Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread
Author: KLTolly One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 121150  
Subject: Re: Tax filing questions - decedant Date: 3/26/2008 8:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Phil-

Thank you for the kind words; I'm having a difficult time, but it's somewhat easier to accept that others have had this terrible experience.

Yes, I am using MFJ status for 2007. The 2007 return (in print) appears correct. It had previously insisted that I key an amount for Dad's RMD in 2007. Once I corrected the personal data to reflect that Mom passed after 12/31/2007 but before the filing of this return, that prompt went away. Turbotax still reflects efile as an option, although I wanted to be sure that I have the RMD issue under control to avoid having to process an amendment.

The Bank has tried to be helpful to the best of their abilities; they have told me that Mom elected to treat the IRA as her own. Her RMD for 2007 was based on her age and account balance as of 12/31/2006; the same information appeared for Dad. I had interpreted the following:

Surviving spouse. If you are a surviving spouse who is the sole beneficiary of your deceased spouse's IRA, you may elect to be treated as the owner and not as the beneficiary. If you elect to be treated as the owner, you determine the required minimum distribution (if any) as if you were the owner beginning with the year you elect or are deemed to be the owner. However, if you become the owner in the year your deceased spouse died, you are not required to determine the required minimum distribution for that year using your life; rather, you can take the deceased owner's required minimum distribution for that year (to the extent it was not already distributed to the owner before his or her death).

This seems to imply to me that there should have been a distribution in addition to that calculated 12/31/2006 for my mother. Or am I possibly overanalyzing this?

Thank you again!

Katina
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread

Announcements

Disclaimer:
In accordance with IRS Circular 230, you cannot use the contents of any post on The Motley Fool's message boards to avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
Post of the Day:
Value Hounds

Kate Spade's Wild Ride
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement