Any difficulties in doing deceased relative's taxes?
There are two different tax returns you'll be doing: one is for her, until the day of her death. The other is for the estate. The personal one you could probably do on your own, it's nothing different from the one for a living person, except for the cut-off date in the middle of the year. The estate tax return may be a bit more nuanced, since it is a trust return and not an individual return, and is done under a different set of rules. I'd suggest talking to a tax professional who'd help you. Your estate executioner should be doing the estate tax return (or hiring someone to do it). Sorry for your loss.
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). First, the basis is what was paid for the house along with any documented upgrades, any improvements not consider maintenance. Any gain from that point is taxable. This is the issue with gifting a house before one passes. It's an awful mistake. The fact that there was a mortgage doesn't come into play here nor does the $15K given away. Your question is great, and the only missing piece is what the house cost. Keep in mind, depending on the state, you MIL may have gotten a step-up on the passing of her husband.  On a very personal note - my grandparents bough a family house. 4 apartments. 1938 at a cost of $4000. My grandmother transferred 1/2 share to my father well before she died. And before my father's death it was put into my mother's name. Now that she's in her last years, I explained that since moved it to my sister's name already, there's no step up in basis. This share is now worth over $600,000, and after 4 deaths, no step up. When my sister sells, she will have a gain on nearly 100% of the sale price. In my opinion, there's a special place in hell for lawyers that quit claim property like this. For a bit of paperwork, the house could have been put into a trust to avoid probate, avoid being an asset for medicaid, and still get the step up. Even a $2000 cost for a good lawyer to set up a trust would yield a return of nearly $100,000 in taxes avoided. (And as my sister's keeper, I'd have paid the $2,000 myself, no issue that she gets the house. She needs it, I don't. And when the money's gone, I'm all she has anyway.) You don't get any tax benefit.   When you are helping a relative or a friend in such situations the income is just gone.   The only way to get around this is if you contribute to a charity, and they give it to your mom.  You can then deduct the contributions to that charity.  However, the IRS has cracked down on such situations and it probably is not worth pursuing.  By the recent tax rules, that charity can use those contributions in which every way they choose, they cannot guarantee they go to your mom. Given that you are closed to your allowed exclusion (14K for 2017), I would work to keep your number under that.  If you are married, you each get that exclusion so you can give up to 28K.   I can't really speak to the reduction of benefits part as I am knowledgeable and more details on the type of transfer payments she receives would be germane to the discussion. You should talk to a tax professional in your area.  It seems like you should start filing your returns.  In the US there are certain income thresholds that need to be attained before a return is required, though it's often thought of as best practice to file anyway.  Also in the US there are programs designed to encourage delinquent filers to begin filing again, which may include penalty/fee reduction for voluntarily filing.  Somehow I suspect Canada has similar programs. If you stand to inherit a sizable amount of money it seems that you should have a history of tax returns in order to minimize the number of questions that are asked should the money come your way. I'd talk to a tax person before consulting an attorney.  From the tone of your question the Canadian tax authority hasn't initiated anything against you.  You just want to understand the best course of action regarding your tax situation. No tax consequences to you. Tax consequences to your sister. From your comment: My sister is single, but my wife and I have a son. So we can avail   $14000 x3 = $42000 without the need to report it. The remainder   ($70000-$42000) = $28000 will be reported against the lifetime   exclusion by my sister on her return. Per my understanding, the $28000   is also not subject to any gift tax It is subject to gift tax, and she must submit gift tax return (form 709) to the IRS. On that return she can choose to apply part of the lifetime exemption and reduce the lifetime limit, or pay the tax and keep the lifetime limit. If she applies the exemption, she needs to keep track of it, so that it could be properly applied next time, or when she passes away. The lifetime exemption is in fact intended for the estate tax. But people can chose and apply it to gifts during lifetime and reduce the exemption for estate. This is something of consequence to take into account. Yearly $14K cap is not related to the lifetime exemption and is for gifts per donor per donee. Breaking the gift into several occasions over several years helps reducing the tax burden on the donor without touching the lifetime exclusion and affecting the estate tax. But if you don't