Should an IRA be disclaimed to allow it to be distributed according to a will?
There are two different possible taxes based on various scenarios proposed by the OP or the lawyer who drew up the OP's father's will or the OP's mother.   First, there is the estate tax which is paid by the estate of the deceased, and the heirs get what is left. Most estates in the US pay no estate tax whatsoever because most estates are smaller than $5.4M lifetime gift and estate tax exemption. But, for the record, even though IRAs pass from owner to beneficiary independent of whatever the will might say about the disposition of the IRAs, the value of the deceased's IRAs is part of the estate, and if the estate is large enough that estate tax is due and there is not enough money in the rest of the estate to pay the estate tax (e.g. most of the estate value is IRA money and there are no other investments, just a bank account with a small balance), then the executor of the will can petition the probate court to claw back some of the IRA money from the IRA beneficiaries to pay the estate tax due. Second, there is income tax that the estate must pay on income received from the estate's assets, e.g. mutual fund dividends paid between the date of death and the distribution of the assets to the beneficiaries, or income from cashing in IRAs that have the estate as the beneficiary. Now, most of OP's father's estate is in IRAs which have the OP's mother as the primary beneficiary and there are no named secondary beneficiaries. Thus, by default, the estate is the IRA beneficiary should the OP's mother disclaim the IRAs as the lawyer has suggested. As @JoeTaxpayer says in a comment, if the OP's mother disclaims the IRA, then the estate must distribute all the IRA assets to the three beneficiaries by December 31 of the year in which the fifth anniversary of the death occurs. If the estate decides to do this by itself, then the distribution from the IRA to the estate is taxable income to the estate (best avoided if possible because of the high tax rates on trusts). What is commonly done is that before December 31 of the year following the year in which the death occurred, the estate (as the beneficiary) informs the IRA Custodian that the estate's beneficiaries are the surviving spouse (50%), and the two children (25% each) and requests the IRA custodian to divide the IRA assets accordingly and let each beneficiary be responsible for meeting the requirements of the 5-year rule for his/her share. Any assets not distributed in timely fashion are subject to a 50% excise tax as penalty each year until such time as these monies are actually withdrawn explicitly from the IRA (that is, the excise tax is not deducted from the remaining IRA assets; the beneficiary has to pay the excise tax out of pocket). As far as the IRS is concerned, there are no yearly distribution requirements to be met but the IRA Custodial Agreement might have its own rules, and so Publication 590b recommends discussing the distribution requirements for the 5-year rule with the IRA Custodian. The money distributed from the IRA is taxable income to the recipients. In particular, the children cannot roll the money over into another IRA so as to avoid immediate taxation; the spouse might be able to roll over the money into another IRA, but I am not sure about this; Publication 590b is very confusing on this point.   All this is assuming that the deceased passed away before well before his 70.5th birthday so that there are no issues with RMDs (the interactions of all the rules in this case is an even bigger can of worms that I will leave to someone else to explicate). On the other hand, if the OP's mother does not disclaim the IRAs, then she, as the surviving spouse, has the option of treating the inherited IRAs as her own IRAs, and she could then name her two children as the beneficiaries of the inherited IRAs when she passes away.  Of course, by the same token, she could opt to make someone else the beneficiary (e.g, her children from a previous marriage) or change her mind at any later time and make someone else the beneficiary (e.g. if she remarries, or becomes very fond of the person taking care of her in a nursing home and decides to leave all her assets to this person instead of her children, etc).  But even if such disinheritances are unlikely and the children are perfectly happy to wait to inherit till Mom passes away, as JoeTaxpayer points out, by not disclaiming the IRAs, the OP's mother can delay taking distributions from the IRAs till age 70.5, etc. which is also a good option to have. The worst scenario is for the OP's mother to not disclaim the IRAs, cash them in right away (huge income tax whack on her) or at least 50% of them, and gift the OP and his sibling half of what she withdrew (or possibly after taking into account what she had to pay in income tax on the distribution). Gift tax need not be paid by the OP's mother if she files Form 709 and reduces her lifetime combined gift and estate tax exemption, and the OP and his sibling don't owe any tax (income or otherwise) on the gift amount.  But, all that money has changed from tax-deferred assets to ordinary assets, and any additional earnings on these assets in the future will be taxable income. So, unless the OP and his sibling need the cash right away (pay off credit card debt, make a downpayment on a house, etc), this is not a good idea at all. She is very wrong.  If the IRA is a traditional, i.e. A pretax IRA (not a Roth), all withdrawals are subject to tax at one's marginal rate. Read that to mean that a large sum can easily push her into higher brackets than normal. If it stayed with her, she'd take smaller withdrawals and be able to throttle her tax impact.  Once she takes it all out, and gifts it to you, no gift tax is due, but there's form 709, where it's declared, and counts against her $5.5M lifetime estate exemption.  There are a few things in the world of finance that offend me as much as lawyer malpractice, going into an area they are ignorant of.
