Lump sum annuity distribution — do I owe estate tax?
There can be Federal estate tax as well as State estate tax due on an estate, but it is not of direct concern to you. Estate taxes are paid by the estate of the decedent, not by the beneficiaries, and so you do  not owe any estate tax. As a matter of fact, most estates in the US do not pay Federal estate tax at all because only the amount that exceeds the Federal exemption ($5.5M) is taxable, and most estates are smaller. State estate taxes might be a different matter because  while many states exempt exactly what the Federal Government does, others  exempt different (usually smaller) amounts. But in any case, estate taxes are not of concern to you except insofar as what you inherit is reduced because the estate had to pay estate tax before distributing the inheritances. As JoeTaxpayer's answer says more succinctly, what you inherit is net of estate tax, if any. What you receive as an inheritance is not taxable income to you either. If you receive stock shares or other property, your basis is the value of the property when you inherit it. Thus, if you sell at a later time, you will have to pay taxes only on the increase in the value of the property from the time you inherit it. The increase in value from the time the decedent acquired the property till the date of death is not taxable income to you.  Exceptions to all these favorable rules to you is the treatment of Traditional IRAs, 401ks, pension plans etc that you inherit that contain money on which the decedent never paid income tax. Distributions from such inherited accounts are (mostly) taxable income to you; any part of post-tax money such as nondeductible contributions to Traditional IRAs that is included in the distribution is  tax-free. Annuities present another source of complications. For annuities within IRAs, even the IRS throws up its hands at explaining things to mere mortals who are foolhardy enough to delve into Pub 950, saying in effect, talk to your tax advisor. For other annuities, questions arise such as is this a tax-deferred annuity and whether it was purchased with pre-tax money or with post-tax money, etc.  One thing that you should check out is whether it is beneficial to take a lump sum  distribution or just collect the money as it is distributed in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual payments. Annuities  in particular have heavy surrender charges if they are terminated early and the money taken as a lump sum instead of over time as the insurance  company issuing the annuity had planned on happening.  So, taking a lump sum would mean more income tax immediately due not just on the lump sum but because the increase in AGI might reduce deductions for medical expenses as well as reduce the overall amount of itemized deductions that can be claimed, increase taxability of social security  benefits, etc. You say that you have these angles sussed out, and so I will merely re-iterate Beware the surrender charges. If you are the beneficiary of an annuity, you might receive a single-sum distribution when the annuity owner dies. The amount of this death benefit might be the current cash value of the annuity or some other amount based upon contract riders that the owner purchased. The tax on death benefits depends on a number of factors. Death benefits are taxed as normal income. Unlike other investments, the named beneficiary of a non-qualified annuity does not get a step-up in tax basis to the date of death. However, that doesn't mean the beneficiary will have to pay taxes on the full amount. Because the purchaser of the annuity made the investment with after-tax dollars, only the amount attributable to investment income is taxed, but it will be taxed as ordinary income and not enjoy any special capital gains treatment. When there is a death benefit that exceeds the value of the account, that additional amount is also taxed as ordinary income.  Taxes on annuities depend on several circumstances: For more information on distribution of inherited annuities and taxes - go to Annuities HQ-- http://www.annuitieshq.com/articles/distribution-options-inherited-annuity/ they go into details that could help you even more.  One thing that Annuities HQ points out is if you take the lump sum payout, you may be pushed into a higher tax bracket.  Along with doing research I would also contact a financial advisor! "The page you linked shows ""Federal changes eliminated Florida's estate tax after December 31, 2004"" but no, estates are settled by the decedent's executor in the decedent's state. You receive an inheritance net of estate tax if any was due."
