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."
I'm going to offer a contrarian answer. Depending on how big the jackpot is, I would suggest that your best bet might be the annuity over the lump sum. Not because of math, but because of behavior.  Let's say that you are looking at a jackpot of hundreds of millions, and the annuity option is tens of millions each year. For me, even the annual payment of the annuity is more money than I can even comprehend. Do I trust myself to handle the lump sum? No. I have no experience with that kind of money, nor does anyone I know. By taking the annuity option, I allow myself to figure it out a piece at a time. If I make a mistake by choosing the wrong advisor or spending more than I should, I can learn my lesson and do better with next year's payment.  There are too many stories of past lottery winners who blow it all early and end up broke. The annuity option protects you from yourself.  But, you don't have to take my word for it: New York Times, Jan 12, 2016: Dear Powerball Winner: Take Our Advice and Take the Annuity "Essentially, your question is ""lump sum vs DCA"" and your tags reflect that. In the long run, lump sum, say a Jan 2 deposit each year, will beat DCA by about 1/2 the average annual market return. $12,000 will see a 10% return, vs, $1,000/month over the year seeing 6%. What hurts is when the market tanks in the first half of the year and you think DCA would have helped. This is a 'feeling' issue, not a math problem.  But. By the time you have $100K invested, the difference of DCA vs lump sum with new money fades, as new deposits are small compared to the funds invested.  By then, you need to know your target allocation and deposit to keep that allocation with new money." If you do not need the money in the 401k right away and are interested in avoiding penalties on the amounts accumulated, roll over the 401k monies into a Roth IRA (your contributions and growth thereof) and a Traditional IRA (company match a d growth thereof). You can choose to take out money from the Traditional IRA not as a lump sum (penalties in addition to lots of income tax in the year of taking the distribution) but as series of equal payments over your life expectancy (no penalty but US income tax is still due each year). Be aware that he who rides a tiger cannot dismount: if you opt for this method, you must take a distribution every year whether you need the money or not, and the amount of the distribution must match what the IRS wants you to take exactly; excess withdrawals lead to penalties etc.  Publication 590 says Annuity. You can receive distributions from your traditional IRA that are part of a series of substantially equal payments over your life (or your life expectancy), or over the lives (or the joint life expectancies) of you and your beneficiary, without having to pay the 10% additional tax, even if you receive such distributions before you are age 59.5. You must use an IRS-approved distribution method and you must take at least one distribution annually for this exception to apply. The “required minimum distribution method,” when used for this purpose, results in the exact amount required to be distributed, not the minimum amount. Be aware that, depending on your country of residence/citizenship, you may be required to close all foreign accounts within x months of return, and if so, this stratagem will not work. "There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum.  So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said ""ignoring tax implications"". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation." "Yes, you as the giver will owe US gift taxes if you give her that sum directly. You can reduce it by taking advantage of the threshold being by person. So, for example, if you and your wife each gave your daughter $17k, you'd individually be under the threshold and wouldn't owe gift tax, even if the money comes from and goes to the same account. Given the time of year, you could give her that now and another $34k in January (next tax year) and avoid the gift tax. If she doesn't need all the money immediately, that's the simplest solution. If she does need it all now, and you don't want to try arranging to  ""launder"" the money through relatives' gift allowances (which I think would be legal and legitimate, actually), the other solution is to set this up as an intra-family loan. Web searching that phrase will find details, but it essentially lets you spread the gift over multiple accounting years and pay income tax on a minimal amount of interest (can be under 0.3%, which you'd also gift her with) rather than paying gift tax. It does require some paperwork to document and track it properly, but it isn't bad. (I did this when making a large ""bridge loan"" to help a relative buy their new house before the old one had sold. In that case it really was a loan, though; I'm being paid back out of the proceeds from the sale.)" "Yes, this is restricted by law.  In plain language, you can find it on the IRS website (under the heading ""When Can a Retirement Plan Distribute Benefits?""): 401(k), profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans Employee elective deferrals (and earnings, except in a hardship distribution) -- the plan may permit a distribution when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach age 59½; or •suffer a hardship. Employer profit-sharing or matching contributions -- the plan may permit a distribution of your vested accrued benefit when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach the age specified in the plan (any age); or •suffer a hardship or experience another event specified in the plan. Form of benefit - the plan may pay benefits in a single lump-sum payment as well as offer other options, including payments over a set period of time (such as 5 or 10 years) or a purchased annuity with monthly lifetime payments.  Source: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/when-can-a-retirement-plan-distribute-benefits If you want to actually see it in the law, check out 26 USC 401(k)(2)(B)(i), which lists the circumstances under which a distribution can be made.  You can get the full text, for example, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401 I'm not sure what to say about the practice of the company that you mentioned in your question.  Maybe the law was different then?" Once your sister and you make your first payments, you've paid $20,645, and your sister has paid $1400. But your sister also owes rent. Zeroth order estimate for rent is that it's equal to mortgage payment, so that's $2045 (I assume that $2045 is actually your total payment, not just your escrow payment. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the term means, $2045 is an absurdly high amount for a monthly escrow payment.) So your sister now has made a net capital contribution of ... negative $645. So you're giving your sister a gift of $7740 each year, and are the sole equity owner of the house. There's a $14000/year gift tax exclusion, and I think that both you and your husband can claim it separately, so every year you could declare your sister to have $20260 added to her capital contribution, or more if you're willing to pay gift tax. But as it stands, if there are any losses from the property, they will be borne exclusively by you; therefore, any profits should be enjoyed exclusively by you. Any other arrangement is you giving a gift to your sister. If the price of the house were to shoot up to $1,000,000 after a year, and you were to split the profits with your sister 50:50, and not pay a gift tax, you WOULD be violating tax law. "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,"