vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
There are two different possible taxes based on various scenarios proposed by the OP or the lawyer who drew up the OP's father's will or the OP's mother. First, there is the estate tax which is paid by the estate of the deceased, and the heirs get what is left. Most estates in the US pay no estate tax whatsoever because most estates are smaller than $5.4M lifetime gift and estate tax exemption. But, for the record, even though IRAs pass from owner to beneficiary independent of whatever the will might say about the disposition of the IRAs, the value of the deceased's IRAs is part of the estate, and if the estate is large enough that estate tax is due and there is not enough money in the rest of the estate to pay the estate tax (e.g. most of the estate value is IRA money and there are no other investments, just a bank account with a small balance), then the executor of the will can petition the probate court to claw back some of the IRA money from the IRA beneficiaries to pay the estate tax due. Second, there is income tax that the estate must pay on income received from the estate's assets, e.g. mutual fund dividends paid between the date of death and the distribution of the assets to the beneficiaries, or income from cashing in IRAs that have the estate as the beneficiary. Now, most of OP's father's estate is in IRAs which have the OP's mother as the primary beneficiary and there are no named secondary beneficiaries. Thus, by default, the estate is the IRA beneficiary should the OP's mother disclaim the IRAs as the lawyer has suggested. As @JoeTaxpayer says in a comment, if the OP's mother disclaims the IRA, then the estate must distribute all the IRA assets to the three beneficiaries by December 31 of the year in which the fifth anniversary of the death occurs. If the estate decides to do this by itself, then the distribution from the IRA to the estate is taxable income to the estate (best avoided if possible because of the high tax rates on trusts).
...funds received for the month of death and later must be returned. If the estate is bankrupt, as near as I can tell, the SSA is out of luck. (This applies to payment apart from that covered above.) If you need advice on something other than retirement insurance, a comprehensive list of applicable statutes and rulings is here.
"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax.  Some ways: Draft a ""Transfer on Death"" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker.  Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death.  Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual.  P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings.  P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US."
Don't panic this happens all the time. I looked online for a form that can be used to redeposit funds back into the HSA. This form can be used to redeposit funds withdrawn in error and cannot   be used to correct an Excess Contribution Return. Funds will be posted   as a correction and not as a contribution. The deposit will be entered   for the year the distribution occurred. It allows you to specify the year the incorrect distribution occurred. I authorize Optum Bank to make the withdrawal correction indicated   above. I have enclosed a check made payable to Optum Bank for the   amount I’d like redeposited to my account. I understand that this can   result in a possible corrected 1099-SA for the tax year indicated   above. Of course you need to get the forms for your account.
You're going to find a lot of conflicting or vague answers on the internet because there are a lot of plan design elements that are set by the plan sponsor (employer).  There are laws that mandate certain elements and dictate certain requirements of plan sponsors, many of these laws are related to record keeping and fiduciary duty.  There is a lot of latitude for plan sponsors to allow or restrict employee actions even if there is no law against that activity.   There are different rules mandated for employee pre-tax contributions, employee post-tax contributions, and employer contributions.  You have more flexibility with regard to the employer contributions and any post tax contributions you may have made; your plan may allow an in-service distribution of those two items before you reach age 59.5. While your HR department (like most -all- HR departments) is not staffed with ERISA attorneys and CPAs it is your HR department and applicable plan documents that will lay out what an employee is permitted to do under the plan.
No. When you file your Articles of Organization, simply state that your business will operate under the law. You don't need to give any further specification.
"The biggest issue is determining how committed you are to this ""niece"". When setting up an account (529/prepaid tuition/Universal Gift to Minors/Coverdell/Roth) you are making a commitment that locks you into some provisions. They all have different amounts of control, and can impact taxes and financial aid. The states involved can even be important. Some will give tax breaks. How they handle state vs private schools and out of state schools will also differ.  The problem is that it is hard enough knowing what a kid 10-18 years from now is going to want to do, or be able to do. The government has crafted some provisions to handle these complex issues: scholarships, going to a service academy, going to a private school, death of the child...what I don't think they have covered is ending the relationship.  The best option is to set aside the money in a regular account, with no special tax provisions; and then when they are close to graduating determine the best way to handle the transfer. Yes you may have given up some tax benefits, but it will still be your money. You will have to determine how this money will be transferred, but that will depend on the tax rules, and financial aid policies in the future. Options include gift to niece, direct payment, graduation gift..."
