Just wrote a check to the US Treasury for $xx,xxx.xx.
I'm still shaking as I'm used to self-filing my returns in early February and receiving a modest refund. I'm retired and get Social Security. Here's the reason for sending the IRS enough to cover a modest salary.
My brother-in-law passed away in 2014 and my sister died in 2017. They had set up a revocable trust and I was named trustee. Spend 2017 until July 2018 converting assets and distributing funds to 12 named entities: 9 charitable organizations and 3 live people, including myself. The problem was their IRA. Somebody had to pay the taxes on it which occurred in 2018. That responsibility fell on the 3 people. My share of the asset about tripled my income. What pissed me off is I had to pay a penalty for under withholding. How does one withhold taxes on something you don't know you'll receive?
I'm just ranting because I'm upset. I know this is a one time thing, but you'd think the IRS could wave the penalty in such a situation. Also had to have 3 sets of taxes done for 2018: the final set for the trust, a set for my 'new' trust, and my personal ones and now thanks to the GOP, the cost of the CPA isn't even deductible!
htuttle
(23,738 posts)Actually, I did as well. Anyone who paid, did.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Would mean I hit a $130 Million lottery.
Sorry about your BIL.
brer cat
(26,396 posts)Your CPA can advise you or you can look up the process. People often win these appeals. Good luck!
sinkingfeeling
(53,127 posts)progree
(11,463 posts)I'm just ranting because I'm upset. I know this is a one time thing, but you'd think the IRS could wave the penalty in such a situation.
My sister and I inherited an IRA that my parents set up in a trust before they passed (the last one passed in 2004). We were able to roll that over into a Beneficiary Designation Account IRA (BDA-IRA) where we only have to take Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) based on our ages. So there isn't a big tax hit in one year, but rather smaller ones each year spread over our remaining life expectancies (sort of).
Anyway, in 2018 the divisor was 16.6, meaning I only had to take 1/16.6 = 6.02% of the account's value as an RMD distribution in 2018. (The divisor had started out out at like 29.6 and decreases by 1.0 each year).
The IRA did not have any charities named as cobeneficiaries. I've read that if there are, the part that goes to the people beneficiaries (like my sister and I) must be all distributed within 5 years or something like that, which can produce a big tax hit -- not just because of the amount, but the effective tax rate on it -- it could push one up into a much higher tax bracket.
The portion that goes to charities should not cause any tax issue (other than the part above where it forces the parts designated for the people beneficiaries to have to be distributed within 5 years or whatever).
I'd be shocked if the IRS didn't waive the under-withholding -- as you say, you couldn' reasonably predict your sister's death, and even if you had, you would be in a very tiny group of potential beneficiaries who would have some idea of these ramifications.
At least in the past the IRS has been reasonable in my experience, e.g. my father did not take IRA RMDs (required minimum distributions) in the last 2 years before his death, due to severe cognitive impairment caused by an amazing coctail of medications. (He had been faithfully taking the RMDs in the previous 15 or so years before that).
The penalty for failure to take an RMD (and thus pay the taxes on it) is 50% of the amount that should have been taken -- a huge huge penalty (e.g. if one's RMD is $10,000, the tax penalty is $5,000 -- on top of course of having to take the RMDs for the missed years and refigure and pay the taxes). Anyway, my sister wrote a letter to the IRS, and they entirely waived the penalty. I've read (in the past anyway) that that is not uncommon -- just have a reasonable excuse.
BigmanPigman
(52,340 posts)and if my medical bills don't eat all my savings, assets and mutual funds, 401, etc. will this same thing happen to the charities (75% of my assets will go to animals refuges) and the two or three remaining family members? Can I do anything before I die to prevent them from getting screwed?
progree
(11,463 posts)WHAT I THINK ... not what I know, which is very little ...
First, what I wrote about the person beneficiaries (like family members) of an IRA that has a charity(ies) as a cobeneficiary(ies) having to take distributions of it all within 5 years -- I'm not sure where I read that ... I think in multiple places ... I think one place was Ed Slott's 2004 book "Parlay Your IRA into a Family Fortune" ... Anyway I really don't know.
No matter what, the charities will be fine -- they will get their designated share right away, and it will be tax free to them.
