vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I would like to bring up some slightly different points than the ones raised in the excellent answers from JoeTaxpayer and littleadv. The estate can be the beneficiary of an IRA -- indeed, as has been pointed out, this is the default beneficiary if the owner does not specify a beneficiary -- but a testamentary trust cannot be the designated beneficiary of an IRA. A testamentary trust that meets the requirements laid out on page 36 of Publication 590 is essentially a pass-through entity that takes distributions from the IRA and passes them on to the beneficiaries. For the case being considered here of minor beneficiaries, the distributions from the IRA that pass through the trust must be sent to the legal guardians (or other custodians) of the minors' UTMA accounts, and said guardians must invest these sums for the benefit of the minors and hand the monies over when the minors reach adulthood. Minors are not responsible for their support, and so these monies cannot be used by the legal guardian for oaying the minors' living expenses except as provided for in the UTMA regulations. When the minors become adults, they get all the accumulated value on their UTMA accounts, and can start taking the RMDs personally after that, and blowing them on motorcycles if they wish. Thus, the advantage of the testamentary trust is essentially that it lets the trustee of the trust to decide how much money (over and above the RMD) gets distributed each year. The minors and soon-to-be young adults cannot take the entire IRA in a lump sum etc but must abide by the testamentary trustee's ideas of whether extra money (over and above the RMD) should be taken out in any given year. How much discretion is allowed to the trustee is also something to be thought through carefully. But at least the RMD must be taken from the IRA and distributed to the minors' UTMA accounts (or to the persons as they reach adulthood) each year. Regardless of whether the Traditional IRA goes to beneficiaries directly or through a testamentary trust, its value (as of the date of death) is still included in the estate, and estate tax might be due.
The UK doesn't tax gifts or wealth, so you don't have to pay any tax on your existing savings or the money your parents transfer you. If your parents lived in the UK then you might be potentially liable to inheritance tax on the money if they died less than seven years after giving it to you, but if they live in Japan this won't be relevant. In theory you might have to pay tax on any interest received in the bank account while you live in the UK. However this is likely to be very small, and if you don't have any other income then it's highly unlikely this would apply, as you can get up to £16,000 of interest without paying tax: https://www.gov.uk/apply-tax-free-interest-on-savings/how-much-tax-you-pay
I just went through this and life insurance money generally does not go into Probate. However, since there was no beneficiary, you will have to ask the probate court. I would advise you not to spend any of the money yet. Make a meeting with the probate court in the county where they lived. You will need the death certificate and the will. If you do not have a will, the estate generally does not need to go into probate. But if it does, then they will definitely let you know what to do with the insurance money. Just make sure you use the estate accounts to pay off all of his debts before you distribute the left over money. The entire process should take an absolute minimum of 6 months.
I cannot give exact details on how to organize this (depend on your country, and beside that i'm no expert on finances either), however, this was recently suggested as a pension alternative: You used 100% of (2) after 20 years, and then the Life Annuity start to pay out. This has two advantages. First, it might be flat out cheaper depending on the products and tax laws. For example you do not pay tax on a saving account (other than property tax), but you pay more tax on a Life Annuity. Second, if you do die before the 20 years are over, you do have a no heirs, but it might still feel better to see your money go to a charity or some other organization you would like to support other than the big pockets of the insurance company when you die early :)
I know the money isn't taxable when I send it to my parents Yes this is right they send it to their nephew as it will count as a gift No this is incorrect Yes. Refer to Income Tax guide on relations exempt under gifts. Gifts received from relatives are not charged to tax. Relative for this purpose means:   (a) Spouse of the individual;   (b) Brother or sister of the individual;   (c) Brother or sister of the spouse of the individual;   (d) Brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual;   (e) Any lineal ascendant or descendent of the individual;   (f) Any lineal ascendant or descendent of the spouse of the individual;   (g) Spouse of the persons referred to in (b) to (f).   Friend is not a relative as defined in the above list and hence, gift received from friends will be charged to tax (if other criteria of taxing gift are satisfied).​ Even if you assumption were true, i.e. your dad gives it to his brother and his brother gives it to his son ...  But if this is done sequentially and soon one after the other, is it taxable? The intent is important. One can do it immediately or after few years; if the intent is established that this was done to evade taxes, then you will have to pay the tax as well as penalty.
You can do a trustee to trustee exchange. You will need to contact both companies to coordinate the paperwork. As long as both accounts are the same type (traditional\Roth) you are fine.  You can also do a rollover where you have the check but there are some limitations and deadlines which are avoided by the trustee to trustee exchange. For example the IRS limits the number of rollovers to one a year. You can have multiple accounts of the same type. The annual contribution limits can be split across accounts. Rollovers and transfers are not part of annual contribution limits.
