What taxes are assessed on distributions of an inherited IRA?
For an inherited IRA, there are a few options for taking distributions. You clearly haven't done option 1. It sounds like you haven't done option 2 because otherwise you would probably know how it is taxed. That leaves you with option 3.  With option 3, you must distribute the entire amount within 5 years.  For you, I'm not sure if that means you need to distribute the entire amount by the end of 2016 or 2017.  If it was 2016, then you'll probably have to pay penalties. Distributions from an inherited IRA are taxed as ordinary income regardless of your age or the distribution option you select. Distributions from an inherited IRA will be taxed as ordinary income and there are required minimum distributions for the inherited account. Assuming you were 55 at the time of your mother's death, your life expectancy according to the IRS is 29.6 years. Your required yearly distributions on $200,000 would be roughly $6800. For each year that you didn't withdraw that, you would owe a 50% penalty of the distribution amount (~$3400). That's probably better than the tax hit you would take if you pulled it all in as income in a 5 year window (ie. all right now since you're at the end of the window). "All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the  distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the ""cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before   she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would   not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal?  The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc," "You've been taking the RMDs. Each year the RMD is calculated by taking the prior 12/31 balance and dividing by the divisor, calculated when you inherited, and dropping by 1 each year. Some great trades and your account balance goes up. That's great, but of course it sends the next RMD higher.  I'd understand how marginal rates work and use the withdrawal to ""top off"" your current bracket. This will help slow the growth and runaway RMD increases."
You do not have to wait 5 years from when a particular dollar was earned to withdraw it. To be a qualified distribution from a Roth IRA, A) the Roth IRA must have been opened for 5 years (which yours was), and B) you must be 59.5 years old, or meet one of the other exceptions (and $10,000 for a first-time home purchase is one of the exceptions). Since it is a qualified distribution, there is no tax or penalty. No. As a rule, the dividends you see in the distribution table are what you'll receive before paying any taxes. Tax rates differ between qualified and unqualified/ordinary dividends, so the distribution can't include taxes because tax rates may differ between investors. In my case I hold it in an Israeli account but the tax treaty between our countries still specifies 25% withheld tax This is another example of why tax rates differ between investors. If I hold SPY too, my tax rate will be very different because I don't hold it in an account like yours, so the listed dividend couldn't include taxes. A more recent article on inheritance taxes than the one cited by @JohnBensin says that Maryland does not charge inheritance tax on inheritances received from parents (and other close relatives as well). Thus, there is no inheritance tax due to Maryland on your inheritance, and of course, estate tax (both Federal and State) is imposed on the estate and payable by the estate, and thus should have been taken into account by the executor before determining the amount to be divided among the children.  If the executor screwed up on this point, some of the inheritance may have to be returned to the estate so that the estate can pay the taxes due, or be paid directly to the Federal Government and/or the State of Maryland on behalf of the estate. Some part of the inheritance might be taxable income to you if it came in the form of an Inherited IRA on which Federal (and possibly State) taxes have to paid on the (taxable part of) any distribution from the IRA including the Required Minimum Distribution that must be made from the IRA each year. (There is also a 50% penalty for not taking at least the RMD each year). Note that the value of the IRA is not taxable income in the year of inheritance, just the money taken as a distribution. Some people liquidate the IRA within 5 years, as used to be required for non-spouse inheritors under earlier tax law, and thus end up paying a lot more income tax than they would have to pay if they went the RMD route. If your uncle took the help of a lawyer in winding up your father's estate, you are probably OK in that all the rules were likely followed, but if it was a do-it-yourself job (or you don't trust your uncle not to screw it up anyway!), then, as John Bensin has already told you, you  should certainly consult  a tax professional in Maryland to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. "This does not apply to Roth IRAs. It defines the difference between the two depending on what your age is when this happens. If you are 59 or younger, you have a 10% penalty in addition to taxes. If you are between 59.5 and 70, there is no penalty, but you do have to pay taxes. If you are 70.5 or older, then you MUST withdraw money, and that withdrawal is called the ""required minimum distribution"" and you pay taxes on it as if it were income.  