I'll summarize here our discussion in the comments. First thing to remember is that you can only deposit up to $6K/year into the Roth IRA, you cannot seed it with some large amount (unless its a rollover). Second thing to remember is that you can only qualify 10K distribution for the home purchase. With that in mind, it seems that you'll have to have extremly high returns to make use of the maximum tax benefit (15-20% of the 10K). Non-qualified distributions will be taxed at ordinary income rates + 10% penalty, so if you can't qualify the distribution, instead of saving money on taxes, you'll end up paying twice as much as you would have without the IRA. Also, keep in mind that reporting of the distributions and justifying the qualifications might require assistance of a tax preparer, which will also reduce your savings. Bottom line, IMHO, you'll end up with a wash or very insignificant savings (compared to the magnitude of the home purchase costs) at best, which renders the whole thing kindof wastefull. Whenever one takes a distribution from an IRA, it cannot be put back into an IRA unless one is doing something like (a) take a distribution from the IRA as a rollover where the owner gets cash in hand to be sent to the new IRA custodian within 60 days, and (b) deposit the money with the new IRA custodian within the prescribed time period. For distributions taken by a first-time home purchaser to buy or rebuild a home, the money can be put back and treated as a rollover up to 120 days after receiving it (Publication 590, page 51, column 2). Note also that distributions taken for  first-time homebuying lose their Qualified Distribution status if not paid to the seller (or bank, for closing costs etc) within 120 days of receipt of the distribution (Publication 590, page 51, column 1). However, one  cannot take a distribution from an IRA, no matter whether the sum comes from contributions, earnings, or previous rollovers, and put the money back into the IRA a few years down the road as having been unnecessarily withdrawn.   What you want to do -- take out some money out of your IRA to buy a house and  put the money back into the IRA later -- is effectively an interest-free loan from your IRA (even if you don't call it a loan or think of it as a loan), and you  are not allowed to do this (except in the special circumstances described above). On the other hand, unless you have a very atypical 401k plan, you can take a loan from your 401k (you will have to pay interest, though) and pay it back over several years. Thus, taking a loan from your 401k might be something you could consider as an alternative to withdrawing money from your IRA. But be aware that there are restrictions on how much you can borrow from your 401k, and usually you cannot withdraw employer match money, even if it has vested. Also, the loan becomes immediately due upon termination of employment, even if the termination was involuntary (i.e. the  employee was laid off or fired). 401Ks and IRAs are types of retirement accounts. They have rules regarding maximum amount of investments per year; who can invest; destructibility; and the tax treatment of the growth.  Stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs are all types of investments that can exist either inside or outside of the retirement account. Some 401Ks restrict the type of investments you can have, others allow you to own almost anything. Any investment is a risk, and there is no guarantee that it will grow.  Look around the site for beginning investment advice. You should start with the 401K offered by your company especially if they have matching funds. That is free money. Many suggest you invest enough to get the match, then invest with an IRA. Look into IRAs because under US tax law you can still make a 2013 investment up until tax day 2014. Take the time before tax day to decide on Roth or Regular IRA.   The more exotic investments take more time to understand and should not be a concern until you have laid out your basic retirement accounts. Yes, it should come out tax free. However you should have reported it  to the IRS at the time (currently it is done on form 8606). If you haven't done it, the IRS may disagree with you on that and require taxes. If you have proper documentation of the contribution, then when you withdraw from your IRA - you use that same form 8606 to calculate the non-taxable portion. Note that you cannot just take $2K out of the 1099-R, the non-taxable portion will be prorated through all of your IRA withdrawals. Also, keep in mind that only the actual after tax portion will be tax-free, the gains will be taxable. I.e.: if you deposited $2K after tax (and nothing else), and they have now grown to $100K - you will only have 2% of your distribution tax free (2k/100K * distributed amount). All money distributed from a Traditional IRA to which no nondeductible contributions have been made is taxed as ordinary income. It does not matter if you think of the money as the original contribution or gains; the taxation is the same.  Money distributed from a Roth IRA is tax-free.  In either case, penalties apply if the distribution is premature. There are a few things to consider. The answers others gave here are correct, but I'll offer some reasons you may not want to roll to an IRA: "See ""Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited."" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal.  Let me offer a pre-emptive ""I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, ""We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,"" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right."" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000." 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.