The Herald Bulletin

Morning Update

Columns

February 28, 2014

'Big Joe' Clark: Are big changes coming for inherited IRAs?

Relationships and finances can often be complex. However, things can get even more complicated when a spouse passes away.

As a spouse — and only a spouse — an individual can roll their deceased spouse’s IRA and retirement plans into their own name. The other choice is to take an inherited IRA where the beneficiary must begin to take required minimum distributions (RMDs) regardless of their age.

While much ink has been invested in the “marriage penalty” that can result when two taxpayers marry — and subsequently watch their joint tax liability increase above where they were prior to filing a joint tax return — there has been limited conversation devoted to what’s often called the “widow’s penalty.”

As a surviving spouse you typically retain all the assets in defined contribution retirement plans (401ks and 403bs) as well as IRAs. When RMDs are required, you will no longer withdraw at the marginal rates of "Married Filing Jointly" but rather as a single individually. You can get a break for two years if you have a dependent child at home. The tax rates can effectively increase your marginal tax rate to higher levels without any additional income, hence we call it the “widow’s penalty.”

Recent information has further compounded the issue as the courts are pondering creditor protection for inherited accounts. Although the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act indisputably protects “retirement” funds, there’s a real question as to whether or not inherited retirement funds retain their retirement character. To date, three separate U.S. Courts of Appeals have ruled on the issue, with the score, so far, 2-1 in favor of protecting inherited IRAs in bankruptcy. As with all issues tax related, things change!

The Supreme Court has agreed to listen to the most recently decided case, Clark v. Rameker. As a result, the 2-1 advantage is meaningless. Our colleague, Sy Goldberg, has filed a Brief of Amicus Curiae, which translates to “friend of the Court.” In essence, it’s a legal brief that says, “Here’s how I think you should rule and why.”

Text Only
Columns
Featured Ads
More Resources from The Herald Bulletin
AP Video
Judge Ponders Overturning Colo. Gay Marriage Ban Airlines Halt Travel to Israel Amid Violence NYPD Chief Calls for 'use of Force' Retraining VA Nominee McDonald Goes Before Congress Bush: Don't Worry, Sugarland Isn't Breaking Up US Official: Most Migrant Children to Be Removed Police Probing Brooklyn Bridge Flag Switch CDC Head Concerned About a Post-antibiotic Era Raw: First Lady Says `Drink Up' More Water Courts Conflicted Over Healthcare Law Holder Urges Bipartisanship on Immigration Raw: Truck, Train Crash Leads to Fireball US Airlines Cancel Israel Flights Obama Signs Workforce Training Law Crash Victims' Remains Reach Ukraine-held City Diplomatic Push Intensifies to End War in Gaza Cat Fans Lap Up Feline Film Festival Michigan Plant's Goal: Flower and Die Veteran Creates Job During High Unemployment
Parade
Magazine

Click HERE to read all your Parade favorites including Hollywood Wire, Celebrity interviews and photo galleries, Food recipes and cooking tips, Games and lots more.
Hyperlocal Search
Premier Guide
Find a business

Walking Fingers
Maps, Menus, Store hours, Coupons, and more...
Premier Guide
Helium debate
Helium
Front page
Poll

Will you be attending Colts camp?

Yes, at least once
Yes, I plan multiple visits
No
     View Results