Marriage And Divorce

<div class="Section1">Generally, there is a limitation of $750,000 ($1,000,000 prior to 2018) on the amount of aggregate debt that may be treated as &ldquo;acquisition indebtedness,&rdquo; for purposes of deducting mortgage-related interest. The amount of refinanced debt that may be treated as acquisition indebtedness is limited to the amount of debt being refinanced.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">¹</a> Prior to 2018, the deductibility of interest incurred on &ldquo;home equity indebtedness&rdquo; was limited to interest on a debt of $100,000, or the amount of equity (that is, the fair market value of the home less the acquisition indebtedness), whichever is less.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">²</a>&nbsp;The 2017 tax reforms eliminated the deduction for home equity interest, but in certain circumstances, such indebtedness may continue to qualify as acquisition indebtedness. <em><em>See</em></em> Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="8032">8032</a> and Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="8536">8536</a> for details.<div class="Section1"><br /> <br /> However, unmarried taxpayers may be entitled to double this generally applicable limit. In a case decided prior to tax reform, the Ninth Circuit reversed a Tax Court holding that two unmarried home co-owners could not each deduct interest on $1.1 million of personal residence indebtedness, because the debt limitations are residence-based, rather than taxpayer-based. The Tax Court found that the taxpayers could deduct only the interest incurred on a total of $1.1 million of debt ($1 million of acquisition indebtedness and $100,000 of home equity indebtedness), even if they owned two residences. The Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, holding that the debt limit applied on a per-taxpayer basis to unmarried co-owners of a qualified residence.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">³</a> The IRS acquiesced in the Ninth Circuit&rsquo;s decision in 2016.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">⁴</a>&nbsp;This generally means that unmarried taxpayers should be entitled to deduct interest on up to $750,000 of debt <em>each</em> from 2018-2025.<br /> <br /> </div><div class="refs"><br /> <br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">1</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect; 163(h)(3)(B); Notice 88-74, 1988-2 CB 385.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">2</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect; 163(h)(3)(C).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">3</a>.&nbsp; <em>Sophy v. Comm.,</em> 138 TC 204 (2012); <em>Voss v. Comm.,</em> 796 F.3d 1051 (2015).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">4</a>.&nbsp; AOD 2016-02, 2016-31 IRB 193.<br /> <br /> </div></div><br />

<div class="Section1">Domestic partner benefits are benefits that an employer voluntarily offers to an employee&rsquo;s unmarried partner. An employee&rsquo;s domestic partner may be of the same sex or the opposite sex. An employer determines the scope of its plan&rsquo;s definition of domestic partner.<div class="Section1"><br /> <br /> Employers may offer a range of domestic partnership benefits, such as family, bereavement, sick leave, and relocation benefits. In general, most people mean employer-provided health insurance coverage when they speak of domestic partnership benefits.<br /> <br /> An employee is taxed on the value of employer-provided health benefits for his or her domestic partner unless the domestic partner qualifies as the employee&rsquo;s dependent under IRC Section&nbsp;151. The tax is determined by assessing the fair market value of the coverage provided to the domestic partner. This amount then is reported on the employee&rsquo;s W-2 form and is subjected to Social Security (FICA) and federal income tax withholding.<br /> <br /> Any amount received by a domestic partner as payment or reimbursement of plan benefits will not be included in the income of the employee or the domestic partner to the extent that the coverage provided to the domestic partner was paid for by the employee&rsquo;s plan contributions or the fair market value of the coverage was included in the employee&rsquo;s income under IRC Section&nbsp;104(a)(3).<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">¹</a><br /> <br /> Coverage of domestic partners, whether or not they qualify as dependents, under an employer-provided health plan will not otherwise affect the ability of employees to exclude amounts paid, directly or indirectly, by a plan to reimburse employees for expenses incurred for medical care of the employees, their spouses, and dependents.<br /> <br /> Same-sex couples who are legally married in any state are treated as spouses for all federal law purposes (including employment-related retirement benefits, <em><em>see</em></em> Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="9104">9104</a>), regardless of where they live.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">²</a> As a result, many domestic partners have chosen to legally marry, and, therefore, some expect that fewer employers will offer domestic partner benefits in the future.<br /> <br /> </div><div class="refs"><br /> <br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">1</a>.&nbsp; Let. Ruls. 200846001, 9850011, 9717018, 9603011. <em><em>See also</em></em> Let. Ruls. 9109060, 9034048. <em><em>See also</em></em> Field Service Advice 199911012.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">2</a>.&nbsp; <em>United States v. Windsor</em>, 570 U.S. 744, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013); <em>Obergefell v. Hodges,</em> 576 U.S. 644, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015); Notice 2014-19, 2014-17 IRB 979.<br /> <br /> </div></div><br />