"This is an unfortunate situation for you.  You have zero chance at your question number 1, if someone was going to bend this rule for you it would have happened already.  The answer to question number 2 is pursue solution number 3. The overriding issue is that the IRS makes these rules, not the employer/plan sponsor or the administrator.  You can't talk the plan administrator in to reimbursing you, their system likely doesn't even have a function to do so. FSA timing issues can be complex and I think that's the root of your issue because when an expense can be incurred (date of service versus date of payment) and when a claim must be filed are different things. It's really common to bend the rules on when a claim is submitted, but not when it was incurred.   It's really common for an exiting employee to have 30 days to submit expenses for reimbursement.  FSA expenses must always be incurred within the specified plan year, or within your dates of employment if you weren't employed for the entire plan year, this is specified by the IRS.  It seems like some wires were crossed when you asked this question.  You were asking ""can I still incur claims"" and they were hearing ""how long do I have to submit an expense that has already been incurred."" Some plans allow COBRA continuation on FSA which generally does not make sense.  Your contributions to the plan would use after tax dollars but for folks who know they have an eligible expense coming it can make sense to continue via COBRA in retain your eligibility under the plan so you can incur a claim after your employment termination. Regarding number 3.  This sort of reimbursement would be outside the plan, no precedent is necessary.  You've gotten them to claim it was their mistake, they're going to reimburse you for their mistake, it has nothing to do with the FSA. Good luck."
Here's my obligatory contrarian answer... No, the way the note was written, it wouldn't stand up to IRS scrutiny. Libertarians need to get a little more creative if they want to skirt the laws and make up a credible story about why it is a gift: Thanks for chatting with me at dinner tonight, I feel like we're   becoming fast friends. I'm sorry you weren't able to sit down and eat   with me, so here are a few bucks to buy you dinner/dessert when your   shift ends. It's not a tip; your service was lousy! I'm still doubtful that this would stand up to scrutiny, but unlike the note that was left in the picture, it actually does have a chance.
"According to this link http://taxes.lovetoknow.com/federal-income-tax/w9-tax-form: The very last line on the personal information section refers to ""account numbers."" Here, the taxpayer lists any accounts they have with the IRS to pay back taxes or pre-payments for anticipated tax liability obligations. This information is optional and is inapplicable in many situations."
"You will be able to use the subsequent 4% matching contributions as repayments toward the HBP in the same tax year. You can designate it as such when you do your tax return for the year. Note that the first payment for HBP will be in the second year after you withdraw from your RRSP, but you are free to designate any contributions before this time toward the HBP repayment. One blog post indicates that if you pay more than the minimum amount in any year (including pre-payments prior to the first required payment), ""future payments will be the remaining amount owing divided by the number of payment years remaining."" My experience with my LLP repayment (similar to HBP) is the same."
There are two different tax returns you'll be doing: one is for her, until the day of her death. The other is for the estate. The personal one you could probably do on your own, it's nothing different from the one for a living person, except for the cut-off date in the middle of the year. The estate tax return may be a bit more nuanced, since it is a trust return and not an individual return, and is done under a different set of rules. I'd suggest talking to a tax professional who'd help you. Your estate executioner should be doing the estate tax return (or hiring someone to do it). Sorry for your loss.
You might want to head on over to https://law.stackexchange.com/ and ask the same question.   However from a personal finance perspective this kind of drama is somewhat common when someone is deceased and financial expectations are not met by the heirs.  It sounds like the daughter was expecting a lot more in inheritance than was actually received.  There was probably an overestimation of dad's net worth and an underestimation of the cost of his care toward the end of his life. Its best not to participate in this drama, and I feel that you are correct that the daughter does not have a right to see the bank account statements prior to dad's passage.  The question is also if she has a right to see it now. Here in the US a joint account can be setup so the ownership transfers to other account holder(s) up death of an owner.  So in this case your mother would own the account.  If the account is setup as such, then the estate has no right to that money.  You may want to check with the bank for some free advice.  What is the classification of the account now that dad has passed?  When a person grants someone else the power of attorney they have the ability to act as if they were that person.  Most of the time POAs are limited in scope so If I give a person the POA to register a car in my name, they cannot apply for a credit card in my name (legally).  In this case, however, the POA was probably general so pretty much your mom could do whatever she pleased. So if your mom took good care of the dad and bought herself some nice jewelry that is perfectly allowable with a general POA. I strongly doubt this daughter has any rights to the past records and may not even have the rights to the joint bank account currently.
&gt; his wealth will be sold, liquidated  My main interest is where will the proceeds go to? To public coffers? I don't think so. It will most likely go to charity foundations or funds run by their offsprings and relatives.   Hasn't Facebook guy said the same thing?