have the time... "This forum is not intended to be a discussion group, but I would like to add a different perspective, especially for @MrChrister, on  @littleadv's rhetorical question  ""... estates are after-tax money, i.e.: income tax has been paid on them,    yet the government taxes them again. Why?"" For the cash in an estate, yes, that is after-tax money, but consider other assets such as stocks and real estate. Suppose a rich man bought stock in a small computer start-up company at $10 a share about 35 years ago, and that stock is now worth $500 a share. The man dies and his will bequeaths the shares to his son. According to US tax law, the son's basis in the shares is $500 per share, that is, if the son sells the shares, his capital gains are computed as if he had purchased the shares for $500 each. The son pays no taxes on the inheritance he receives. The deceased father's last income tax return (filed by the executor of the father's will) does not list the $490/share gain as a capital gain since the father did not sell the stock (the gain is what is called an unrealized gain), and so there is no income tax due from the father on the $490/share. Now, if there is no estate tax whatsoever, the father's estate  tax return pays no tax on that gain of $490 per share either. Would this be considered an equitable system? Should the government not tax the gain at all? It is worth noting that it would be possible for a government to eliminate estate taxes entirely, but instead have tax laws  that say that unrealized gains on the deceased's property would be taxed (as capital gains) on the deceased's final tax return." "The legal term for this is ""intestate succession"". The 1990 Uniform Probate Code form the basis for intestate succession, though implementation and supplementary provisions will vary from state to state. Under the Probate Code, the estate will be distributed as follows : The Probate Code does not appear to state what happens if no such beneficiaries are found.  I suspect the estate would be taken by the IRS after a suitable period of time has passed to allow for relatives to come forward. The source for this answer is the FindLaw website.  The law will apply equally to US citizens and foreign nationals." Of course, you've already realized that some of that is that smaller estates are more common than larger estates.  But it seems unlikely that there are four times as many estates between $10 and $11 million as above that range.   People who expect to die with an estate subject to inheritance tax tend to prepare.   I don't know how common it is, but if the surviving member of a couple remarries, then the new spouse gets a separate exemption.  And of course spouses inherit from spouses without tax.  In theory this could last indefinitely.  In practice, it is less likely.  But if a married couple has $20 million, the first spouse could leave $15 million to the second and $5 million to other heirs.  The second spouse could leave $10 million to a third spouse (after remarrying) and another $5 million to children with the first spouse.  All without triggering the estate tax.   People can put some of their estate into a trust.  This can allow the heirs to continue to control the money while not paying inheritance tax.  Supposedly Ford (of Ford Motor Company) took that route.   Another common strategy is to give the maximum without gift tax each year.  That's at least $14k per donor and recipient per year.  So a married couple with two kids can transfer $56k per year.  Plus $56k for the kids' spouses.  And if there are four grandchildren, that's another $112k.  Great-grandchildren count too.  That's more than a million every five years.  So given ten years to prepare, parents can transfer $2 million out of the estate and to the heirs without tax.   Consider the case of two wealthy siblings.  They've each maxed out their gifts to their own heirs.  So they agree to max out their gifts to their sibling's heirs.  This effectively doubles the transfer amount without tax implication.   Also realize that they can pretransfer assets at the current market rate.  So if a rich person has an asset that is currently undervalued, it may make sense to transfer it immediately as a gift.  This will use up some of the estate exemption.  But if you're going to transfer the asset eventually, you might as well do so when the value is optimal for your purpose.   These are just the easy things to do.  If someone wants, they can do more complicated things that make it harder for the IRS to track value.   For example, the Bezos family invested in Amazon.com when Jeff Bezos was starting it.  As a result, his company could survive capital losses that another company might not.  The effect of this was to make him fabulously rich and his parents richer than they were.  But he won't pay inheritance tax until his parents actually transfer the estate to him (and I believe they actually put it in a charitable trust).  If his company had failed instead, he still would have been supported by the capital provided by his parents while it was open (e.g. his salary).  But he wouldn't have paid inheritance tax on it.   There are other examples of the same pattern:  Fred Smith of FedEx; Donald Trump; Bill Gates of Microsoft; etc.  