A 401k plan will ask you to name a beneficiary who will receive the funds if you don't withdraw them all before death. Usually, a primary beneficiary and a secondary beneficiary is requested. If you don't specify a beneficiary, your estate is the beneficiary by default.  Note that the name supplied to the 401k plan is who will get the money, and you cannot change this by bequeathing the money in your will. For example, if you neglected to change the beneficiary upon divorce, it is useless to say in your will that the money in the 401k plan goes to your new wife; the 401k plan will give it to your ex-wife who still remains the beneficiary of your 401k Money in a 401k plan is what is called income with respect to a decedent (IRD)  on which income tax is levied, and it is also is part of your estate and thus liable to be subject to estate tax.  The latter is true even if the 401k plan assets are not mentioned anywhere in your will, and even if the assets got sent to your ex-wife which is not what you wanted to have happen.  There are various estate tax exceptions for spouse beneficiaries (no  estate tax due now, but will be charged when the spouse passes away). With regard to income tax, the beneficiaries of a 401k plan (similarly IRAs, 403b plans etc) generally get to take the whole amount and pay the income  tax themselves. Edit in response to littleadv's comments: Each 401k plan is different, and some plans, especially the smaller ones, may prefer to distribute the  401k assets as a lump sum rather than allow the beneficiaries to withdraw  the money over several years (and pay income tax on the amount withdrawn each year). This is because there are far too many rules and regulations to trip over when making withdrawals over several years. The lump sum distribution can be transferred into a newly established  Inherited IRA (see the Nolo article linked to in @littleadv's answer for some details and some pitfalls to avoid) and the income tax is thus deferred until withdrawals occur.  Spouse  beneficiaries are entitled to more generous rules than non-spouse  beneficiaries. If your heirs are otherwise well provided for and you are in a  philanthropic mood (or you don't want to give 'em a dime, the ungrateful... who never call, not even on Father's Day!), one way of avoiding a  lot of tax is to make the beneficiary of your 401k be one or more of your favorite charities. In fact, if your testamentary inclination is to make some charitable bequests as part of your will, it is much more advantageous to give money from a tax-deferred account to the charity (size of estate is reduced, no income  tax paid by anyone on amount given), and bequeath assets in non-retirement accounts to one's heirs (bequests are not taxable income, and heirs get a step up in basis for assets that have appreciated) rather than the other way around (heirs pay income tax as they withdraw the money from tax-deferred  account) Estate planning is a complicated business, and you really should talk to a professional about such matters and not rely on advice from an Internet forum. "The Trustee has allowed me to act as his ""agent"", continuing to pay   bills, and take care of much of the administrative affairs for my   mother's estate since I did all of it for years before she passed   away. I was not paid for any of this work. ... The expenses were more than $30K last year, and there is still a punch list to go this year. The trust should reimburse your expenses and deduct them on the trust tax return. Since the Trust owned the property in 2015, and I will receive ownership this month, can last year's expenses incurred for the Trust be deducted again future income for my property this year?  Not exactly. The trust will file its own tax return and will report the income/loss attributed to the beneficiaries per the trust rules. What is attributed to you will flow to your Schedule E. From there you own it and if it is a passive activity where the loss is limited - you can carry it forward and offset with future gain. The trustee will have to deal with all the paperwork. Do 1099-misc forms need to be filed for the contractors who worked to get it ready for rental? It is my understanding that since 2010 (and before 2010) landlords who are not in real-estate trade or business are not required to send out 1099. But it won't hurt if you do, also. In any case - for all of these issues you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State)." No, you will not have to pay taxes on the corpus (principal) of the trust distribution.  If the trust tax forms were filed correctly, you might have as much as a $9000 loss that will flow to you on the trust's termination.  Previously, the trust was supposed to file a return each year, and either claim the dividends or realized cap gains each year, and pay taxes at trust's rate, or distribute them to the beneficiaries via K-1 form. This is the best way to handle this as the trust has a steep tax table (relative high rates) vs the kiddie tax which would let you get nearly $1K/yr tax free each year as a minor.  During that time, losses net again gains, but can't be 'distributed' to the beneficiary. They are carried forward year to year. In the year the trust is terminated, that loss is not lost, but it's then passed on to the beneficiary, still via K-1. See Schedule K-1 instructions and Schedule K-1 itself.  On a lighter note, the trustee failed you. In the 16 years (Jan 2000-Dec 2015), the market (S&P) grew by 88%, with a compound 4.02%/yr return. Instead of any gain, you got a loss with a -2.75%/yr return. If this were a paid professional, you'd have a potential claim for a lawsuit. This is a reason why amateurs should not be assigned the role of trustee.  