Beneficiary Forms, a Grandchild With Special Needs, and the Charitable Lever
Eleanor, 74, is a widow with $3.4 million: a $1.9 million traditional IRA, a $500,000 Roth IRA, $700,000 of taxable brokerage with $260,000 of basis, and a $500,000 mortgage-free home. Her will splits everything equally between Paul, 51, a surgeon in the 37% bracket, and Claire, 48, who earns $58,000 and is the sole caregiver for her 12-year-old son with Down syndrome. Eleanor's beneficiary forms still name her late husband as primary on the traditional IRA and her estate as contingent on the Roth. She takes her RMD each year, gives $12,000 annually to her church, and holds $400,000 of term insurance that expires when she turns 75. She wants to "keep it simple" and avoid lawyers.
1. Identify the two most consequential problems in this file and what you do first.
Read the worked answer
Problem one: the beneficiary designations override the will entirely. The late husband is still primary and cannot inherit; the contingent designation governs. On the Roth, the contingent is the estate, which means the Roth passes through probate, is exposed to creditors, and - worst - the estate is not a designated beneficiary. A non-see-through beneficiary gets no 10-year stretch; if death occurs on or after the required beginning date, distributions follow the owner's remaining single life expectancy, and if before, a five-year rule. On a $500,000 Roth that should have compounded tax-free for decades, this is a large, silent loss.
The traditional IRA's contingent designation needs the same scrutiny, since it likely defaults to the estate under the plan's terms. Fix this first, in writing, with confirmation from each custodian. A beneficiary form is a one-page document that overrules a $5,000 estate plan.
Problem two: Claire's son. The money is not his asset while Claire holds it, so an outright gift to Claire does not by itself disqualify him. The risk is what happens downstream: if Claire dies without a trust, her share passes through her estate or to her son directly, potentially destroying his eligibility for means-tested benefits and leaving no one with fiduciary authority over the funds. Recommend a third-party special needs trust as remainder beneficiary for Claire's share, drafted by counsel who does this work.
Framing for Eleanor: "Keep it simple" is compatible with this. A correctly drafted trust is simpler for Claire than a probate fight.
2. Eleanor wants to leave everything "evenly" to the two children. How would you allocate assets rather than just amounts, and how does her giving fit in?
Read the worked answer
Even in dollars, uneven in tax character. This is the single highest-value adjustment available to her.
- Paul is in the 37% bracket. A $950,000 share of the traditional IRA, forced out within 10 years (with annual RMDs required in years one through nine under the final regulations), taxes at the top rate. A $250,000 share of Roth costs him nothing.
- Claire is in the 12% bracket. Roughly $95,000 a year of IRA distributions on top of her $58,000 salary pushes her to about 22-24% - painful, but nowhere near Paul's rate, and she has room to plan.
So: split the traditional IRA into two accounts, name Paul on the smaller share and Claire on the larger; name Paul on the Roth and Claire on the taxable account only after considering the step-up, below.
On the $12,000 of annual giving: she is 74 and takes the standard deduction, so a charitable deduction is worth nothing to her. Shift it to a qualified charitable distribution. A QCD at 70½ or older satisfies her RMD dollar-for-dollar, is excluded from income rather than deducted, and reduces AGI - which lowers the taxation of her Social Security and protects her against IRMAA tiers. Same gift, materially better tax outcome.
Finally, name the charity as a beneficiary of the traditional IRA, not the Roth and not the taxable account. The IRA is income in respect of a decedent with no step-up; the charity pays no tax on it, so the deduction-equivalent is captured at 100 cents on the dollar. Never leave IRD to a charity while leaving appreciated taxable assets to heirs who could have received a step-up.
3. What is your judgment on the taxable account, the house, and the expiring term policy?
Read the worked answer
The taxable account and the house should be held, not gifted. The $700,000 account with $260,000 of basis carries $440,000 of unrealized gain; at death, the heirs receive a stepped-up basis and that gain disappears. The house gets the same treatment. Gifting either asset during life hands the heirs Eleanor's low basis and converts a tax-free inheritance into a taxed one. If she needs cash, draw from the traditional IRA - it is fully taxable whenever it comes out, so spending it while retaining the step-up assets is the efficient order.
The term policy is the weak link. It expires at 75, which is next year, and at $3.4 million her estate is far below the federal exemption; federal estate tax is unlikely, though a state estate or inheritance tax is possible depending on residence. So the policy is not buying estate liquidity for a federal liability she probably does not have. Its real potential use is funding a special needs trust for her grandson - and a policy owned by the trust, not by her, is what keeps the proceeds out of her estate and outside the grandson's countable resources.
Judgment: let the term policy expire rather than converting it or paying a steep renewal, and redirect the premium toward either a modest trust-owned policy for the grandson or additional funding of the trust. Do not keep paying for a death benefit that solves a problem she does not have and then vanishes the year she is most likely to need the estate plan to work. Confirm the state estate tax exposure and the current federal exemption before finalizing, and document that you raised the lapse decision.