Failing To Update A Plan Beneficiary Designation

 

Technically it is not a tax case, but it is so tax-adjacent it might as well be.

Let’s talk about beneficiaries on a retirement account – and, more specifically, an employer-sponsored retirement account.

Carl Kleinfeldt participated in the Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees. In 2006 he designated his (then) wife – Dena Langdon – as his primary beneficiary.

Kleinfeldt and Langdon divorced in 2022. The divorce included a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is a court order authorizing distribution to the nonparticipating (ex) spouse. The PCA Benefits Center distributed to Langdon as directed.

However, even after the QDRO there is one more step: has the ex-spouse been formally removed as beneficiary?

Kleinfeldt faxed a request to the Benefits Center to remove Langdon from both his health and life insurance as well as his retirement plan. The Benefits Center updated her status on the retirement account to “ex-spouse.” Mind you, this was not the same as removing her as a beneficiary altogether.

Why not?

There were written plan procedures to follow. Kleinfeldt’s fax was a good start but was not quite enough.

You can guess that Kleinfeldt died.

You know that Langdon wanted that retirement money.

You also know the matter went to court.

And we are in legal weeds immediately.

We are talking here about an employer-sponsored plan, which (almost always) makes the plan subject to ERISA.

ERISA in turn uses a “substantial compliance” doctrine when reviewing actions required under a plan document. It is what it sounds like: if you miss a minor clerical step, the law presumes that responsible parties know what was meant and are expected to act accordingly.

The Kleinfeldt Estate argued the substantial compliance doctrine with a white-knuckle grip.

The Court observed that substantial compliance has two steps:

1.  Was there intent to make the change?
2.  Was the attempt to make the change similar (in all material aspects) to the proper procedures required by the plan?

There was no argument about the first test: the fax was clear evidence that Kleinfeldt intended to remove Langdon as a beneficiary.

On to the second test.

The plan documents wanted Kleinfeldt to either (1) call the Benefits Center or (2) update his beneficiary designation online.

The plan documents nowhere stated that he could update beneficiaries by fax.

The Court did not consider this a minor clerical step.

Kleinfeldt did not follow the rules.

Meaning that Langdon won.

And fair had nothing to do with it.

Our case this time was Packaging Corporation of America Thrift Plan v Langdon, No 25-1859 (7^th Cir. Feb. 2, 2026)

Trump Savings Accounts

 

I was reading someone somewhere complaining about Michael and Susan Dell’s recent donation of $6.25 billion. 

The bitter are always with us, unfortunately. 

But it gives us a chance to talk about the new Trump savings accounts. I see that we even have a new tax form to (possibly) bulk-up our 2025 Form 1040 return.

What are they?

The Trump accounts are a twist on an IRA.

What is the twist?

One does not need earned income to contribute to a Trump account.

Anything else?

Trump accounts cease to be Trump accounts when the beneficiary turns age 18. These things are intentionally designed for infants, children and young adults who (likely) have not started working.

How are infants and children going to know how to open this account?

They do not need to. Their parent (more precisely, the person who can claim them on a tax return) will do so for them.

How will the parent/person do this?

Two ways:

·      There is a new tax form (Form 4547 - get it?)

·      There will be a new tax portal (trumpaccounts.gov) 

 

Will this account be with the government itself?

The Treasury will create the account with a “designated financial agent.” No, I do not know what that means. I do see where one can thereafter move the account - say to Fidelity, Schwab or Vanguard (as examples) - should one wish.

How do you know one can move the account?

Because I was looking at an ad from one of the investment companies.

What about free money?

Children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028 will be eligible for a $1,000 seed contribution from the Treasury. There are requirements, such as a social security number, of course.

This period (2025 to 2028) BTW is called the “pilot program.”

What if the family makes too much money?

The “too much money” thing does not apply to the $1,000.

What is the July 4, 2026 date I have read about?

None of the government’ $1,000 seeding will occur before July 4, 2026.

What if you were born before 2025?

You still qualify to establish a Trump account, as long as you are under the age of 18 at the end of the year. You won’t get that $1,000, though.

Big deal. Why all this hullabaloo for $1,000?

One can put more than a $1,000 into the account.

The annual limit is $5 grand, and the $1 grand seed money does not count toward the $5 grand.

An employer can also put in $2.5 grand annually, but that $2.5 counts toward the overall $5 grand.

Who can contribute?

Parents of course, but also grandparents, other family members, and friends.

And Michael and Susan Dell.

Who qualifies for the Michael and Susan Dell Donation?

The $250 Dell donation reaches children age 10 and under but not eligible for the $1,000 Treasury seed contribution.

There is also an income test, although the test is by zip code and not household. The test is $150,000 or less of median income. Note that a child may qualify even if living in a wealthy household, if the median (not average) income for the zip code is $150,000 or less. The reverse is also true, of course.