<div class="Section1">Married couples have the right to file both joint federal and state income tax returns, rather than two separate returns, for the current tax year, as well as for all other open years. In the case of same-sex couples who had filed separate federal returns for simplicity because they lived in a state that did not recognize same-sex marriage, amending a past year&rsquo;s return could lead to higher refunds in some cases.<div class="Section1"><br /> <br /> In some cases, however, choosing to marry and file a joint return can actually increase tax liability. Unmarried couples (regardless of sex) generally have the opportunity to file two single (or two head-of-household) tax returns without worrying about the &ldquo;marriage penalty&rdquo; for filing separately that applies to a legally married couple.<br /> <br /> As a result of the Supreme Court&rsquo;s ruling in <em>Obergefell v. Hodges</em>, same-sex couples now must make the same cost-benefit analysis that applies to opposite-sex couples in determining whether to file jointly. A single taxpayer crosses the earnings threshold into the 37 percent tax bracket when he or she earns more than about $500,000 for the year (this amount is adjusted annually for inflation)&mdash;meaning that two single taxpayers could live together and earn approximately $1 million before entering into the highest income tax bracket. Two married people, on the other hand, become subject to the 37 percent rate when they have combined earnings of only approximately $600,000 (as adjusted for inflation) for the year.<br /> <br /> The investment income tax will also apply to a married couple earning a combined $250,000 (while two unmarried taxpayers can earn $400,000 before crossing the threshold). <em><em>See</em></em> Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="8635">8635</a> to Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="8656">8656</a> for a discussion of the investment income tax.<br /> <br /> </div></div><br />

<div class="Section1">A married individual may make contributions to a traditional IRA for a non-working spouse if (1) the non-working spouse and working spouse file a joint return for the taxable year, and (2) the amount of compensation (if any) includable in the non-working spouse&rsquo;s gross income for the taxable year is less than the compensation includable in the working spouse&rsquo;s gross income for the taxable year.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">¹</a> The deductibility of such contributions depends on whether the non-working spouse or working spouse is an &ldquo;active participant&rdquo; (<em><em>see</em></em> below) and on the married couple&rsquo;s adjusted gross income.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">²</a> Community property laws are disregarded for purposes of this deduction.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">³</a><div class="Section1"><br /> <br /> In the case of a defined benefit plan<em>,</em> an individual who is not excluded under the eligibility provisions of the plan for the plan year ending with or within the individual&rsquo;s taxable year is an active participant in the plan, regardless of whether such individual has elected to decline participation in the plan, has failed to make a mandatory contribution specified under the plan, or has failed to perform the minimum service required to accrue a benefit under the plan.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">⁴</a> An individual in a plan under which accruals all have ceased is not an active participant. Where benefits may vary with future compensation, all accruals are not considered to have ceased.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">⁵</a><br /> <br /> In the case of a profit sharing or stock bonus plan<em>,</em> an individual is an active participant if any employer contribution is deemed added or any forfeiture is allocated to the individual&rsquo;s account during the individual&rsquo;s taxable year.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">⁶</a> A contribution is treated as made to an individual&rsquo;s account on the later of the date the contribution is made or allocated.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">⁷</a><br /> <br /> A married individual may make contributions to a Roth IRA for a non-working spouse if (a) statements (1) and (2) above apply, and (b) the adjusted gross income of the married couple is less than the applicable limits discussed in Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="3659">3659</a>.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">⁸</a> &ldquo;Compensation&rdquo; is generally earned compensation, such as wages or self-employment income, rather than interest income or Social Security benefits. The joint return rule implicitly requires that, except where one or both have died, the contributing individual and the contributing individual&rsquo;s spouse have identical taxable years.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">⁹</a><br /> <br /> An eligible individual may make contributions to a spousal IRA even if the individual does not own or contribute to an IRA for himself or herself.<br /> <br /> If the income-earning spouse dies during the taxable year, the non-working spouse may contribute to the spousal IRA if a joint return is filed for the year. No amount may be contributed to the IRA of a deceased spouse (however, <em><em>see</em></em> Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="9105">9105</a> for information on IRAs that are inherited by surviving spouses).<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10">¹⁰</a><br /> <br /> The contributing individual must have been married to his or her spouse as of the last day of their tax year. An individual legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance is not married for these purposes.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11">¹¹</a><br /> <br /> </div><div class="refs"><br /> <br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">1</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect;&nbsp;219(c)(2).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">2</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect;&nbsp;219(g).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">3</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect;&nbsp;219(f)(2).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">4</a>.&nbsp; Notice 87-16, 1987-1 CB 446, A-15; Treas. Reg. &sect;&nbsp;1.219-2(b)(1); <em><em>see</em> Nicolai v. Comm.</em>, TC Memo 1997-108.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">5</a>.&nbsp; Notice 87-16, 1987-1 CB 446, A-16; Treas. Reg. &sect;&nbsp;1.219-2(b)(3); Let. Rul. 8948008.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">6</a>.&nbsp; Treas. Reg. &sect;&nbsp;1.219-2(d)(1); <em><em>see</em> Tolley v. Comm.</em>, TC Memo 1997-244.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">7</a>.&nbsp; Treas. Reg. &sect;&nbsp;1.219-2(d)(1).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">8</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect;&sect;&nbsp;219(c)(2), 408A(c)(3).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">9</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect;&nbsp;6013.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">10</a>.&nbsp; Let. Rul. 8527083.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">11</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect;&nbsp;6013(d)(2).<br /> <br /> </div></div><br />

<div class="Section1">Portability allows a surviving spouse to use any of a deceased spouse's unused transfer tax exemption amount—thereby increasing his or her own estate and gift tax exemption amount in order to exclude more of assets from transfer tax liability. The portability provision was made permanent by the American Taxpayer Reform Act of 2012.</div><br /> <div class="Section1"><br /> <br /> Generally, a surviving spouse may apply the deceased spouse's unused estate tax exclusion amount to the surviving spouse's own transfers if portability is elected by filing a timely estate tax return (typically, within nine months of the date of death, with an automatic extension of six months). While an estate that does not exceed the estate tax exemption amount is not generally required to file an estate tax return, a return is required in order to elect portability.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">¹</a> If an estate tax return is not required because of the estate's value, the IRS has provided a simplified method for requesting an extension of time to elect portability. The extension is available if the decedent was survived by a spouse, died after 2010 and was a U.S. citizen. In order to obtain the extension, the executor must file a completed Form 706 (the estate tax return) on or before the later of January 2, 2018 or the second anniversary of the decedent's date of death. At the top of Form 706, the executor must state that the return is "Filed pursuant to Rev. Proc. 2017-34 to elect portability under § 2010(c)(5)(A)".<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">²</a><br /> <br /> The Tax Court has held that the estate tax return of a predeceased spouse could be examined in determining the correct DSUE amount for a surviving spouse seeking to take advantage of portability. This was the case even though the period of limitations for assessment had expired with respect to the return. In this case, one spouse died and reported DUSE of about $1.26 million and elected portability. The return was accepted by the IRS as filed. The next year, the surviving spouse died and claimed the reported DSUE amount on her estate tax return. The IRS examined both the returns of the surviving spouse and predeceased spouse, and determined that the predeceased spouse had failed to report certain taxable gifts, so reduced the DSUE amount and applied an estate tax deficiency with respect to the surviving spouse's return. The Tax Court found this permissible despite the fact that the IRS has issued a closing letter with respect to the predeceased spouse's return but, because there was no agreement resulting from negotiations between the estate and IRS, the letter was not a closing agreement. Further, examination was not an impermissible second examination because the IRS did not obtain any new information from the estate.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">³</a><br /> <br /> </div><br /> <div class="refs"><br /> <br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">1</a>.  Treas. Reg. § 20.2010-2.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">2</a>.  Rev. Proc. 2017-34.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">3</a>.  <em>Estate of Sower v. Commissioner</em>, 149 TC 11.<br /> <br /> </div>

<div class="Section1">Legally married couples are permitted to pool their $19,000 (in 2025) annual gift tax exclusion so that each couple is able to make annual tax-free gifts of up to $38,000 per donee.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">¹</a> If a gift is treated as a split gift for gift tax purposes, it will also be treated as a split gift for generation skipping transfer (GST) tax purposes.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">²</a></div><br /> <div class="refs"><br /> <br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">1</a>.  IRC § 2513; Treas. Reg. § 25.2513-1.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">2</a>.  IRC § 2652(a)(2).<br /> <br /> </div>

<div class="Section1">A domestic partnership (also referred to as a civil union in some states) is an option for couples who wish to formalize their relationship, but do not wish to enter into a legal marriage (prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage in <em>Obergefell v. Hodges</em>, many same-sex couples opted for domestic partner status). In order to enter into a domestic partnership, two individuals must visit a courthouse or other government office (depending upon the state of residence), and generally must submit an application and pay a fee similar to the fee that is required when applying for a marriage license.<div class="Section1"><br /> <br /> Individuals who are in registered domestic partnerships or civil unions are not treated as spouses for federal tax purposes, but are often entitled to some of the benefits afforded to legally married couples, including employment-related benefits (<em><em>see</em></em> Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="9103">9103</a>). Further, while domestic partners are not treated as married for federal purposes, they may be entitled to certain state benefits. For example, certain counties in California extend benefits that married spouses are entitled to receive to individuals in domestic partnerships, while in Delaware no specific state provision exists to extend such rights. States generally maintain a domestic partnership registry to keep track of couples who have entered into these arrangements.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">¹</a><br /> <br /> It was expected that the availability of domestic partner benefits would be curtailed after the holding in <em>Obergefell</em>, because now all couples have the right to be legally married and, theoretically, domestic partner status is no longer as necessary as it was prior to that ruling. In 2019, however, the California state domestic partnership statute was changed to eliminate the limitations on who can form a domestic partnership, so that opposite sex couples younger than age 62 are now permitted to form a domestic partnership (under prior law, either (a) both persons had to be members of the same sex or (b) one or both persons must have qualified for Social Security old age benefits (meaning that one person in an opposite sex couple had to be at least 62 years of age to qualify for domestic partnership status)).<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">²</a><br /> <br /> </div><div class="refs"><br /> <br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">1</a>.&nbsp; <em><em>See, e.g.</em></em>, California&rsquo;s domestic partnership registry, available at http://www.sos.ca.gov/registries/domestic-partners-registry/.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">2</a>.&nbsp; Cal. Fam. Code &sect;&nbsp;297(b)(4).<br /> <br /> </div></div><br />

