You've got Gene Dickison, your host, your personal financial adviser.

Happy to be with you for the next half an hour or so.

We're going to share as many great ideas as we possibly can, answer as many of your questions as we possibly can.

We're going to squeeze as much content into the next half hour as we possibly can, because that's what we're all about on More Than Money, serving you at the highest level that we possibly can.

If you are a loyal viewer, you know that your questions are sent to us by email.

Send them directly to me, Gene@AskMTM.com.

They might be about your retirement.

They might be about your 401K plan.

It might be about estates.

How to set up the trust in your estates.

Who should be on the title to your home?

It could be about businesses starting a business, running a business, liquidating a business.

It could be any of those things.

It could be all of those things.

It might be none of those things.

But if there's a dollar sign connected to it and you're concerned about it, send those questions directly to us.

We're happy to answer every single question, and I've got to tell you, our PHS footprint is coast-to-coast, and from border-to-border, we've answered questions from Southern California into Florida, right on up the East Coast.

It is an absolute pleasure to know that we're seeing so many of you getting benefits from the work that we're doing, and it's an honor.

It's an absolute honor to be with you.

If you're joining us for the very first time, we can't answer every single question on air.

We simply don't have enough time, but we do answer every question directly back to you.

So, whatever your concerns are, we're here to help.

Lots of folks are expressing concerns.

We've come through a time where the stock market is very volatile.

Volatility, very unsettling.

Not always unsettling.

People don't mind the upward, the sharp upward part of the volatility.

It's the dramatic drops that's pretty unsettling.

You may be in exactly that same position.

You may be wondering, "Gosh, has it ever been this crazy?"

It's Ukraine and Russia, it's China and Taiwan.

There's so many things going on internationally to be concerned about.

Is it terrible, is it never-before-seen?

The answer is, "Don't be so naive."

No, this is normal, sadly, to say it's the state of humanity.

Just over the last 100 years, two World Wars Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Great Depression, the Great Recession.

So many volatile issues always arising.

You simply have to have the strength and the good strategy, the good plan in place that will take you through all of that and beyond.

So if you're feeling a little bit anxious, you have that agita going, it's understandable.

We absolutely see it with lots and lots of folks.

And if we can be of assistance, all you have to do is ask.

Let's give you a demonstration of what asking and the answers look like.

Let's go to our financial correspondent.

Megan, what's our first question for the evening?

- Hi, Gene.

Our first question tonight says, "I am a retired 63-year-old man who currently does not "have an estate plan.

"I was formerly married, but divorced in 1999.

"My parents are deceased, and I have two sisters and "one brother who are all older than me, but I do not have any "type of relationship with.

"I have an IRA, both traditional and Roth with "approximately 90% of the value with the Roth.

"I would like to know if it is possible and, if so, how.

"I can name various charities as beneficiary of those IRAs.

I began the IRA in 1996 and, other than re-characterizing "from traditional to Roth in 1998 to take advantage of "the four-year tax opportunity, have treated the IRAs with "a buy-and-hold mentality.

"I have 11 mutual funds within my IRAs.

"Please let me know if I can name charities "as beneficiaries."

- It's an excellent question, one that lots more people than you suspect, or might suspect actually are facing.

The issue of acquiring, accumulating, growing their financial worth inside their IRAs and, in many cases, either they have outgrown their need, or the assets are far more than they expect to use in their lifetime, and they want to make sure that they're put to good use.

And the answer is, absolutely.

You can name charity or charities, multiple, as the beneficiary of either IRA Standard or Roth.

And it's a simple piece of paper, you can identify as many charities as you wish.

I would set it up on a percentage basis, not a dollar basis, so that, as the dollars in the account fluctuate, you don't have to readjust on a frequent basis.

So if you had five different charities and you wanted them treated equally, they would simply be identified as 20% beneficiaries of the estate.

The number of mutual funds, the number of stocks or bonds, the number of assets in the IRA isn't really relevant, doesn't really have an impact, because the IRA at your passing will be liquidated and then the assets will be dispersed as cash to the charities involved.

And because they are nonprofits, as long as they are qualified nonprofits, they will pay no income tax so that money will come out of your estate, there will be no estate tax.

It's a charitable deduction.

There will be no income tax as the charities receive it.

You'll have a tremendously positive impact on the charities that you choose.

Now I want to highlight one item that some of you heard and went, "What is he talking about?"

25 years ago, there was a window of opportunity where you could move your IRA from a standard IRA to a Roth in translation, moving it from a taxed at retirement IRA to a non-taxed at retirement IRA.

And over a four-year period, you could spread out the tax.

It was a tremendous opportunity.

This gentleman took advantage, and now, the vast majority of his money is in a Roth IRA.

And, should he not pass away too early, should he live a long and fruitful life, that money will come to him, are you ready?

Income tax-free.

Is that a powerful net result of a 25-year-old strategy?

It truly is.

Well done, sir.

Well done, indeed.

Megan, question for us?

- Yes.

Our next question says, "My daughter received an IRA "from her deceased husband's estate.

"We believe there is a loophole for a five-year withdrawal "with no fine.

Has this been extended to longer?"

- Megan, inherited IRAs have some interesting rules, and the question is asking about a five-year rule.

That's a rather outdated rule.

The new rule is ten-year rule, but the reality is that this IRA is coming from a spouse to a spouse, and that is a different set of rules.

So let's see if we can kind of cover all the bases for everyone listening.

Inherited IRAs must be handled very, very carefully.

They are not treated by the IRS or the courts as your own IRA, unless you are a spouse.

So as an inherited IRA comes to anyone out of an estate, the titling on the IRA has to be very carefully done as an inherited IRA from the estate of the deceased for the benefit of the beneficiary.

That's got to be very carefully done to avoid what the IRS would consider a complete withdrawal of all the funds, and everything becomes taxable immediately.

Assuming that that's been done correctly and assuming a non-spouse inheritance, it could be a child, a grandchild, a friend, it doesn't really matter.

The IRS is agnostic on whom receives the IRA, inherited IRA assets.

The rule currently is that you have ten years in which to withdraw all of that money, but you can decide for your purposes and what's best for you how those funds come out during that ten years.

They could all come out on day one and become instantly taxable.

You say, "Why would I want to do that?"

Perhaps you're in a low tax bracket and, if you take it all out now, you're only going to pay 5-15% and you're happy with that.

You can wait the entire ten years, the last day of the ten years and take them all out then, why might you do that?

Well, you give that ten years of tax deferred compounding.

That might give you the opportunity to have the largest account balance over the longest period of time.

And, of course, you can do it at any mix in between.

So for some folks, they take it out monthly over a ten-year period with the intent of making sure that at the end of ten years, the account balance is zero, and it ends up being a supplemental paycheck.

And then the tax is also spread out over those ten years.

Lots of different variations on the theme of "it has to be out "by the end of ten years."

Sit with a trusted financial advisor.

Make sure that you're looking very, very carefully at your individual circumstance to decide how that best benefits you.

Now a spouse has totally fresh and much more advantageous options.

They can do all of the things we just discussed, of course, but they also have the ability to say, "I'm going to inherit "the IRA and make it my very own."

In other words, they can co-mingle their own IRA with the one that they inherited from their spouse, and it's as if it's been their very own since day one.

So there are some significant advantages, obviously, on the spousal side of life, and we've recently run into a circumstance that affects a fair number of folks where the spouse that's inheriting the IRA is younger than typical retirement age, 59-and-a-half.

Interesting because if they inherit, say, they're 55, their spouse passes away was 65, they now receive that IRA.

If they make it their very own, they've got to wait five years to take money out.

But if they keep it as an inherited IRA, they can begin taking distributions immediately.

They will be income-taxable, but there's no penalty.

So that 10% penalty that affects early withdrawals from IRAs prior to age 59-and-a-half would disappear, and it would give them the opportunity to maybe manage their cash flow a little bit better.

Maybe get some supplemental income at a point where they really need it in their life without paying any substantial penalties.

And then, of course, shifting gears once they get into their own retirement.

So simple question, short question, brief question, but lots of layers to it.

I hope we help everybody out there get a better understanding of inherited IRAs.

And caution, if you are the recipient of an inherited IRA, make sure you get good counsel.

Handling it correctly is absolutely imperative, or it could be really painful the next time you file your income tax return.

Megan, that was a long-winded answer.

Wow, I hope the next one, I can be a little briefer.

- Well, the next question is definitely not brief and simple, but we'll see what your answer is.

I think it'll be very helpful for the audience, no matter what.

This question says, "How do I reregister the existing deed of "our primary home to best take advantage of any step up "in basis and/or federal exemption allowance upon "my husband's passing and me selling the property "within two years?

