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."
"**What you need to know about [estate planning](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson21/), including why you may need a will and assigning a power of attorney.**  **1. No matter your net worth, it's important to have a basic estate plan in place.**  Such a plan ensures that your family and financial goals are met after you die.  **2. An estate plan has several elements.**  They include: a will; assignment of power of attorney; and a living will or health-care proxy (medical power of attorney). For some people, a trust may also make sense. When putting together a plan, you must be mindful of both [federal and state laws](http://corlisslawgroup.com/) governing estates.  **3. Taking inventory of your assets is a good place to start.**  Your assets include your investments, retirement savings, insurance policies, and real estate or business interests. Ask yourself three questions: Whom do you want to inherit your assets? Whom do you want handling your financial affairs if you're ever incapacitated? Whom do you want making medical decisions for you if you become unable to make them for yourself?  **4. Everybody needs a will.**  A will tells the world exactly where you want your assets distributed when you die. It's also the best place to name guardians for your children. Dying without a will -- also known as dying ""intestate"" -- can be costly to your heirs and leaves you no say over who gets your assets. Even if you have a trust, you still need a will to take care of any holdings outside of that trust when you die.  **5. Trusts aren't just for the wealthy.**  Trusts are legal mechanisms that let you put conditions on how and when your assets will be distributed upon your death. They also allow you to reduce your estate and gift taxes and to distribute assets to your heirs without the cost, delay and publicity of probate court, which administers wills. Some also offer greater protection of your assets from creditors and lawsuits.  **6. Discussing your estate plans with your heirs may prevent disputes or confusion.**  Inheritance can be a loaded issue. By being clear about your intentions, you help dispel potential conflicts after you're gone.  **7. The federal estate tax exemption -- the amount you may leave to heirs free of federal tax -- is now set permanently at $5 million indexed for inflation.**  In 2013, estates under $5.25 million are exempt from the tax. Amounts above that are taxed up to a top rate of 40%.  **8. You may leave an unlimited amount of money to your spouse tax-free, but this isn't always the best tactic.**  By leaving all your assets to your spouse, you don't use your estate tax exemption and instead increase your surviving spouse's taxable estate. That means your children are likely to pay more in estate taxes if your spouse leaves them the money when he or she dies. Plus, it defers the tough decisions about the distribution of your assets until your spouse's death.  **9. There are two easy ways to give gifts tax-free and reduce your estate.**  You may give up to $14,000 a year to an individual (or $28,000 if you're married and giving the gift with your spouse). You may also pay an unlimited amount of medical and education bills for someone if you pay the expenses directly to the institutions where they were incurred.  **10. There are ways to give charitable gifts that keep on giving.**  If you donate to a charitable gift fund or community foundation, your investment grows tax-free and you can select the charities to which contributions are given both before and after you die." "For 401(k) and regular IRA, you pay income tax on withdrawals from the account. At a certain age, there is a ""required minimum distribution"". This is an amount you must withdraw from the account or you face penalties. I've also read about, but am not familiar with, mechanisms by which you can retire early and start taking withdrawals before the regular official retirement age. (These may or may not be legit, I didn't do any research on it.) A Roth IRA, which is not ""tax deferred"" and thus not technically covered by your question, there is no tax on withdrawals (assuming you are at retirement age) and no required minimum distribution. Something to watch out for on your accounts are fees that they charge for withdrawals. I was in a 401(k) once that had a $50 fee per-withdrawal. A monthly check from this account would eat your money! I paid the fee once, when I rolled it into an account at a brokerage after leaving the company." First of all, it's pretty rare that would cash out your entire Traditional IRA at once when you retire. That would incur major taxes and negate much of the tax deductibility benefit. Instead, you'd want to take distributions of just what you want to live on, which are taxed at income rates, and let the rest continue to grow tax free until you need/want it. As to your main question, if you don't expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, then yes, Roth makes sense. But this is a pretty major assumption. When you're working, your salary pushes you into higher tax brackets. Once you're retired, you don't have as many sources of income. It could be mostly distributions from retirement accounts, and even coming from a Traditional IRA a lot of that will be tax free or taxed at a low rate (e.g. 15%). If when it was earned it would have been taxed at a higher marginal rate (e.g. 25%), then the Traditional IRA was a better choice than the Roth. Traditional versus Roth, if both are options to you (with deductibility for the Traditional), all comes down to tax rate now versus what you expect your tax rate to be in retirement. There is no universal answer. He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any   details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was   used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the   penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did. 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. "Sounds like your grandmother's estate had taxable income and the estate did not pay the estate ""INCOME"" tax.  Rather the estate shifted the burden to pay that tax on the beneficiaries which is why you received a K1.  If that K1 reports income received by you, then YES you would have to amend your tax return.  I am in exactly that same situation now.  After the October 15 deadline to file 2012 tax returns, I received a K1 for income received from my dad's estate.  I now have to file a late amended 2012 income tax return and pay income tax on what I inherited. My dad had a small estate, but the money that made up that small estate all came from an IRA he had.  He designated the estate as his beneficiary.  So when the stocks in the IRA were sold, that all became taxable income to the beneficiaries of the estate. Anything involving taxes is confusing at best.  But do not confuse estate income tax, with estate tax -- they are two different taxes. Hope this helps." "You are not allowed to take a retirement account and move it into the beneficiary's name, an inherited IRA is titled as ""Deceased Name for the benefit of Beneficiary name"". Breaking the correct titling makes the entire account non-retirement and tax is due on the funds that were not yet taxed. If I am mistaken and titling remained correct, RMDs are not avoidable, they are taken based on your Wife's life expectancy from a table in Pub 590, and the divisor is reduced by one each year.  Page 86 is ""table 1"" and provides the divisor to use. For example, at age 50, your wife's divisor is 34.2 (or 2.924%). Each year it decrements by 1, you do not go back to the table each year. It sounds like the seller's recommendation bordered on misconduct, and the firm behind him can be made to release you from this and refund the likely high fees he took from you. Without more details, it's tough to say. I wish you well. The only beneficiary that just takes possession into his/her own account is the surviving spouse. Others have to do what I first described." Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.