There are two possible scenarios, relating to slightly different definitions of 'pension'. The most normal definition of 'pension' is that you are paid a defined amount each week or month by some company, or the government. If so, that is not part of the estate. You won't be able to take it as a lump sum (probably). It isn't affected by whatever your husband wrote in his will. If, on the other hand, you and your husband had a big sum of money, which you were drawing on to pay your expenses and still are, then the big sum of money would have been part of the estate. The right person to ask about this is the lawyer who dealt with your husband's will. None of this is any help in deciding what you should do with the pension.
You're not going to pay any tax. You can receive the money with gratitude and treat your in-laws nicely. Your in-laws will be liable for gift tax. They should be filling and filing the form 709. The end result may be, depending on their past gifts, that they will actually pay no money but instead use the lifetime exemption which is correlated with the estate tax. In other words, this gift will reduce their estate tax exemption. If the overall wealth they expect to have by the time they die is less than $5M (+something, the current level of the estate tax exemption), this translates to having pay no tax whatsoever. The form 709 must be filed, regardless, and a copy of it kept for future tracking purposes.
"First, when a debt collector says, ""It's to your advantage to give me money now"", I'd take that with a grain of salt. My ex-wife declared bankruptcy and when debt collectors couldn't find her, they somehow tracked me down and told me that I should tell her that it would be to her advantage to pay off this debt before the bankruptcy went through. That was total nonsense of course. The whole point of bankruptcy is to not have to pay the debt. Why would you pay it just before it was wiped off the books? (Now that I think of it, I'm surprised that they didn't tell me that I should pay her debts.) As others have noted, this would be controlled by state law. But in general, when someone dies any debts are payed from the assets of the estate, and then whatever is left goes to the heirs. If nothing is left or the debts exceed the assets, then the heirs get nothing, but they don't have to pay somebody else's debts. I don't see how you could ""put the house under your name"". If he left the house to you in his will, then after any debts are settled in accordance with state law, the house would transfer to you. But you can't just decide to put the house in your name outside of the legal inheritance process. If you could, then people could undermine a will at any time by just deciding to take an asset left to someone else and ""put it in their name"". Or as in this case, people could undermine the rights of creditors by transferring all assets to themselves before debts were paid. Even if there's some provision in your state for changing the name on a deed prior to probate to facilitate getting mortgages and taxes paid or whatever, I would be quite surprised if this allowed you to shelter assets from legitimate creditors. It would be a gaping loophole in inheritance law. Frankly, if your father's debts are more than the value of his assets, including the value of the house, I suspect you will not be able to keep the house. It will be sold to pay off the creditors. I would certainly talk to a lawyer about this as there might be some provision in the law that you can take advantage of. I'll gladly yield on this point to anyone with specific knowledge of New Jersey inheritance law."
Keep a list of your accounts, banks, life insurance policies, location of your will, etc, and make sure two people you trust know where you keep that list. Review and update the list at least once a year. This way if something happens to you, your next of kin will have an easier time locating your financial details and final wishes. And having a list also means you won't forget about any of your accounts.
"First - for anyone else reading - An IRA that has no beneficiary listed on the account itself passes through the will, and this eliminates the opportunity to take withdrawals over the beneficiaries' lifetimes. There's a five year distribution requirement. Also, with a proper beneficiary set up on the IRA account the will does not apply to the IRA. An IRA with me as sole beneficiary regardless of the will saying ""all my assets I leave to the ASPCA."" This is also a warning to keep that beneficiary current. It's possible that one's ex-spouse is still on IRA or 401(k) accounts as beneficiary and new spouse is in for a surprise when hubby/wife passes. Sorry for the tangent, but this is all important to know. The funneling of a beneficiary IRA through a trust is not for amateurs. If set up incorrectly, the trust will not allow the stretch/lifetime withdrawals, but will result in a broken IRA. Trusts are not cheap, nor would I have any faith in any attorney setting it up. I would only use an attorney who specializes in Trusts and Estate planning. As littleadv suggested, they don't have to be minors. It turns out that the expense to set up the trust ($1K-2K depending on location) can help keep your adult child from blowing through a huge IRA quickly. I'd suggest that the trust distribute the RMDs in early years, and a higher amount, say 10% in years to follow, unless you want it to go just RMD for its entire life. Or greater flexibility releasing larger amounts based on life events.  The tough part of that is you need a trustee who is willing to handle this and will do it at a low cost.  If you go with Child's name only, I don't know many 18/21 year old kids who would either understand the RMD rules on IRAs or be willing to use the money over decades instead of blowing it.  Edit - A WSJ article Inherited IRAs: a Sweet Deal and my own On my Death, Please, Take a Breath, an article that suggests for even an adult, education on how RMDs work is a great idea."