One can have multiple IRA accounts (that's one of the few things I actually know). Let's say a person has two traditional IRAs -- I think if IRA #1 has charities as cobeneficiaries, then the people beneficiaries get screwed (have to take the distribution over 5 years or whatever) ON THAT PARTICULAR IRA.
If IRA#2 has just people beneficiaries (and no charity cobeneficiaries), then those people will be fine and can take RMDs over their expected life expectancy (there are tables for that), like my sister and I are doing -- on IRA#2. But I'm not sure of that.
irahelp.com was and probably is a great great resource for everything about IRAs. (I had a lot of questions back when my sister and I inherited).
Right now I don't have any charitable beneficiaries on any of my IRAs because I don't know. Not that I don't care about charities -- I gave my farm to Population Connection ( PopulationConnection.org ) in 2016 (in exchange for a charitable gift annuity). But I haven't been doing the estate planning that I should be doing.
BigmanPigman
(52,340 posts)Very useful!!!!!
progree
(11,463 posts)progree
(11,463 posts)Since you generally want to utilize the Stretch IRA concept to postpone income tax payable by beneficiaries, you can fix this in one of two ways. You can divide the IRA while alive and name the child as the sole beneficiary of the first IRA and the charity as the sole beneficiary of the second IRA. Or, if you have already passed, then your executor can segregate your IRA into two equal parts before December 31st of the year in which you die, and then pay out the charitable IRA ((I think it is by December 31 of THE YEAR FOLLOWING the owner's death. -Progree)) . The child could then take distributions over his or her life expectancy (stretch-out)".
http://www.letsmakeaplan.org/blog/view/lets-make-a-plan-blogs/leaving-a-charitable-legacy-with-an-ira
=====================================================
-- https://books.google.com/books?id=V6oh7dPP-msC&pg=PT127&lpg=PT127&dq=iras+with+charities+as+cobeneficiaries&source=bl&ots=9T8C2Q1ExF&sig=ACfU3U2TnyeChuRlvh45wg1omrRJ-Hduaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMpcD-q83hAhVSLK0KHXNXA4EQ6AEwDnoECC8QAQ#v=onepage&q=iras%20with%20charities%20as%20cobeneficiaries&f=false
=====================================================
That said, the "stretch IRA" that my sister and I are enjoying might not be around for long:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/congress-may-gut-apos-stretch-133019407.html
# The House Ways and Means Committee passed the Secure Act earlier this month in a bid to help workers save for retirement.
# A provision in the bill would force the distribution of a retirement account within 10 years for most nonspouse beneficiaries, which could throw cold water on a tax-savings strategy known as the "stretch IRA."
...
It's not just "the wealthy", it's the beneficiaries of anyone who happens to have an IRA or 401(k) and passes before it is depleted, sigh. The Obama administration had been trying to kill it too.
=====================================================
I should have mentioned in my #9 that irahelp.com had (and probably has) excellent forums with real experts answering questions. So one doesn't have to wade through a bunch of reading material ...
BigmanPigman
(52,340 posts)in my trust I think I'll make a copy of this info and stick it on the front page of the trust so they won't miss it. Thanks!
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)the penalty can be waived.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)A group of us were sitting around one day at lunch, and the topic was complaining about income taxes. During a brief pause one of my friends injected that he would love to have our problems. We all looked at him. "Paying income taxes would mean that I had an income," he said. He had been unemployed for more than a year.
"My share of the asset about tripled my income." If somebody gave me a gift equal to two years of my income, I would be very happy to pay income tax on it.
bernie59
(87 posts)there is a "safe harbor" exception that would normally apply in cases like yours.
sinkingfeeling
(53,127 posts)2017 taxes, but didn't use them, he'll have to file amended returns. But I already sent the checks with the penalties included. Not sure what will happen.
bernie59
(87 posts)And be sure to look carefully at the IRS response, to make sure you get it all back - unless the facts are 100% clear, the IRS will always make assumptions that maximizes your tax. I had to go several rounds with them once.
I'm really really surprised the CPA did not catch this - it is common that people get caught out with under-withholding for all kinds of reasons, and the IRS rules are pretty reasonable so they do not penalize you if it was unavoidable.