<div class="Section1">Certain spousal survivor benefits (discussed below) apply in the case of retirement benefits that are provided to a married employee. Further, special attention must be paid to the beneficiary designations of certain plans, and it may be more difficult for a married plan participant to take out a plan loan without spousal consent.<div class="Section1"><br /> <br /> Certain types of plans are required to provide automatic survivor benefits in the form of qualified joint and survivor annuities (QJSA) or qualified preretirement survivor annuities (QPSA) as the typical form of retirement benefit for married participants unless both the employee and the spouse consent to waive this requirement. The requirement that a plan provide the QJSA and QPSA forms of benefit generally applies to all defined benefit plans, to all defined contribution plans that are subject to minimum funding standards (e.g., target benefit and money purchase pensions), and to profit sharing plans that include annuity provisions as the normal form of benefit (<em><em>see</em></em> Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="3881">3881</a>, Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="3882">3882</a>).<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">¹</a><br /> <br /> A QJSA is an annuity (1) for the life of the participant, with a survivor annuity for the life of his or her spouse that is not less than one-half (nor greater than 100 percent) of the amount of the annuity payable during the joint lives of the participant and his or her spouse, and (2)&nbsp;that is the actuarial equivalent of a single annuity for the life of the participant.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">²</a> The QJSA must be at least as valuable as any other optional form of benefit payable under the plan at the same time (<em><em>see</em></em> Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="3883">3883</a>).<br /> <br /> A QPSA is a survivor annuity for the life of the surviving spouse of the participant under which payments are to begin no later than the month in which the participant would have reached the earliest retirement age provided under the plan and that also meets the following requirements with respect to the amount of the annuity:<br /> <blockquote>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; In the case of a defined contribution plan, the survivor annuity is the actuarial equivalent of the participant&rsquo;s account and must not be less than one-half of the participant&rsquo;s vested account balance as of the date of his or her death unless waived by the participant and spouse.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">³</a><br /> <br /> (2)&nbsp;&nbsp; In the case of all other plans, (x) if the participant died after the date the participant attained the earliest retirement age provided under the plan, the payments to the surviving spouse must not be less than the amounts that would have been payable under the survivor portion of a qualified joint and survivor annuity had the participant retired with an immediate qualified joint and survivor annuity on the day before he died, or (y) if the participant died on or before the date the participant would have reached the earliest retirement age, the payments to the surviving spouse must not be less than the amounts that would have been paid under the survivor portion of a QJSA had the participant separated from service on the earlier of the actual time of separation or death, survived to the earliest retirement age, retired with an immediate qualified joint and survivor annuity at the earliest retirement age, and died on the day after he or she reached the earliest retirement age.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">⁴</a> In any case, payments to the surviving spouse must not violate the incidental benefit rule ( Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="3830">3830</a>).<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">⁵</a></blockquote><br /> If the retirement plan is covered by ERISA, the participant&rsquo;s spouse may automatically be the beneficiary, which means that if a spouse wishes for the benefits to be transferred to a non-spousal beneficiary (such as a child) upon his or her death, the beneficiary must now affirmatively make the election.<br /> <br /> If a plan participant is married and wishes to take out a loan from a retirement plan, the participant&rsquo;s spouse must generally consent. Further, plans must comply with qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs, <em><em>see</em></em> Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="9097">9097</a>), which are often used to divide retirement plan assets in a divorce proceeding.<br /> <br /> </div><div class="refs"><br /> <br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">1</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect;&nbsp;401(a)(11)(B).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">2</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect;&nbsp;417(b).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">3</a>.&nbsp; Treas. Reg. &sect;&nbsp;1.401(a)-20, A-20.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">4</a>.&nbsp; IRC &sect;&nbsp;417(c); Treas. Reg. &sect;&nbsp;1.401(a)-20, A-18.<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">5</a>.&nbsp; Sen. Fin. Comm. Rep. to P.L. 98-397. <em><em>See</em></em> Rev. Rul. 85-15, 1985-1 CB 132.<br /> <br /> </div></div><br />

<div class="Section1">Federal estate tax rules have evolved in recent years to make it easier for legally married couples to avoid transfer taxes when passing wealth from one spouse to another spouse after death. Both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are now able to take advantage of these special rules.<div class="Section1"><br /> <br /> For example, the $13.99 million (in 2025) exemption is portable between spouses if an election is made on a properly filed estate tax return, meaning that legally married couples can now shield a combined $27.98 million from estate taxes without having to engage in complex and expensive estate planning to determine which spouse should technically own marital assets.<br /> <br /> Because same-sex married couples are now entitled to this federal tax treatment, these couples should be advised to review their estate planning documents to take into account the fact that these taxpayers are now entitled to both the portability election (<em><em>see</em></em> Q <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="accordion-cross-reference" id="9108">9108</a>) and the marital deduction.<br /> <br /> </div><div class="refs"><br /> <br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">1</a>.&nbsp; Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 12, &sect;&nbsp;3570(4).<br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">2</a>.&nbsp; Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 12, &sect;&nbsp;3570(8).<br /> <br /> </div></div><br />

<div class="Section1">A surviving spouse is entitled to roll over IRA funds that are inherited from a deceased spouse into his or her own account, delaying required minimum distributions (and the associated tax liability) until the surviving spouse reaches age 73 (72 in 2020-2022 and 70 ½ prior to 2020).</div><br /> <div class="Section1"><br /> <br /> A non-spousal beneficiary, on the other hand, is not entitled to delay distributions and must typically empty the inherited IRA within a 10-year period under post-SECURE Act law (prior to 2020, a non-spouse beneficiary could typically take distributions over his or her life expectancy (or a five-year period, whichever method was elected)). "Eligible designated beneficiaries" may continue to use the life expectancy or five-year methods post-SECURE Act.<br /> <br /> Any minimum distribution that was required to be made to the deceased owner, but had not been made before the owner's death, must be made to the surviving spouse in the year of death, but in all other respects, required distributions after the owner's death are determined as if the surviving spouse were the owner.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">¹</a><br /> <br /> </div><br /> <div class="refs"><br /> <br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><br /> <br /> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">1</a>.  Treas. Reg. § 1.408-8, A-5(a).<br /> <br /> </div>