The UK doesn't have a gift tax. In limited circumstances if the giver is also in the UK and dies within 7 years, then some inheritance tax might be payable, but if you're in India that won't apply. India also appears not to have any gift tax if the giver is an uncle of the recipient, so no tax will be payable by either party here. There's also no tax deduction for gifts in either the UK or India, so if this is out of your income you'll probably already have paid tax on the money in some form.
Okay, I went through a similar situation when my mother died in March of this year. The estate still needs to go into probate. Especially if there was a will. And when you do this, your husband will be named as the executor. Then what he will need to do is produce both of their death certificates to the bank, have the account closed, and open an estate account with both of their names on it. Their debts & anything like this should be paid from this account as well. Then what you can do is endorse the check as the executor and deposit it into this account. After all debts are paid, the money can be disbursed to the beneficiaries (your husband). Basically, as long as they didn't have any huge debts to pay, he will see the money again. It just may be a couple of months. And you will have to pay some filing fees.
"If the person has prepared (""put your affairs in order"") then they will have a will and an executor. And this executor will have a list of the life insurance policies and will contact the companies to arrange payouts to the beneficiaries. It's not really the beneficiary's job to do that. If the person hasn't made a list of their policies, but has a will and an executor, then the executor can try things like looking at recently paid bills (you're sending $100 a month to ""Friendly Life Insurance Company""? Bet it's a life insurance policy) or paperwork that is in the person's home or their safety deposit boxes. Even if you don't have the key to those boxes, a copy of the will and the death certificate will get the box drilled out for you. If you don't know what bank they might have SD boxes at, again your paperwork will get the manager to find out for you if there is a box at that particular branch, so a day spent visiting branches can be fruitful. (Something I know from personal experience with someone whose affairs were nowhere near in order.) Generally you find out you're a beneficiary of a will because the executor tells you. I suppose it's possible that a person might name you beneficiary of their life insurance without telling you or anyone else, and without writing a will, but it's pretty unlikely. If you're worried, I suggest you encourage your parents, grandparents, and other likely namers of you to write up some paperwork and keep it somewhere family is likely to find it. (Not hidden inside a book on a bookcase or in the back of the wool cupboard.)"
"Get a will completed ASAP.  It sounds like you are not doing a standard inheritance, so you will want to have it down in writing.   If money is an issue, I would research were you can get a will done for cheap, but I would avoid doing a ""fill out the form yourself"" kind of a thing given that this is non-standard."
That means, you should make a loan in such a way that the borrower will (begin) repaying it reasonably soon, so that you can show payment schedule being followed and money moving back to you. Reasonably soon is not of course defined in a statute, so do consult with a EA/CPA licensed in your state on how to structure the loan so that it will not appear as an attempt to evade the gift tax. Are there any limits on how big a loan can be? No, but keep in mind that even with statutory interest charges (published by the IRS monthly, see the link), with large enough loan you can exceed the gift tax exemption. Also, keep in mind that interest is taxable income to you. Even if you gift it back (i.e.: the statutory interest)."
"From IRS Publication 970 Tax Benefits for Education Note: Qualified tuition programs (QTPs) are also called ""529 plans.""  Changing the Designated Beneficiary There are no income tax consequences if the designated beneficiary of   an account is changed to a member of the beneficiary's family. See   Members of the beneficiary's family , earlier.  Members of the beneficiary's family. For these purposes, the beneficiary's family includes the   beneficiary's spouse and the following other relatives of the   beneficiary. regarding ownership changes: Rollovers Any amount distributed from a QTP isn't taxable if it is rolled over   to another QTP for the benefit of the same beneficiary or for the   benefit of a member of the beneficiary's family (including the   beneficiary's spouse). An amount is rolled over if it is paid to   another QTP within 60 days after the date of the distribution. Don't report qualifying rollovers (those that meet the above criteria)   anywhere on Form 1040 or 1040NR. These aren't taxable distributions. Example. When Aaron graduated from college last year, he had $5,000 left in his   QTP. He wanted to give this money to his younger brother, who was in   junior high school. In order to avoid paying tax on the distribution   of the amount remaining in his account, Aaron contributed the same   amount to his brother's QTP within 60 days of the distribution. So it appears that as far as the IRS in concerned the rollover could be done to change ownership as long as the beneficiary was in the same family. It is possible that there could be a state tax issue with the change of ownership, if it changed from a plan in state A to one in state B; and state A treated the original contributions as a tax deduction. So check the guidelines for the specific 529 plan."