsen, CLU, ChFC

Olsen Financial Group

St. Louis, MO

314-909-8818

John L. Olsen, CLU, ChFC

Olsen Financial Group

St. Louis, MO

314-909-8818

Posted

I forgot to specify, in my previous post, that the children can take at H's death IF W DISCLAIMS. But the disclaimer doesn't alter the fact that, if W was the primary beneficiary at H's RBD, HER life expectancy, not the eldest child's, is used for RMD purposes.

------------------

John L. Olsen, CLU, ChFC

Olsen Financial Group

St. Louis, MO

314-909-8818

John L. Olsen, CLU, ChFC

Olsen Financial Group

St. Louis, MO

314-909-8818

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use