In terms of investments, the two are the same in that the earnings you make on your investments grow tax free.  Here is more information between the two.  *Improvements are welcome for my answer." I think the general rule for Canada resident to receive foreign inheritance don't have tax effect and you don't have to declare it. It's a little different from US global tax regulation.  ref: intuit.ca "we can then start taking penalty free withdrawals from it? There's no ""we"" in IRA. There's ""I"". That stands for ""Individual"". So your wife's age has no influence whatsoever on your ability to make qualified distributions from your IRA. The reason courts order distributions from IRAs is due to the community property laws of various States or other considerations that make spouses entitled to the amounts in the IRAs. However, you're talking about family law here, not tax law. For Federal tax purposes, a distribution ordered by the court doesn't trigger penalty (but is taxable), but any other distribution has to follow the regular qualification criteria." Time to look at a tax table.  A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%.  This is what 2 answers here seem to miss, and the 3rd touches, but doesn't keep going.  The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%.  The Roth benefit is maximized  In the end, to choose between Traditional or Roth, one would have to have far more details regarding the person's financial situation. The right choice is rarely 100% known except in hindsight. Fast Forward 40 - 45 years, you're 70.5. You must take out ~5% from your Traditional IRA. If that was a Roth, you take out as much as you need (within reason) when you need it with zero tax consequences. I don't know (and don't care) whether they'll change the Roth tax exclusion in 40 years. It's almost guaranteed that the rate on the Roth will be less than the regular income status of a Traditional IRA. Most likely we'll have a value added tax (sales tax) then. Possibly even a Wealth Tax. The former doesn't care where the money comes from (source neutral) the latter means you loose more (probably) of that 2.2 MM than the 1.7. Finally, if you're planning on 10%/yr over 40 yrs, good luck! But that's crazy wild speculation and you're likely to be disappointed. If you're that good at picking winners, then why stop at 10%? Money makes money. Your rate of return should increase as your net worth increases. So, you should be able to pick better opportunities with 2.2 million than with a paltry 1.65 MM. In a (not Roth) IRA, withdrawals are generally already taxed as regular income. So there should be no tax disadvantage to earning payment in lieu of dividends.  It's possible that there is an exception for IRAs but I was unable to find one and I cannot see the reason for one since the dividend tax rate is usually lower than the income tax rate (which is why some company owners elect to receive part of the company profits via dividend rather than all through their salary). "Stocks (among other property) currently is allowed a ""stepped-up basis"" when valuing for estate tax purpose.  From the US IRS web page: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: The fair market value (FMV) of the property on the date of the decedent's death. The FMV of the property on the alternate valuation date if the executor of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. See the Instructions for Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Your question continues ""the person that died still has to pay taxes on their profits in the year they died, right?"" Yes. The estate would be subject to tax on realized gains/losses prior to death." Both of the other answers are correct and good answers, but I think neither directly answers your question. No, you do not need to pay additional taxes on the wedding gifts simply because of the fact that they are going into a Roth IRA.  Similarly, if you put them into a traditional IRA, that amount would be deductible (assuming you met the other criteria, including minimums and maximums of earned income, in both cases).  The act of putting money into a Roth IRA is not what makes it taxable; its original source is.  Roth simply does not reduce your current taxes any, whereas a traditional IRA would. The seeming exception to this is when rolling money from a tax-deductible source to a non-tax-deductible destination, such as transferring money from a Traditional IRA or 401(k) to a Roth IRA or 401(k).  Then, the taxable event is really the distribution from the Traditional IRA or 401(k), not the deposit into a Roth IRA or 401(k), though of course if you rolled a 401(k) over to a traditional IRA it would not be taxable. My question is... how is this new value determined?  