Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
My very elderly in-law just inherited 1.2 million in stocks, no bonds. Apparently her late husband was 100% equity. Would selling all the equity and moving to one balanced fund be the proper course here? Vanguard Wellesley perhaps?
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Presumably, the assets passed to her as the surviving spouse. Someone will be able to answer this qualifies for a step-up in cost basis which could have a significant impact if the assets are sold. Wellesley is an often recommended fund, but I suspect most here would recommend the three fund portfolio in percentages to be determined based on your in-law's circumstances, quite possibly a 20/80 stock/bond ratio. Can you post other information about income/debt, etc.?
Tim
Tim
-
- Posts: 5343
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:17 am
- Location: midValley OR
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
I'd let spouse make arrangements with mother.
Rev012718; 4 Incm stream buckets: SS+pension; dfr'd GLWB VA & FI anntys, by time & $$ laddered; Discretionary; Rentals. LTCi. Own, not asset. Tax TBT%. Early SS. FundRatio (FR) >1.1 67/70yo
-
- Posts: 5343
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:17 am
- Location: midValley OR
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Many threads on rising equity accounts when you have enough funds for life.
We have No Bonds. Less than 10% directly exposed to Equity Market
We have No Bonds. Less than 10% directly exposed to Equity Market
Rev012718; 4 Incm stream buckets: SS+pension; dfr'd GLWB VA & FI anntys, by time & $$ laddered; Discretionary; Rentals. LTCi. Own, not asset. Tax TBT%. Early SS. FundRatio (FR) >1.1 67/70yo
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Taxable account? Is it stocks or funds?
Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
The spouse passed, that's how she inherited the money. Is stepped up basis an issue here? I thought the inheritance would pass tax free.
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
-
- Posts: 5343
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:17 am
- Location: midValley OR
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Many threads on rising equity accounts when you have enough funds for life. In a backtest, being high equity is less risk than a blend.
Rev012718; 4 Incm stream buckets: SS+pension; dfr'd GLWB VA & FI anntys, by time & $$ laddered; Discretionary; Rentals. LTCi. Own, not asset. Tax TBT%. Early SS. FundRatio (FR) >1.1 67/70yo
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
In what time span?itstoomuch wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:54 pm Many threads on rising equity accounts when you have enough funds for life. In a backtest, being high equity is less risk than a blend.
-
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:22 pm
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
runner3081 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:06 pmI think he/she meant your spouse... the one related to this person
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
It's true, she has lots of ability to take risk, but not much need, so yes, moving everything to a multifund is probably the best option.zz4 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:47 pmMixed stocks and some mutual funds in the IRA. Other than SS she has no income. She is debt free thankfully and owns her house.
Would selling all the equity and moving to one balanced fund be the proper course here?
If she is not very knowledgeable/experienced about investing and risk, I will suggest LifeStrategy conservative (40% stock) or Target Retirement Income (30% stock). She has no need for a high stock allocation. Wellesley is also a reasonable option.
Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
There are no taxes on the inheritance, but there may be capital gains if she sells the stocks or mutual funds in a taxable account. Were the taxable assets just in his name?
But assets in the IRA can be sold (within the IRA, not a distribution out of the IRA) without any tax consequences. However, speaking of distributions, she will have to take RMDs on the IRA.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
In his name only.There are no taxes on the inheritance, but there may be capital gains if she sells the stocks or mutual funds in a taxable account. Were the taxable assets just in his name?
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32842
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
zz4:
This is a situation where selling securities with large capital-gains can result in large and unnecessary capital-gain taxes. Please seek the services of a qualified tax accountant. It will be easy for you to make a very expensive mistake.
Best wishes.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
-
- Posts: 5343
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:17 am
- Location: midValley OR
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
I'm talking about your spouse, whose mother inherited.
Would there be a step? Depends on funds were setup.
Would the inheritance be tax free. Depends on how funds were setup and basis of funds/stock. The stock could be losers at inheritance.