Most modern bank accounts can be set up to automatically pay bills for anyone, even someone who has no control over the account. This account would be in a trustee's name for the untrustworthy party. An automatic transfer could be set up from the source account to the irresponsible party's bank account to pay their allowance. It would be wise to remove all overdraft capability from the recipients account, but the whole system might help them learn some responsibility. There are more formal legal structures for forming a long term care-taking trust (with spendthrift provisions to protect the trust from legal action). The trust would need to be maintained by a trustee, resulting in maintenance fees on the principle. It might also help to know if there are legally recognized factors that impair the beneficiaries ability to take care of themselves (substance abuse, depression, age, mental impairment, etc.), but depending on state law, trusts can be designed very flexibly to cover the lifetime of an heir and even their heirs.
"ITIN's can be granted for deceased minors via Form W-7: Choose ""Dependent of U.S. citizen/resident alien"" as the reason for applying. You are required to write ""DECEASED"" across the top of the form, and you will have to provide a birth certificate and potentially other supporting documentation.  The directions are not super clear for this use-case, but I've found that IRS support for ITIN is pretty easy to work with. The directions also have offices/numbers for overseas help, which I'd wager will be better able to assist with your scenario. Edit: I made a poor assumption on answering that the original returns filed were rejected but had been filled out properly, when filing with a deceased dependent without an SSN you typically write 'DIED' in the spot for the dependent's SSN. If the original returns were not filed this way, and accompanied by supporting documentation (record of live birth and record of death), then it may be best to start there, but it sounds like you already got bounced around and had it suggested that the lack of a number was an issue."
The creditors will not be able to go after his father's estate (assuming the father had nothing to do with the business), but at some point, the estate will be divided up. At that point, any money or assets that your husband inherits will be fair game, as they are now your husband's money or assets. I want to be clear; it's nothing to do with your husband being executor (or co-executor) of the estate. This does not contradict zeta-band's earlier answer; Zeta-band is talking about the estate before it is divided up, I'm just pointing out that there may be issues after it is divided up.
It looks to me like this is a 'call an attorney' situation, which is always a good idea in situations like this (family legal disputes).  But, some information. First off, if your family is going to take the car, you certainly won't need to make payments on it any more at that point, in my opinion.  If the will goes through probate (which is the only way they'd really be able to take it), the probate judge should either leave you with the car and the payments, or neither (presumably requiring the family to pay off the loan and settle your interest in the car).  Since the car has negative net value, it seems unlikely that the probate judge would take the car away from you, but who knows.  Either way, if they do take the car away from you, they'll be doing you a service: you have a $6,000 car that you owe $12,000 on.  Let them, and walk away and buy another car for $6,000. Second, I'm not sure they would be allowed to in any event.  See the Illinois DMV page on correcting titles in the case of a deceased owner; Illinois I believe is a joint tenancy state, meaning that once one owner dies, the other just gets the car (and the loan, though the loan documents would cover that).  Unless you had an explicit agreement with your grandfather, anyway. From that page: Joint Ownership A title in the names of two or more persons is considered to be in joint tenancy. Upon the death of one of them, the surviving joint tenant(s) becomes the owner(s) of the vehicle by law. Third, your grandfather can fix all of this fairly easily by mentioning the disposition of the car and loan in his will, if he's still mentally competent and wishes to do so.  If he transfers his ownership of the car to you in the will, it seems like that would be that (though again, it's not clear that the ownership wouldn't just be yours anyway). Finally, I am not a lawyer, and I am not your lawyer, so do not construe any of the text of this post as legal advice; contact a lawyer.
While not entirely untouchable, a college fund can also be in the form of an Indexed Universal Life (IUL) contract through a life insurance agent. These often net a higher rate of return annually than any savings account, are not going to tank if the market does, and can be owned by you for the child. If no one else is on the policy, they have no access to it. You can name yourself the beneficiary as well. There's several very nice features to doing your child's college funding this way. You can ask that the contract is established for maximum cash value. This means the death benefit isn't the overriding need so the premiums you pay fill the cash value of the contract much more quickly. As mentioned in point 1., the contract has a death benefit. No other savings device will grant you this. Heaven forbid the child passes while you are saving for college. Now you will have a tax free benefit that will pay for burial and other related costs and can be used to fund yet another IUL policy if you have more than one child. Unlike other policies, you can set your minimum monthly premium and have the flexibility to add as much as you would like to fill the fund faster if you happen to come into more money and you want to direct it to that contract. There are ceilings to this so that you don't create a modified endowment contract (MEC. Look this up at investopedia), but this is specifically stated in your illustration so that you can keep your contributions a penny under that limit. Unlike college loans, you have extremely quick access to the funds when you need them (probably counter-intuitive to your desire for untouchable money). This can be achieved a couple of ways. You can borrow money from the insurer using your IUL cash value as collateral. Often, a check can be cut within 48 hours. This eliminates the time a normal lender takes in making the loan decision. Or, you can surrender the policy and take the cash value (paying taxes on your gains). The first keeps the policy in force while you pay back the loan if you desire. The second cancels the policy so that you can take your own accumulated money out.