What if I cannot put in $5 grand every year?

Put in what you can. Skip a year. Do not make the perfect the enemy of the possible.

Is there a tax deduction for this?

In general: no. Think of it as a Roth contribution.

I am uncertain about the employer ($2.5 grand) contribution, though. Generally, such expenses are deductible by an employer. I however expect that it will also be taxable to the employee, meaning that someone somewhere is paying tax.

Is there another way to get money into the account?

Yes. There is the usual stuff, such as rolling an account from one investment company to another.

The one that intrigues me is a contribution from a 501(c)(3) tax exempt. There is no explicit limit on these contributions, other than the overall (c)(3) requirement to benefit broad categories of beneficiaries and not just the select fortunates.

This, BTW, was the Dell contribution we referred to above: a $6.25 billion donation to contribute $250 each to 25 million children age 10 and under.

What if my parent/person fails to open an account?

Supposedly, the Treasury will open one if the child otherwise qualifies.

You think so?

Consider me cynical at the moment.

How is this thing taxed?

It is not: think IRA.

When can the child get to the money?

Figure that the child cannot until he/she turns age 18. If he/she can, something terrible has happened.

What about after age 17?

Then the Trump account gets wonky.

Supposedly this thing becomes a “regular” IRA account.

OK, but it would be a “regular” IRA account with nondeductible contributions in it. In tax lingo, we call this a “nondeductible” IRA, which has greatly lost favor since people have had access to Roth IRAs. Distributions from a Roth are (generally) tax-free. Distributions from a nondeductible are partially tax-free. There is even a tax form (Form 8606) for nondeductibles to track the numbers between taxable and nontaxable.

Inside wonk: you would not believe how difficult it can be to get (some) tax preparation software to run an IRA distribution through Form 8606 to calculate the taxable portion. I have seen more than one staff accountant give up in frustration.

I suppose Congress may further clarify/change the rules for this age-18 flip. I would like to see the flip go to full-Roth and not to this nondeductible-IRA yahtzee, but we will see.

A positive, though: since it flips to a “regular” IRA, you can make annual IRA contributions to it, if you wish. You will need earned income, of course.

Are there penalties for distributions?

You are not supposed to access IRA monies before age 59 ½. If you do, the distributions (adjusting for that wonky nondeductible IRA arithmetic) will be taxable.

In addition to income tax and unless for several permitted purposes (first house, higher education, adoption expenses and so on), there will also be a 10% penalty.

What does CTG think?

You can tell Trump accounts took water during passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill. There is stuff to both like and dislike.

Me? In general, I like.

Let’s say that you can put away $1,000 per year for 18 years. Add the government’s $1,000 seed. Assume market rate of returns, low investment fees and the money remaining untouched (remember: it is not taxed while within the IRA) for 40 to 50 years.

What an incredible gift and legacy to a grandchild.

An Estate And An IRA Rollover

 

Retirement accounts can create headaches with the income taxation of an estate.

We know that – if one is wealthy enough – there can be an estate tax upon death. I doubt that is a risk for most of us. The new tax bill (the One Big Beautiful …), for example, increases the lifetime estate tax exclusion to $15 million, with future increases for inflation. Double that $15 million if you are married. Yeah, even with today’s prices $30 million is pretty strong.

What we are talking about is not estate tax, however, but income tax on an estate.

How can an estate have income tax, you wonder? The concept snaps into place if you think of an estate with will-take-a-while-to-dispose assets. Let’s say that someone passes away owning the following:

·       Checking and savings accounts

·       Brokerage accounts

·       IRAs and 401(k)s

·       Real estate

·       Collectibles

The checking and savings accounts are easy to transfer to the estate beneficiaries. The brokerage accounts are a little more work - you would want to obtain date-of-death values, for example – but not much more than the bank accounts. The IRAs and 401(k)s can be easy or hard, depending on whether the decedent left a designated beneficiary. Real estate can also be easy or hard. If we are selling a principal residence, then – barring deferred maintenance or unique circumstances – it should be no more difficult than selling any other house. Change this to commercial property and you may have a different answer. For example, a presently unoccupied but dedicated structure (think a restaurant) in a smaller town might take a while to sell. And who knows about collectibles; it depends on the collectible, I suppose.

Transferring assets to beneficiaries or selling assets and transferring the cash can take time, sometimes years. The estate will have income or loss while this is happening, meaning it will file its own income tax return. In general, you do not want an estate to show taxable income (or much of it). A single individual, for example, hits the maximum tax bracket (37%) at approximately $626,000 of taxable income. An estate hits the 37% bracket at slightly less than $16 grand of taxable income. Much of planning in this area is moving income out of the estate to the beneficiaries, where hopefully it will face a lower tax rate.