Last edited by itstoomuch on Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rev012718; 4 Incm stream buckets: SS+pension; dfr'd GLWB VA & FI anntys, by time & $$ laddered; Discretionary; Rentals. LTCi. Own, not asset. Tax TBT%. Early SS. FundRatio (FR) >1.1 67/70yo
-
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:49 am
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Can you explain this? I thought the basis would step up in this case, so selling around the time of receiving the inheritance would result in very low gains.Taylor Larimore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:35 pm This is a situation where selling securities with large capital-gains can result in large and unnecessary capital-gain taxes. Please seek the services of a qualified tax accountant.
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Were the assets in any type of trust?chambers136 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:52 pmCan you explain this? I thought the basis would step up in this case, so selling around the time of receiving the inheritance would result in very low gains.Taylor Larimore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:35 pm This is a situation where selling securities with large capital-gains can result in large and unnecessary capital-gain taxes. Please seek the services of a qualified tax accountant.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32842
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Chambers:chambers136 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:52 pmCan you explain this? I thought the basis would step up in this case, so selling around the time of receiving the inheritance would result in very low gains.Taylor Larimore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:35 pm This is a situation where selling securities with large capital-gains can result in large and unnecessary capital-gain taxes. Please seek the services of a qualified tax accountant.
I worked 5-years as an IRS Revenue Officer. I also was chief Financial Officer for the South Florida Small Business Administration. I did my own taxes most of my life. I know when taxes can be complicated and mistakes are costly.
I believe this is the poster's situation.
As much as I love this forum, it is not the place to get complicated tax advice--even assuming we have all the correct facts about this million dollar account.
Best wishes.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
-
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:42 am
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
100 percent in agreement with Taylor.
Excellent Tax Attorneys and experienced CPAs both comprise "money well spent".
Excellent Tax Attorneys and experienced CPAs both comprise "money well spent".
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:08 am
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Great question,
Taking a step back, there are 2 key concerns:
-investment risk
-capital gains taxes
In my opinion, overall risk is much more important than taxes. Being invested in 100% stocks means the account is quite aggressive, by any standards, let alone for an elderly individual. From purely a risk standpoint, a much more conservative allocation probably makes more sense.
Granted, if some of the money is not actually needed to fund day-to-day expenses, then the correct lifespan to be using when deciding the proper risk no longer her own, but maybe a grandchild. In that case an aggressive allocation may make sense, but only for the portion that is not needed for near-term expenses.
Now on to the 2nd issue: taxes. Just because risk is more important than taxes does not mean taxes should be completely ignored. The question of whether the account received a step-up in basis is a very important one. If it did, then she could sell some the stocks to buy bonds and not have to worry too much about exorbitant capital gains taxes. That would be the best case scenario.
However, there are many factors that go into determining whether the account got a step up in basis, including:
-account type
-title of the account (if it was held in his name only, it is more likely to receive a full step up. If it was a joint account, maybe only a portion will get stepped up)
I too would recommend speaking with a CPA to nail down the tax issue.
Again, I generally recommend focusing on risk more-so than taxes.
Taking a step back, there are 2 key concerns:
-investment risk
-capital gains taxes
In my opinion, overall risk is much more important than taxes. Being invested in 100% stocks means the account is quite aggressive, by any standards, let alone for an elderly individual. From purely a risk standpoint, a much more conservative allocation probably makes more sense.
Granted, if some of the money is not actually needed to fund day-to-day expenses, then the correct lifespan to be using when deciding the proper risk no longer her own, but maybe a grandchild. In that case an aggressive allocation may make sense, but only for the portion that is not needed for near-term expenses.
Now on to the 2nd issue: taxes. Just because risk is more important than taxes does not mean taxes should be completely ignored. The question of whether the account received a step-up in basis is a very important one. If it did, then she could sell some the stocks to buy bonds and not have to worry too much about exorbitant capital gains taxes. That would be the best case scenario.
However, there are many factors that go into determining whether the account got a step up in basis, including:
-account type
-title of the account (if it was held in his name only, it is more likely to receive a full step up. If it was a joint account, maybe only a portion will get stepped up)
I too would recommend speaking with a CPA to nail down the tax issue.
Again, I generally recommend focusing on risk more-so than taxes.
-
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:49 am
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Not looking for complicated tax advice or people’s qualifications, but for general info, what are some instances would the inheritance not have a stepped basis? I couldn’t find any example in a google search.
-
- Posts: 2528
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:31 pm
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
It depends how it was set up.
- Hyperborea
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:31 am
- Location: Portugal
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
I think one would need to know if it was really all the deceased's to give. If they lived in a community property state and the money to buy the stocks came from wages or other income during the marriage then the surviving spouse already owned half of the stocks. That half doesn't have any step up in basis.chambers136 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:42 pm Not looking for complicated tax advice or people’s qualifications, but for general info, what are some instances would the inheritance not have a stepped basis? I couldn’t find any example in a google search.
Note: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
It’s not just that facts don’t seem to matter anymore. It’s that it doesn’t seem to matter that facts don’t matter.
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
chambers136 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:42 pm Not looking for complicated tax advice or people’s qualifications, but for general info, what are some instances would the inheritance not have a stepped basis? I couldn’t find any example in a google search.
If the inheritance was assets held in a credit shelter trust (also known as a bypass trust or A/B trust), the cost basis was set on the date the trust was created not on the inheritance date.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
+1 to Taylor
It is hopeless to even have the full picture in a forum. ALso regarding the AA: It is not said if this person has emergencycash, and if the equities iare in only one or a few different companies! Sometimes the best is not to give advice.
It is hopeless to even have the full picture in a forum. ALso regarding the AA: It is not said if this person has emergencycash, and if the equities iare in only one or a few different companies! Sometimes the best is not to give advice.
-
- Posts: 3918
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:41 pm
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
That's backwards. In a community property state, the surviving spouse gets a full step-up upon the passing of the decedent. Essentially, in a community property state there is no "separate property" interest, and step-up for one is step-up for both. In a non-community property state, each party has a separate interest in the property, and only the decedent's separate interest gets a step-up at passing.Hyperborea wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:12 pmI think one would need to know if it was really all the deceased's to give. If they lived in a community property state and the money to buy the stocks came from wages or other income during the marriage then the surviving spouse already owned half of the stocks. That half doesn't have any step up in basis.chambers136 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:42 pm Not looking for complicated tax advice or people’s qualifications, but for general info, what are some instances would the inheritance not have a stepped basis? I couldn’t find any example in a google search.
Note: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
In this case, if the stocks were held as "sole separate property" of the decedent, the surviving spouse gets a full step-up, since she will have had no interest in the stocks prior to the passing of her husband.if property is classified as community property, not only does the decedent’s share of property receive a new basis but also the surviving spouse’s share receives this same basis
https://www.cpajournal.com/2017/08/18/g ... tep-basis/If the property is the separate property (solely owned) of the first spouse to die, there would be a full income tax basis adjustment upon the death of the first spouse. This result is the same as if the property were community property. The following example illustrates this.
Example 3. Wife predeceases her husband. At the time of her death, she owns 100 shares of Primeria Corp. Her basis in the shares at the time of her death was $10,000 and the shares were valued for estate purposes at $50,000. The shares would receive a step-up in basis to $50,000. If the property were community property, the shares would receive the same step-up in basis to $50,000.
That said, I'm not a lawyer or an accountant either, and engaging one or both before making any decisions would be money well spent.
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Taylor to the rescue!Taylor Larimore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:35 pmzz4:
This is a situation where selling securities with large capital-gains can result in large and unnecessary capital-gain taxes. Please seek the services of a qualified tax accountant. It will be easy for you to make a very expensive mistake.
Best wishes.
Taylor
Choose Simplicity ~ Stay the Course!! ~ Press on Regardless!!!
- ruralavalon
- Posts: 26353
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:29 am
- Location: Illinois
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Yes, a single balanced fund is probably best.pkcrafter wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:17 pmIt's true, she has lots of ability to take risk, but not much need, so yes, moving everything to a multifund is probably the best option.zz4 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:47 pmMixed stocks and some mutual funds in the IRA. Other than SS she has no income. She is debt free thankfully and owns her house.
Would selling all the equity and moving to one balanced fund be the proper course here?
If she is not very knowledgeable/experienced about investing and risk, I will suggest LifeStrategy conservative (40% stock) or Target Retirement Income (30% stock). She has no need for a high stock allocation. Wellesley is also a reasonable option.