Does it go off of   the tax appraised value? The tax assessors values are based on broad averages and are not very useful in determining actual home value. The most defensible valuation outside of a sale is a professional appraisal, real-estate agents may or may not give you reasonable estimates, but their opinions are less valuable than that of a professional appraiser. Additionally, agents hoping to land you as a client (even if you tell them you're not trying to sell) could be motivated to over-estimate. In many instances a few opinions from agents will be good enough, but if there is any contention a professional appraisal will be better. Should you, prior to your death, get an independent appraiser to   appraise the value of the property and include that assessment of the   properties value with the will or something? The real-estate market fluctuates too much to make having an appraisal done prior to your death a practical approach in most circumstances. You could make arrangements so that an appraisal would be scheduled after your death. Here's a good resource on the topic: Estimating the Value of Inherited Real Estate From the IRS: You do not include in your gross income qualified distributions or distributions that are a return of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s). It's not just that the particular money you take from the IRA isn't taxable.  It's not counted as part of your income at all, so it won't have any effect on the taxation of other income. It goes to the beneficiaries, not necessarily the heirs. Taxation is a bit complicated and depends also on the plan requirements, the new owners' decisions, and the last status of the deceased owner. You should really talk to a tax adviser with the specific details to get a reliable answer that would address your situation. You should also ask about State inheritance taxes for the deceased and the beneficiaries' states. Here's the NOLO article on the issue. "The major bureaus use the Fair Isaac scoring model, for the most part.  Here's an excerpt from a web site (Versions of the FICO scoring model) to explain: One of the first things a newcomer to this board learns is the difference between FICO and FAKO scores. FAKO refers to the non-FICO scores offered by various companies. FAKO scores have little value since few of them are used by lenders and they do not match closely to FICO scores.    But even when you stick with FICO scores, confusion can ensue because FICO scores have many different editions, versions, and variations. On a single day, a consumer could theoretically have dozens of different FICO scores, depending on which version and credit agency is used to produce the score.   This post provides a summary of the various FICO versions. Please offer any corrections or updates, and they will be edited in.   The FICO scoring model with its familiar range of 300 to 850 was first introduced in 1989. Since then, FICO has released five major revisions:   1995, 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2014.  Each ""edition"" uses a different formula and produces a different score.   When a new FICO edition is released, many lenders continue using an older version for years before ""upgrading."" The 1995 revision is no longer in common use, but later editions are still used by lenders.   Most FICO editions are commonly known by the year of introduction:  FICO 98, FICO 04, and FICO 08 (although FICO now calls it FICO Score 8, without the zero).   The most recent edition is FICO Score 9 introduced in 2014.   As of 2014, FICO Score 8 is the most commonly used. However, most mortgage lenders use FICO 04 for Equifax and Transunion, and FICO 98 for Experian.   In addition to the ""classic"" version, FICO offers ""Industry Option"" versions customized for auto loans, credit cards, installment loans, personal finance loans, and insurance. These have a score range of 250 to 900, so the scores are not fully comparable with ""classic"" versions. As of 2015, Auto and Bankcard scores are available from myFICO as described here.  Citibank provides the Equifax FICO 8 Bankcard score free each month to credit cards holders.   Each credit agency (Transunion, Equifax, and Experian) uses a customized version of each FICO edition. As a result, a consumer's FICO scores from each agency may differ even when all credit information is identical among the agencies.   Because there are many FICO versions, when a score is received, it's helpful to know which version it is. If a lender provides a credit score, ask for details such as which credit agency was used, which FICO edition was used, and whether the score is an Industry Option version. The lender may not always be willing or able to provide the answers, but it doesn't hurt to ask.  Transunion   Official name:   FICO Risk Score Classic 98    Common name:  TU-98   Available directly to consumers:   No    Real-world score range:  336 to 843     (as shown on page 16 of this Transunion document)   Equifax   Official name:   Equifax FICO Score 4  (also known as Equifax Beacon 96)   Common name:   EQ-98   This version appears to be seldom used, but a poster reported it used on a mortgage application in 2014.   Available directly to consumers:   No   Experian   Official name:   Experian FICO Score 2  (also known as Experian FICO Risk Model v2)   Common name:   EX-98   Available directly to consumers:   from myFICO when buying a product that includes all 19 available scores (as described here).  