IRAs and 401(k)s have a habit of blowing up the planning.

In my opinion, IRAs and 401(k)s should not even go to an estate. You probably remember designating a beneficiary when you enrolled in your 401(k) or opened an IRA. If married, your first (that is, primary) beneficiary was probably your spouse. You likely named your kids as secondary beneficiaries. Upon your death, the IRA or 401(k) will pass to the beneficiary(ies) under contract law. It happens automatically and does not need the approval – or oversight – of a probate judge.

So how does an IRA or 401(k) get into your estate for income taxation?

Easy: you never named a beneficiary.

It still surprises me – after all these years - how often this happens.

So now you have a chunk of money dropping into a taxable entity with sky-high tax rates.

And getting it out of the estate can also present issues.

Let’s look at the Ozimkoski case.

Suzanne and Thomas Ozimkoski were married. He died in 2006, leaving a simple two-page will and testament instructing that all his property (with minimal exceptions) was to go to his wife. Somewhere in there he had an IRA with Wachovia.

During probate, his son (Ozimkoski Junior) filed two petitions with the court. One was for outright revocation of his father’s will.

Upon learning of this, Wachovia immediately froze the IRA account.

Eventually Suzanne and Junior came to an agreement: she would pay him $110 grand (and a 1967 Harley), and he would go away. Junior withdrew both petitions before the probate court.

Wachovia of course needed copies: of the settlement, of probate court approval, and so on). There was one more teeny tiny thing:

… Jr had called and told a different Wachovia representative that he did not want an inherited IRA.”

What does this mean?

Easy. Unless that IRA was a Roth, somebody was going to pay tax when money came out of the account. That is the way regular IRAs work: it is not taxable now but is taxable later when someone withdraws the money.

My first thought would be to split the IRA into two accounts: one remaining with the estate and the second going to Junior.

Junior however understood that he would be taxed when he took out $110 grand. Junior did not want to pay tax: that is what “he did not want an inherited IRA” means.

It appears that Suzanne was not well-advised. She did the following: 

·       Wachovia transferred $235 grand from the estate IRA to her IRA.

·       Her IRA then distributed $141 grand to her.

·       She in turn transferred $110 grand to Junior.

Wachovia issued Form 1099-R to Suzanne for the distribution. There was no 1099-R to Junior, of course. Suzanne did not report the 1099-R because some of it went (albeit indirectly) to Junior. The IRS computers hummed and whirred, she received notices about underreporting income, and we eventually find her in Tax Court.

She argued that the $110 grand was not her money. It was Junior’s, pursuant to the settlement.

The IRS said: show me where Junior is a beneficiary of the IRA.

You don’t understand, Suzanne argued. There is something called a “conduit” IRA. That is what this was. I was the conduit to get the money to Junior.

The IRS responded: a conduit involves a trust, with Junior as the ultimate beneficiary of the trust. Is there a trust or trust agreement we can look at?

There was not, of course.

Junior received $110 grand, and the money came from the IRA, but Junior was no more a beneficiary of that IRA than you or I.

Back to general tax principles: who is taxed on an IRA distribution?

The person who receives the distribution – that is, the IRA beneficiary.

What if that person immediately transfers the distribution monies to someone else?

Barring unique circumstances – like a conduit – the transfer changes nothing. If Suzanne gave the money to her church, she would have a charitable donation. If she gave it to her kids, she might have a reportable gift. If she bought a Mercedes, then she bought an expensive personal asset. None of those scenarios keeps her from being taxed on the distribution.

Here is the Court:

What is clear from the record before the Court is that petitioner’s probate attorney failed to counsel here on the full tax ramifications of paying Mr. Ozimkoski, Jr., $110,000 from her own IRA.”

While the Court is sympathetic to petitioner’s argument, the distributions she received were from her own IRA and therefore are considered taxable income to her …”

She was liable for the taxes and inevitable penalties the IRS piled on.

Was this situation salvageable?

Not if Junior wanted $110,000 grand with no tax.

It was inevitable that someone was going to pay tax.

If Junior did not want tax, the $110 grand should be reduced by taxes that either Suzanne or the estate would pay on his behalf.

If Junior refused, then the settlement was not for $110 grand; it instead was for $110 grand plus taxes. That arrangement might have been acceptable to Suzanne, but – considering that she went to Tax Court – I don’t think it was.

The Court noted that Suzanne was laboring.

… she was overwhelmed by circumstances surrounding the will contest.”

While the Court is sympathetic to petitioner’s situation …”

Let me check on something. Yep, this is a pro se case.

Suzanne was relying on her probate attorney for tax advice. It seems clear that her attorney did not spot the issue. I would say Suzanne’s reliance on her attorney was misplaced.

Our case this time was Suzanne D. Oster Ozimkoski v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2016-228.