Paul
Wellesley, Wellington, Vanguard Balanced Index Fund, one of the Vanguard LifeStrategy funds, or Vanguard Target Income Fund are possibilities.
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein |
Wiki article link: Bogleheads® investment philosophy
- Hyperborea
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:31 am
- Location: Portugal
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Wow, that's so amazingly counter-intuitive. Thanks for the correction.TropikThunder wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:52 amThat's backwards. In a community property state, the surviving spouse gets a full step-up upon the passing of the decedent. Essentially, in a community property state there is no "separate property" interest, and step-up for one is step-up for both. In a non-community property state, each party has a separate interest in the property, and only the decedent's separate interest gets a step-up at passing.Hyperborea wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:12 pmI think one would need to know if it was really all the deceased's to give. If they lived in a community property state and the money to buy the stocks came from wages or other income during the marriage then the surviving spouse already owned half of the stocks. That half doesn't have any step up in basis.chambers136 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:42 pm Not looking for complicated tax advice or people’s qualifications, but for general info, what are some instances would the inheritance not have a stepped basis? I couldn’t find any example in a google search.
Note: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
It’s not just that facts don’t seem to matter anymore. It’s that it doesn’t seem to matter that facts don’t matter.
-
- Posts: 3918
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:41 pm
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Right? I would add a “why this is so” explanation but I don’t know why.Hyperborea wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:30 am Wow, that's so amazingly counter-intuitive. Thanks for the correction.
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Ditto. Engage a CPA before you do anything. Especially if the IRS decides to audit; let then deal with the service.Taylor Larimore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:01 pmChambers:chambers136 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:52 pmCan you explain this? I thought the basis would step up in this case, so selling around the time of receiving the inheritance would result in very low gains.Taylor Larimore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:35 pm This is a situation where selling securities with large capital-gains can result in large and unnecessary capital-gain taxes. Please seek the services of a qualified tax accountant.
I worked 5-years as an IRS Revenue Officer. I also was chief Financial Officer for the South Florida Small Business Administration. I did my own taxes most of my life. I know when taxes can be complicated and mistakes are costly.
I believe this is the poster's situation.
As much as I love this forum, it is not the place to get complicated tax advice--even assuming we have all the correct facts about this million dollar account.
Best wishes.
Taylor
Edward
- ruralavalon
- Posts: 26353
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:29 am
- Location: Illinois
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
zz4
Is all of this $1.2 million inheritance in an IRA? Or is some part in a taxable account?
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein |
Wiki article link: Bogleheads® investment philosophy
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
Both I just found out. Unknown as to the proportions. I advised to use CPA but she doesn't want to incur fees. Obviously, fees are ok in this complicated situation.Is all of this $1.2 million inheritance in an IRA? Or is some part in a taxable account?
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
So she is going to do her own taxes?
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
I agree on getting qualified tax accountant or attorney. These should qualify for step up but there may be some effort involved in actually determining the beginning and ending basis.
- ruralavalon
- Posts: 26353
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:29 am
- Location: Illinois
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
She obviously needs the help of a CPA concerning the portion in a taxable account.
She can make changes in the IRA without incurring income tax liability.
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein |
Wiki article link: Bogleheads® investment philosophy
-
- Posts: 704
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:24 am
Re: Keeping it in a shoe-box is a safer AA
I think this is one of the best post responses I have ever read on this forum. Thank you Taylor.Taylor Larimore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:01 pmChambers:chambers136 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:52 pmCan you explain this? I thought the basis would step up in this case, so selling around the time of receiving the inheritance would result in very low gains.Taylor Larimore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:35 pm This is a situation where selling securities with large capital-gains can result in large and unnecessary capital-gain taxes. Please seek the services of a qualified tax accountant.
I worked 5-years as an IRS Revenue Officer. I also was chief Financial Officer for the South Florida Small Business Administration. I did my own taxes most of my life. I know when taxes can be complicated and mistakes are costly.
I believe this is the poster's situation.
As much as I love this forum, it is not the place to get complicated tax advice--even assuming we have all the correct facts about this million dollar account.
Best wishes.
Taylor