"Dave Dodson" <dave_and_darla[at]Juno.com> wrote in message
news:4a970629-4e41-46c2-bc07-57e24e99a99c[at]d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

My reading of the specified primary beneficiary as stated is that it
presumes a living spouse and hence no contingent beneficiary has been named.
If a contingent beneficiary has also been named then that matter is taken
care of.

I don't agree with your conclusion in the case that the spouse dies shortly
after the owner. If the spouse dies shortly after the owner the spouse more
than likely has no chance to change the beneficiary designations on the IRA
and thus the owner's IRA will become part of the spouse's estate.

Andrew Koenig wrote:

- quote -

Understood. I've gotten used to formulating responses that are
applicable to as great a population as possible. Your solution may be
fine for you. But of 1000 people that do this, half will get divorced
and some portion of those will forget to update the beneficiary, without
remarrying, there would be none, and a child would out on properly
inheriting the IRA. Of the half that stay married, some will move and
lose track of the IRA, the custodian will have a heck of a time finding
the deceased's wife with no SS#.

OTOH, your point is well taken, the IRS may not require it, and
therefore, not all brokers do.
Joe

"JoeTaxpayer" <JoeTaxpayer[at]comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gi4efj$ikj$1[at]news.motzarella.org...

- quote -

Yeah, but if that happens, I'll be dead and won't care. Anyway, I'm not
planning on getting divorced.

- quote -

No, if I cared about the distinction. The point of this note was to help
answer the question about whether it is always necessary to provide a
beneficiary's social security number, not to invite speculation about the
future of my marriage.

"JoeTaxpayer" <JoeTaxpayer[at]comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gi4efj$ikj$1[at]news.motzarella.org...
- quote -

or, use Andrew's approach, and change the form in the circumstance you
describe.

Andrew Koenig wrote:
- quote -

So you could be well into divorce proceedings, but if you die before
it's final, your intended ex still gets the money.
Is it such a burden to actually list your current wife with her SS#, and
if you change your mind, submit a new form?

On Dec 13, 6:01*pm, "catalpa" <cata...[at]entertab.org> wrote:
- quote -

Obviously, if the spouse dies first, the contingent beneficiary
replaces the primary. Otherwise, the IRA passes to the spouse. If the
spouse dies shortly after the owner, then the IRA passes to the
spouse's primary or contingent beneficiary. So it could work just
fine. What do you see as a problem?

Dave

"Andrew Koenig" <ark[at]acm.org> wrote in message
news:ttW0l.200694$Mh5.27291[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

How well will that work if your spouse dies first or you both die within
days of one another?

My IRAs list as primary beneficiary "the person to whom I am married at the
time of my death" without specifying a name or any other information.