The prime value of the estate was not in its transfer, but in working together while alive or through a family trust.  The child's company became much more valuable as a result of a parent's wealth.  And in two of those examples, the child was so successful that the parent became richer as a result.  So the parent's estate does count.  Meanwhile, another company might fail, leaving the estate below the threshold despite a great deal of parental support.   And those aren't even fiddles.  Those children started real companies and offered their parents real investment opportunities.  A family that wants to do so can do a lot more with arrangements.  Of course, the IRS may be looking for some of them.   The point being that the estate might be more than $11 million earlier, but the parents can find ways to reduce it below the inheritance tax exemption by the time that they die. "From the UK side, the estate may be liable to ""inheritance tax"" depending on its size - but this will be paid by the estate itself before any payment is made to you, so if the estate makes a payment to you, the whole of it is yours to keep. The tax thresholds are a bit complicated and due to become more so, but at a minimum any estate under £325,000 will be exempt. If your spouse died first without using their entire allowance, or for deaths after 6th April 2017 where a family home is being left to direct descendants, the allowance is higher. Anything above the threshold is subject to 40% tax, which will be paid be the person dealing with the estate before they can distribute anything else." If it's in your name and you don't live there, there's a number of issues. If you charge her rent, it needs to be at fair value to treat it as a rental property.  If she lives there for the next 20 years, it will (or we hope) gain value. If she passes while it's in her name you get to step up the basis, and avoid tax. If in your name , the gain would be taxable. Up to RS50,000 is exempt from gift taxes.  In the US, if one provides more than half the expenses for a relative, they may be a dependent. I don't know the India rules. I am not going to discuss legality, because with family members you are able to give a lot of guidance and assistance without running into legal issues.  The biggest problem is that when they transfer the funds to you and you invest the money, all the tax rates and tax limits are determined by your situation; plus you have more investments than you should have so you hit those limits and brackets quicker. For example: In the United states a person can put $5,500 or $6,500 into a IRA or Roth IRA each year. If you combine the funds for three with your funds then you are giving up three quarters of the amount that you can invest in that type of account. The decision regarding Roth or not depends on age and income level. But now their decision is related to what is best based on your situation. The ability to even deduct IRA deposits would be based on your situation. Of course for taxable accounts the tax rate is determined by your income, not theirs. If they want you to have the ability to make investment decisions for them, then power of attorney is the way to go. The money is deposited in their name, and all the rules and tax rates are determined by their situation. You make sure they have all the information they need to login and review the accounts, but you make the all the moves within and between accounts. I know the money isn't taxable when I send it to my parents Yes this is right they send it to their nephew as it will count as a gift No this is incorrect Yes. Refer to Income Tax guide on relations exempt under gifts. Gifts received from relatives are not charged to tax. Relative for this purpose means:   (a) Spouse of the individual;   (b) Brother or sister of the individual;   (c) Brother or sister of the spouse of the individual;   (d) Brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual;   (e) Any lineal ascendant or descendent of the individual;   (f) Any lineal ascendant or descendent of the spouse of the individual;   (g) Spouse of the persons referred to in (b) to (f).   Friend is not a relative as defined in the above list and hence, gift received from friends will be charged to tax (if other criteria of taxing gift are satisfied).​ Even if you assumption were true, i.e. your dad gives it to his brother and his brother gives it to his son ...  But if this is done sequentially and soon one after the other, is it taxable? The intent is important. One can do it immediately or after few years; if the intent is established that this was done to evade taxes, then you will have to pay the tax as well as penalty. A gift between spouses has no tax implications.  If one spouse dies the inheritance tax is always zero no matter how much of the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Gift taxes are actually related to estate taxes, so a gift no matter how large never requires filing any tax forms or paying any taxes. I can't answer from the Indian side but on the UK side, if you and your friend are not related then there is no tax implication - you are effectively giving each other gifts - other than a possible inheritance tax liability if one of you dies within 7 years of the transfer and has an estate above the IHT allowance.