The money was sent from my US bank to my father in India Your father can receive unlimited amount of money as GIFT from you. There is no tax implication on this transaction. Related question After 3 years, my father received a note from the income tax dept. asking him to pay income taxes. Possibly because the income does not match and there maybe high value transactions. This should be replied preferably with the help of CA. Now, the CA is asking him to pay tax in the money I transferred. Is that correct? This is incorrect. Please change the CA and get someone competent. If not, what should I or he do in this case? Get guidance from another CA. Your father can establish that this was convenience and show evidence of transfer from you [need bank statements from your bank and Indian bank]. Property registration payments receipts, etc. Or he can also show this as Gift. If required get a gift deed created.
Under this special election, the basis of property inherited from a decedent who died during 2010 is generally the lesser of: Under this special election for estates of decedents who died in 2010, the executor of the decedent’s estate may increase the basis of certain property that beneficiaries acquire from a decedent by up to $1.3 million (plus certain unused built-in losses and loss carryovers, if applicable), but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor may also increase the basis of certain property that the surviving spouse acquires from a decedent by up to an additional $3 million, but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor of the decedent’s estate is required to provide a statement to all heirs listing the decedent’s basis in the property, the FMV of the property on the date of the decedent’s death, and the additional basis allocated to the property. Contact the executor to determine what the basis of the asset is. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040) and on Form 8949, as described above. Additional Information:
If you can separate the following two points, and live with them. I think you are good to go ahead. Otherwise I would seriously recommend you to reconsider.  Are you willing to give out this much money help a friend assuming that you will never get it back? This is what it means to give a gift, don't let their current intentions distract you from this. Will you be happy to wait as long as it takes till he is able and willing to give you some money? Is it ok if this moment never occurs, or would you feel like the money belongs to you already? This is what it means to receive the promise of a gift, don't get distracted by the fact that you may have given them something before. I don't have a legal background, but if you actually give the money to him so he can buy a house, without demanding something in return, I would judge that you are at least morally ok. (And if the transaction is in cash and fully deniable, you are probably not going to face legal problems in practice).
As for after-death benefits, an estate can only get benefits that were already due to be paid, which generally means a person died and did not get their benefits for that month, so SSA can re-issue a check to the estate following these rules. But as a person cannot be due a lump sum payment after age 70 (for more than 6 months at most), the estate will only be able to get at most 1-6 months of payments (and 6 months is doubtful - you'll need to ask a lawyer if that much would even be possible). If your father was below 70 and wanted to file-and-suspend, the question of lump on death would be more complex and I don't know that answer - but once you are past 70 this doesn't matter any more as you aren't due a lump anymore. Given the above, we've established pretty clearly that if you don't claim your benefits within 6 months after age 70, any months of payment you would have gotten are just forfeited to the system. But if you claim the benefits and stick them in the bank, can they be taken? Well, if a lawsuit is really a worry, then yes these accumulated funds can required to pay a debt - but this potential for loss can be protected against without forfeiting the benefits entirely! This is not very common, but if your father doesn't need the money now he may be able to deposit some of the money into a special partially-lawsuit protected format of the Roth IRA (which has no age limits) as detailed here. If he never gets sued, that's OK - it's still his money! If he passes away, the value goes to his estate and does not disappear. And he doesn't forfeit any of his earned retirement benefits. Finally, I would like to share one last thing with you and your father. These benefits aren't free - he has been paying a portion of his paycheck for decades into Social Security, and now he is eligible for the maximum amount of benefits per month that he will qualify for - and if he wants to keep working he loses no benefit and the amount could potentially even go up. That's up to him.
