jay1000 <jfschonREMoVE[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

It could probably be done either way. However, if you plan to NOT
leave the entire amount to your spouse (if she survives), then I
would favor the second approach as it is less likely to create
confusion (in my opinion).

MTW

Thanks for the clarification...yes, I was using "spousal" solely in
reference to the beneficiary designation and not to indicate an IRA owned by
my spouse.

As you suggested, I do intend to employ a qualified estate planner.

One reason for the question is that I have found that getting a prior
understanding of the subject helps avoid problems when consulting with any
professional.

The second reason for the question is I have had conflicting preliminary
recommendations with one advisor recommending a single IRA with both spousal
and non-spousal beneficiaries and the other recommending two separate IRA's;
one with only my spouse as beneficiary and the other with all of the
non-spousal beneficiaries.



"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6oi5k$e8ndt$1[at]ID-42614.news.uni-berlin.de...
- quote -

jay1000 <jfschonREMoVE[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

A spousal beneficiary for an IRA has more flexibility than the other
beneficiaries, so it would probably best to use other funds for the
non-spousal beneficiaries. You should be able to name multiple
beneficiaries for a single IRA account, so I don't see any reason not
to consolidate.

Consolidation would simplify your management of your IRA funds and make
investment decisions easier (such as buying stock). You may save on
management fees.

--
Ron

jay1000 <jfschonREMoVE[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

The term "spousal IRA" most typically refers to an account that
was established for a non-working spouse. Note that IRAs
belonging to you and to your spouse respectively can NEVER be
combined unless or until one of you dies.

But, I gather you are using the term "spousal" solely in
reference to the beneficiary designation, ie: a "spousal" IRA is
one for whom you have named your spouse as the primary
beneficiary. I think I understand what you are talking about, but
note that many people will likely find your use of "spousal" in
this context to be confusing.

If your plan is to leave ALL of your IRA accounts to your spouse
(as primary beneficiary) if she survives you, or to your children
in some ratio (as secondary beneficiaries) if your spouse does
not survive, then I see no problem with combining/consolidating
all of YOUR accounts. (Any accounts the were originally setup in
the name of your spouse would NOT be included as per my first
paragraph above.)

However, if you have some other distribution scheme in mind, such
leaving part of the IRAs directly to your kids even if your
spouse survives, then I would strongly suggest that you retain a
qualified estate planner to help assure that your beneficiary
designations are properly constructed. In any event, I would try
to avoid ~complicated~ beneficiary designations as such might
cause unintended problems that won't be discovered until you are
"gone."

MTW

John,

Not sure what you are driving at. They are all my IRA's but they have
different beneficiaries so even a consolidated account would be my
INDIVIDUAL retirement account. Just wanted to know if there were any cons
to having a single IRA with both spousal and non-spousal beneficiaries.

Jay


"John H. Fisher" <taxservice[at]aol.compliance> wrote in message
news:20040427183056.21319.00000364[at]mb-m04.aol.com...
- quote -

"John H. Fisher" <taxservice[at]aol.compliance> wrote in message
news:20040427183056.21319.00000364[at]mb-m04.aol.com...
- quote -

Sorry for quoting the entire message, but felt it necessary. This answer
does not address the original posters question. He wants to know if his IRA
on which his spouse is beneficiary can be combined with the IRA which has
someone not his spouse as beneficiary and still have those different
beneficiaries inherit the correct amount from a new single IRA.

Elizabeth Richardson

- quote -

They are called "INDIVIDUAL" retirement accounts. There can be no variation of
that designation.


"Jack" - John H. Fisher - TaxService[at]aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
My Newsgroups & Boards at: http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html

Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=

Under the old IRA regulations I had a separate IRA account for my spouse and
each non-spousal beneficiary.

Under the new regs it is clear that I can consolidate the non-spousal
beneficiary accounts into a single account with multiple beneficiaries.
Each beneficiary can elect the distribution option of his/her choice without
effecting the other beneficiaries.

It appears that I can also consolidate the spousal account with the
non-spousal accounts:

"After an IRA owner's death, a spouse beneficiary can treat an IRA as
his/her own if he/she is the only beneficiary. If there are multiple
beneficiaries, a spouse beneficiary can always take a distribution of
his/her share in an IRA and roll it over to a personal IRA. Once the assets
are in his/her own IRA, he/she can name his/her own death beneficiaries."

Is there any disadvantage to a "total" consolidation of spousal and
non-spousal accounts. It is a little simpler to manage a single IRA than
two IRA's but if there are any disadvantages I can use two accounts.