To clearly answer the mix of questions you asked - Note - it's always a good idea to seek professional advice. But, the nature of this board is that if any of my answer isn't accurate, a high ranked member (top 20 or so on this list) will likely set me straight within 24 hours. You say that you inherited the money from your mother, and are now paying these people using money that is already yours.  Because of that, the money is considered a gift from you to them, and the fact that you are doing it in accordance with your mother's wishes doesn't change that.  For it to be considered a bequest from your mother's estate directly to these beneficiaries, it would have had to be handled via the regular by-the-book inheritance procedure and been given to them directly rather than bequeathed to you with informal instructions to pass it on to them. If one gives another person more than $14K in any calendar year, there is the potential gift tax issue to address. I'll explain why it's more a matter of 'addressing' than 'paying', as there are a number of legal ways around this.  Form 709 is what you'll use. In the end, you'll report the gifts over $14K but no tax will be due as they'll simply go against your lifetime gifting allowance, currently $5.49M per person.  Note, 2 ways to avoid even this obligation. If you have a spouse, you have a combined $28K/yr gifting (per recipient) with no reporting required. Similarly, if the recipient has a spouse, you can gift them $14K. i.e. couple to couple can gift $56K/yr. Last, why not just gift $14K before December, and in January, give the second installment? If I had money coming in separate from a will, I'd be happy that you honored a verbal request, and wouldn't be so greedy as to expect you to risk a dime of your own finances to transfer the funds immediately. AS PER IRS PUBLICATION: Question: Is money received from the sale of inherited property considered taxable income? Answer:   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: For information on the FMV of inherited property on the date of the decedent’s death, contact the executor of the decedent’s estate. Also, note that in 2015, Congress passed a new law that, under certain circumstances, requires an executor to provide a statement identifying the FMV of certain inherited property to the individual receiving that property. Check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. 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. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040), Capital Gains and Losses, and on Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets: Under the new law passed by Congress in 2015, an accuracy-related penalty may apply if an individual reporting the sale of certain inherited property uses a basis in excess of that property’s final value for federal estate tax purposes. Again, check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. For estates of decedents who died in 2010, basis is generally determined as described above. However, the executor of a decedent who died in 2010 may elect out of the estate tax rules for 2010 and use the modified carryover of basis rules.   Under this special election, the basis of property inherited from a decedent who died during 2010 is generally the lesser of: Under this special election for estates of decedents who died in 2010, the executor of the decedent’s estate may increase the basis of certain property that beneficiaries acquire from a decedent by up to $1.3 million (plus certain unused built-in losses and loss carryovers, if applicable), but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor may also increase the basis of certain property that the surviving spouse acquires from a decedent by up to an additional $3 million, but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor of the decedent’s estate is required to provide a statement to all heirs listing the decedent’s basis in the property, the FMV of the property on the date of the decedent’s death, and the additional basis allocated to the property. Contact the executor to determine what the basis of the asset is. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040) and on Form 8949, as described above. Additional Information: First let's define some terms. Your accrued benefit is a monthly benefit payable at your normal retirement age (usually 65). It is usually a life-only benefit but may have a number of years guaranteed or may have a survivor piece. It is defined by a plan formula (ie, it is a defined benefit). A lump sum is how much that accrued benefit is worth right now. Lump sums are based on applicable interest rates and mortality tables specified by the IRS (interest rates are released monthly, mortality annually). Your plan can either use the same interest rates for a whole year, or they can use new ones each month. Affecting your lump sum is whether your accrued benefit is payable now (immediately, you are age 65), or later (deferred, you are now age 30). For example, instead of being paid an annuity assume you are paid just one payment of $1,000 on your 65th birthday. The lump sum of that for a 65 year old would be $1,000 since there would be no interest discount, and no chance of dying before payment. For a 30 year old, at 4% interest the lump sum would be about $237 (including mortality discount). At age 36 the lump sum is $246. So the lump sum will get bigger just because you get older. Very important is the interest discount. At age 30 in the example, 2% interest would produce a $467 lump sum. And at 6% $122. The bigger the rate, the smaller the lump sum because interest helps an amount now grow bigger in the future. To complicate things, since 2008 the IRS bases lump sums on 3 different interest rates. The monthy annuity payments made within 5 years of the lump sum date use the 1st rate, past 5 and within 20 years use the 2nd rate, and past that use the 3rd rate. Since you are age 30, all of your monthly annuity payments would be made after 20 years, so that makes it simple since we'll only have to look at the 3rd rate. When you reach age 45 the 2nd rate will kick in. Here is the table of interest rates published by the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Minimum-Present-Value-Segment-Rates You'll find your rates above on the 2013 line for Aug-12. That means your lump sum is being made in 2013 and it is being based on the month August 2012. Most likely your plan will use the same rates for its entire plan year. But what is your plan year? If it is the calendar year, then you would have a 5 month lookback for the rates. But if is a September to August plan year with a 1 month lookback, the rates would have changed between August and September. Your August lump sum would be based on 4.52%, your September on would be based on 5.58% (see the All line for Aug-13). For comparison, a 30 year old with a $100 annuity payable at age 65 would have a lump sum value of $3,011 at 4.52%, but a lump sum value of $1,931 at 5.58%. The change in your accrued benefit by month will obviously have some impact on the lump sum value, but not as much as the change in interest rates if there is one. The amount they actually contribute to the plan has nothing to do with the value of the lump sum though. "My grandma left a 50K inheritance You don't make clear where in the inheritance process you are.  I actually know of one case where the executor (a family member, not a professional) distributed the inheritance before paying the estate taxes.  Long story short, the heirs had to pay back part of the inheritance.  So the first thing that I would do is verify that the estate is closed and all the taxes paid.  If the executor is a professional, just call and ask.  If a family member, you may want to approach it more obliquely.  Or not.   The important thing is not to start spending that money until you're sure that you have it.   One good thing is that my husband is in grad school and will be done in 2019 and will then make about 75K/yr with his degree profession. Be a bit careful about relying on this.  Outside the student loans, you should build other expenses around the assumption that he won't find a job immediately after grad school.  For example, we could be in a recession in 2019.  We'll be about due by then.    Paying off the $5k ""other debt"" is probably a no brainer.  Chances are that you're paying double-digit interest.  Just kill it.   Unless the car loan is zero-interest, you probably want to get rid of that loan too.  I would tend to agree that the car seems expensive for your income, but I'm not sure that the amount that you could recover by selling it justifies the loss of value.  Hopefully it's in good shape and will last for years without significant maintenance.   Consider putting $2k (your monthly income) in your checking account.  Instead of paying for things paycheck-to-paycheck, this should allow you to buy things on schedule, without having to wait for the money to appear in your account.   Put the remainder into an emergency account.  Set aside $12k (50% of your annual income/expenses) for real emergencies like a medical emergency or job loss.  The other $16k you can use the same way you use the $5k other debt borrowing now, for small emergencies.  E.g. a car repair.   Make a budget and stick to it.  The elimination of the car loan should free up enough monthly income to support a reasonable budget.  If it seems like it isn't, then you are spending too much money for your income.  Don't forget to explicitly budget for entertainment and vacations.  It's easy to overspend there.   If you don't make a budget, you'll just find yourself back to your paycheck-to-paycheck existence.  That sounds like it is frustrating for you.  Budget so that you know how much money you really need to live." You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates.  If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer.   In a comment, you proposed:   Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought  Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true.  And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs.   Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs.  So this isn't exactly a free lunch either.  But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held.  Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever.  Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax.   This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact. 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. An inherited Roth has no tax due at withdrawal. This doesn't change in the case of an inherited Roth received through a spouse as a result of a QDRO. So no tax for you.  To be clear, for an inherited Roth, there's an RMD each year (even though one may be under 59-1/2, e.g. a 5 yr old beneficiary will have an RMD) but there is no penalty for taking more than the RMD or cashing the full value.  Is there more to your question? Why are you taking on debt? Here is an IRS citation to support my comment above - Exceptions. The 10% tax will not apply if distributions before age 59   ½ are made in any of the following circumstances: Made to a beneficiary (or to the estate of the participant) on or   after the death of the participant, Made because the participant has a qualifying disability, Made as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments   beginning after separation from service and made at least annually for   the life or life expectancy of the participant or the joint lives or   life expectancies of the participant and his or her designated   beneficiary. (The payments under this exception, except in the case of   death or disability, must continue for at least 5 years or until the   employee reaches age 59½, whichever is the longer period.), Made to a participant after separation from service if the separation   occurred during or after the calendar year in which the participant   reached age 55, Made to an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order   (QDRO), Made to a participant for medical care up to the amount allowable as a   medical expense deduction (determined without regard to whether the   participant itemizes deductions), Timely made to reduce excess contributions, Timely made to reduce excess employee or matching employer   contributions, Timely made to reduce excess elective deferrals, or Made because of an IRS levy on the plan. Made on account of certain disasters for which IRS relief has been   granted. You need to keep in mind that there's an exemption amount of more than $5M (five million) dollars for estate tax. Unless you used all of it for gifts during your life time, it will more than cover all of your $70K estate, so there's no need in any additional planning. As to Roth vs Traditional IRA - if you want to leave something to your siblings, leave them the Roth. Why would you give the taxable income to your siblings when you can give them the nontaxable one? Charities are tax exempt anyway. "It depends on when you can get the money, not when you know that you won or when you choose to take the ticket in.  If you can present your ticket this year and get paid this year, the taxes are due this year, whether or not you actually choose to claim the prize this year.  If you cannot receive payment until next year, then taxes will be due next year.  This is ""constructive receipt,"" which applies to most individual tax situations. This assumes that you chose to receive a lump sum.  If you get installments, then your taxes would be due as the installments are available, but the constructive receipt still applies." TL; DR version:  What you propose to do might not save you taxes, and may well be illegal. Since you mention your wife, I assume that the Inherited IRA has been inherited from someone other than your spouse; your mother, maybe, who passed away in Fall 2015 as mentioned in your other question (cf. the comment by Ben Miller above)? If so, you must take (at least) the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from the Inherited IRA each year and pay  taxes on the distribution. What the RMD is depends on how old the Owner of the IRA was when the Owner passed away, but in most cases, it works out to be the RMD for you, the Beneficiary, considered  to be a Single Person (see Publication 590b, available on the IRS web site for details). So, Have you taken the (at least) the RMD amount for 2016 from this Inherited IRA? If not, you will owe a 50% penalty of the difference   between the amount withdrawn and the RMD amount. No, it is not a typo;   the penalty (it is called an excise tax) is indeed 50%. Assuming that the total amount that you have taken as  a Distribution from the Inherited IRA during 2016 is the  RMD for 2016 plus possibly some extra amount $X, then that amount is included in your taxable income for that year.  You cannot rollover any part of the total amount distributed into  your own IRA and thereby avoid taxation on the money. Note that it does not matter whether you will be rolling over the money into an existing IRA in your name or will be establishing a new rollover IRA account in your name with the money: the prohibition applies to both ways of handling the matter. If you wish, you can roll over up to $X (the amount over and above the RMD) into a new Inherited IRA account titled exactly the same as the existing Inherited IRA account with a different custodian. If you choose to do so, then the amount that you roll over into the new Inherited IRA account will not included in your taxable income for 2016. To my mind, there is no point to doing such a rollover unless you are unhappy with the current custodian of your Inherited IRA, but the option is included for completeness. Note that the RMD amount cannot be rolled over in this fashion; only the excess over the RMD. If you don't really need to spend the money distributed from your Inherited IRA for your household expenses (your opening statement that your income for 2016 is low might make this unlikely), and (i) you and/or your spouse received compensation (earned income such as wages, salary, self-employment income, commissions for sales, nontaxable combat pay for US Military Personnel, etc) in 2016, and (ii) you were not 70.5 years of age by December 2016,  then you and your wife can make  contributions to existing IRAs in your names  or establish new IRAs in your names.  The amount that can be contributed for each IRA is limited to the smaller of $5500 ($6500 for people over 50) and that person's compensation for 2016, but if a joint tax return is filed for 2016, then both can make contributions to their IRAs as long as the sum of the amounts contributed to the IRAs does not exceed  the total compensation reported on the joint return.  The deadline for making such IRA contributions is the due date for your 2016 Federal income tax return. Since your income for 2016 is less than $98K, you can deduct the entire IRA contribution even if you or your wife are covered by an employer plan such as a 401(k) plan.  Thus, your taxable income will be reduced by the IRA contributions (up to a maximum of $11K (or $12 K or $13K depending on ages)) and this can offset the increase in taxable income due to the  distribution from the Inherited IRA.      Since money is fungible, isn't this last bullet point achieving the same result as rolling over the entire $9.6K (including the RMD) into an IRA in your name, the very thing that the first bullet point above says cannot be done? The answer is that it really isn't the same result and differs from what you wanted to do in several different ways. First, the $9.6K is being put into IRAs for two different people  (you and your wife) and not just you alone. Should there, God forbid, be an end to the marriage, that part of your inheritance is gone. Second, you might not even be entitled to make contributions to IRAs (no compensation, or over 70.5 years old in 2016) which would make the whole thing moot. Third, the amount that can be contributed to an IRA is limited to $5500/$6500 for each person. While this does not affect the present case, if the distribution had been $15K instead of $9.6K,  not all of that money could be contributed to IRAs for you and your wife. Finally, the contribution to a Traditional IRA might be non-deductible for income tax purposes because the Adjusted Gross Income is too high;  once again, not an issue for you for 2016 but something to keep in mind for future years. In contrast, rollovers from one IRA into another IRA (both titled the same) can be in any amount, and they can be done at any time regardless of whether there is compensation for that year or not or what the Adjusted Gross Income is or whether there is coverage by a 401(k) plan. There are no  tax consequences to rollovers unless the rollover is from a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in which case, the distribution is included in taxable  income for that year.  What is prohibited is taking the entire amount of the $9.6K distribution from an Inherited IRA and rolling it over  into your existing IRA (or establishing a Rollover IRA in your name with that $9.6K); ditto for some money going into your IRA and some into your wife's IRA. I expect that any IRA custodian will  likely refuse to allow you to carry out such a rollover transaction but will be glad to accept 2016 contributions (in amounts of up to $5500/$6500) from you into existing IRAs or open a new IRA for you. The custodian will not ask whether you have compensation for 2016 or not (but will check your age!); it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not contribute more than the compensation etc. Incidentally, subject to the $5500/6500 maximum limit, you can (if you choose to do so) contribute the entire amount of your compensation to an IRA, not just the take-home pay amount (which will be smaller than your compensation because of withholding for Social Security and Medicare tax, State and Federal income tax, etc). John - sure, your points are well taken. $500K in cash is preferable to $500K invested in a way I wouldn't choose at the moment.  A friendly warning - inheritances often come in the form of an IRA account. This comes with its own issues, and an IRA shouldn't be confused with the assets it contains. Selling the assets inside is fine, you can reinvest in what you wish, but selling and pulling the money out can result in an horrific tax bill. I was recently interviewed on the radio (and available as a Podcast) discussing Inherited IRA Tax Tips, and it's worth educating yourself as the topic is quite convoluted.  (And thanks, John, for a question that permitted me to sneak this in. I owe you a beverage)