You say that you inherited the money from your mother, and are now paying these people using money that is already yours.  Because of that, the money is considered a gift from you to them, and the fact that you are doing it in accordance with your mother's wishes doesn't change that.  For it to be considered a bequest from your mother's estate directly to these beneficiaries, it would have had to be handled via the regular by-the-book inheritance procedure and been given to them directly rather than bequeathed to you with informal instructions to pass it on to them. If one gives another person more than $14K in any calendar year, there is the potential gift tax issue to address. I'll explain why it's more a matter of 'addressing' than 'paying', as there are a number of legal ways around this.  Form 709 is what you'll use. In the end, you'll report the gifts over $14K but no tax will be due as they'll simply go against your lifetime gifting allowance, currently $5.49M per person.  Note, 2 ways to avoid even this obligation. If you have a spouse, you have a combined $28K/yr gifting (per recipient) with no reporting required. Similarly, if the recipient has a spouse, you can gift them $14K. i.e. couple to couple can gift $56K/yr. Last, why not just gift $14K before December, and in January, give the second installment? If I had money coming in separate from a will, I'd be happy that you honored a verbal request, and wouldn't be so greedy as to expect you to risk a dime of your own finances to transfer the funds immediately.
"Not to be a downer...but: Another thing to consider is an update to your ""accounts document"". By that I mean, your list of banks, account numbers, insurance policies, access information, etc. I'm told that keeping this information up to date and attached to your will can make a lot of things go far smoother in the event of an untimely passing. I should probably get on that myself..."
"It's not possible for them to be comingled. From the IRS FAQ: Does my employer need to establish a new account under its 401(k),   403(b) or governmental 457(b) plan to receive my designated Roth   contributions? Yes, your employer must establish a new separate account for each   participant making designated Roth contributions and must keep the   designated Roth contributions completely separate from your previous   and current traditional, pre-tax elective contributions. It doesn't have to be a separate ""account"" necessarily, but the amounts must be tracked separately as if they were in separate accounts: Does separate account refer to the actual funding vehicle or does it   refer to separate accounting within the plan's trust? Under IRC Section 402A, the separate account requirement can be   satisfied by any means by which an employer can separately and   accurately track a participant’s designated Roth contributions, along   with corresponding gains and losses."
Lawyers who have done a bunch of these know what is clear and makes sense. (1) In Tennessee, where I live, an intestate's property, someone who died with no will, is divided according to the law. The law looks to find a spouse or relatives to divide the property, before considering giving it to the state. That might be fine for some people. It happened once in my family, and was resolved in court with minimal red tape. But it really depends on the person. Someone in the middle of an unfinalized divorce, for instance, probably needs a will help to sort out who gets what. (2) A form will is valid in Tennessee if it is witnessed properly. That means two witnesses, who sign in yours' and each others' presence. In theory they can be called to testify that the signature is valid. In practice, I don't know if this happens as I am not a lawyer. I have found it difficult to find witnesses who will sign a form will, and it is disconcerting to have to ask friends or coworkers for this sort of favor as most people learn never to sign anything without reading it. But a lawyer often has secretaries that do it... There is a procedure and a treaty for international wills, which I know about from living overseas. To streamline things, you can get the witnesses to each sign an affidavit after they signed the will. The affidavit is sworn written testimony of what happened, that they saw the person sign their will and sign in each others' presence, when, where, no duress, etc. If done correctly, this can be sufficient to prove the will without calling on witnesses. There is another option (3) you arrange your affairs so that most of your funds are disbursed by banks or brokers holding your accounts. Option (3) is really cheap, most stock brokers and banks will create a Transfer-On-Death notice on your account for free. The problem with this is that you also need to write out a letter that explains to your heirs how to get this money, and you need to make sure that they will get the letter if you are dead.
"As long as you're willing to pay the taxes and the penalties, once you're no longer employed you're allowed to do whatever you want. You can always do an ""direct roll-over"" (See IRC Sec. 401(a)(31)(A) which mandates this) and then withdraw from another qualified account, thus creating a withdrawal, if they refuse to just mail you a check (Why would they care? Don't know). The match may have some vesting restrictions, though. Your own contributions - are yours to do with whatever you feel like. That said, just pointing out the obvious - it's a very bad idea. Unless you expect to die before you're 60 and don't want to leave a dime to your heirs, you would probably be better off leaving it in a tax-sheltered account. If the custodian is bad - just roll over elsewhere, there's tons of excellent IRA providers."