Some credit unions such as PSECU provide it free each month to members.   Real-world score range:   320 to 844     (as shown on this Experian document) Most mortgage lenders use FICO 04 for Equifax and Transunion, and FICO 98 for Experian.   All three scores will normally be pulled and the middle score (not the average) will be used by the lender. Transunion   Official name:   Transunion FICO Score 4  (also known as Transunion FICO Risk Score Classic 04)   Common name:  TU-04   Available directly to consumers:   from myFICO as described here.   Real-world score range:   309 to 839     (as shown on page 16 of this Transunion document)   Equifax   Official name:   Equifax FICO Score 5  (also known as Equifax Beacon 5.0)   Common name:   EQ-04   Available directly to consumers:   from myFICO as described here.  Also available from Equifax when buying FICO score (as a one-time purchase with the ""Score Power"" product available here, or as part of credit monitoring available here).  Some credit unions such as DCU provide it free each month to members.    Real-world score range:   334 to 818   Experian   Official name:   Experian FICO Score 3 (also known as Experian FICO Risk Model v3)   Common name:   EX-04   Available directly to consumers:   from myFICO when buying a product that includes all 19 available scores (as described here).   Real-world score range:   325 to 850     (as shown on this Experian document) Transunion   Official name:   Transunion FICO Score 8  (also known as Transunion FICO 8 Risk Score or FICO Risk Score Classic 08)   Common name:   TU-08   Available directly to consumers:   from myFICO as described here. Some credit card issuers such as Discover, Barclays, and Walmart provides it free each month.   Real-world score range:   341 to 850     (as shown on page 15 of this Transunion document)   Equifax   Official name:   Equifax FICO Score 8  (also known as Equifax Beacon 09)   Common name:   EQ-08   Available directly to consumers:   from myFICO as described here.    Real-world score range:   300  to 850   Experian   Official name:   Experian FICO Score 8  (also known as Experian FICO Risk Model v8)   Common name:   EX-08   Available directly to consumers:   from myFICO as described here.   Real-world score range:   316  to 850     (as shown on this Experian document) How FICO Score 8 differs from previous versions is explained here.    In May 2014, a poster named android01 received 850 scores from all three credit agencies, as described in this post.    In June 2014, a poster named fused received 850 scores from all three credit agencies, as described in this post.   This 2011 press release describes a study of FICO Score 8 scores.   From a sample of 250,000 credit reports, it found 0.02% had a score of 850, or about 1 out of every 5000 persons. In 2014, FICO announced a new version called FICO Score 9.  More info here. As of February 2016, the score is now available directly to consumers, as described here. This New York Times article  says FICO 9 includes two important changes:    unpaid debts that result in collection actions will no longer have a negative effect on a score if the debt has been paid.    unpaid medical debts will have less negative effect on scores. In 2001, FICO released a new scoring model called NextGen.   It is claimed to be an improvement over ""classic"" FICO models because it tracks more factors.  But it has failed to catch on with lenders because its score range of 150 to 950 is incompatible with the familiar 300 to 850 range, requiring lenders to recalculate cutoff scores and revise many rules and policies.  Only a small percentage of lenders reportedly use NextGen. Transunion   Official name:   Precision   Available directly to consumers:    No   Equifax   Official name:   Pinnacle   Available directly to consumers:   In 2014, Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PenFed) began to provide this score free to its credit card holders, as discussed in this post.   Experian   Official name:   FICO Advanced Risk Score   Available directly to consumers:    No I included all of this to make the point that there are many variations of the scoring models, and all of them are customized to one degree or another by each of the major bureaus as a means of giving their models more credibility, as far as they're concerned. To your question about coming up with a ""fair"" scoring model, can you propose what makes current scoring models unfair?  I think it's a safe assumption to make that the financial community has already had a substantial amount of input into how the current scoring models work.  To think otherwise implies that the credit bureaus are just kinda ""winging it"" with whatever they think is best.  Their models are designed to give their client creditors the best scoring model possible based on what those creditors have stated is important to them. There isn't a unified single scoring model out there, and the bureaus definitely won't share the details of their modifications.  You can always come up with your own custom model, but how it compares to what's widely used, that's anyone's guess. I hope this helps. Good luck!"