"Should the deed be titled in both our names and then "be transferred to our revocable living trust?

"My husband will be 100 years old this year, and I'll be 80.

"We want to fix the deed and possibly add it into our trust.

"It may need a fix because, our entire 53-year marriage, "the deed has never been changed to show my name.

"My husband bought his house for $26,500 in 1958 "with his first wife, who then died only six years later.

"The property's market value is now about $700,000.

"As the deed reads now, my husband is the sole owner "due to her death as he never initiated "a change to this deed.

"Are we better able to capture the step up basis by, one, "leaving the deed as is, "then place or not place it into a trust?

"Two, change his name only then add or do not add to a trust?

"Or three, put into both our names, then into the trust?

"Or other.

"Perhaps the federal exemption makes this a moot point, "but we are thoroughly confused by the math.

"Please help us decide how to title this property.

"Thank you."

- You are so very welcome, what a fascinating story, what a fascinating question.

I think the answer is going to be far more beneficial than you might suspect, but goodness gracious.

First of all, congratulations on a tremendously long marriage.

Congratulations to your husband!

Goodness.

After losing his first wife in such a brief period of time, a lot of individuals would have maybe stepped back and maybe changed their minds about the idea of marriage.

He did not.

And, what, 53 years later, the two of you are celebrating?

Congratulations to your husband.

That's fantastic.

100 years old.

I fully plan on reaching at least that age so that I can spend the maximum time annoying my wife.

It's just one of my goals.

So bottom line is, it's a very interesting question.

Let's put one piece of information out there for everyone to hear.

$500,000 is a critical number.

The current IRS code says that a married couple can sell their personal residence.

Personal residence is where they've lived for at least two of the last five years, and they can see a profit of up to $500,000 and no one pays income tax.

That's really good.

Mm.

In this case, the current potential profit would be the difference between the current market value of 700,000 and the original purchase price of 26,500.

So the difference is far larger than 500,000.

If they were to sell it today, as is, they would have some serious issues.

She would have some serious issues, in terms of taxation.

Rather easily fixed, to be fair.

What they should do first is clean up the current deed.

If this gentleman's first wife is currently still on the deed, that will need to be fixed.

It should go from her and him, to him alone.

Now you notice I said to him alone, not to him and his current wife of 53 years.

The reason I don't want it to go into both names is that she can receive a stepped up basis at his passing to the full market value, currently $700,000.

So if heaven forbid, we should lose this gentleman after this deed has been put into his name alone, his wife will inherit that property as if she paid $700,000, and then she plans on selling it within two years if it goes up in value.

She will only, well, I need to correct myself, I was going to say she'll only pay tax on the gain.

She won't pay tax on the gain either, because as long as it doesn't go up more than $250,000, which is the amount a single person is allowed to profit on the sale of their residence, as long as the value over those two years doesn't go above 950,000, she'll pay no income tax whatsoever on the sale of a nearly $1 million property.

That's the very best result that you can have, of course.

Now you're going to need a couple pieces of assistance, you're going to need a team issue here.

Certainly a trusted estate planning attorney, someone that understands how to craft the deeds, understands the strategy behind it, and has the appreciation for the tax impacts of selling private residences.

Some do, some don't, make sure you pick a good one.

Perhaps a financial advisor would be wise as well to make sure that the sale of the property is in your best interest and see how that impacts you long term, because the probabilities are indeed that you will outlive your husband, and we've got to make sure that you are well-protected.

You're assuming you're going to sell within two years, that may or may not be in your best interest.

And finally, you may very well need the assistance of a professional tax preparer.

Understanding how that cost basis is constructed and what documents you need in order for the IRS to be satisfied that you have followed the rules is a very important piece of the puzzle, as well.

So a financial advisory team, an attorney, a tax professional, financial adviser, likely in your best interest.

And if you follow the steps, you're going to end up getting exactly where you need to be, and Uncle Sam is going to end up with likely nothing.

And, considering how the federal government tends to throw our money around, maybe that's a good thing.

Maybe that's a good thing.

Megan, that was a fascinating question.

Very, very interesting.

I would love to meet those folks.

That would be fantastic.

That could happen someday.

But in the meantime, let's answer another viewer question.

- Yes, this one is a little bit shorter, so I'll give you a break here, Gene.

This one says, "On contribution of appreciated stock "to a 529 plan, does the 529 recipient own any capital gains "tax when funds are used for college expenses?"

- Interesting, interesting.

Now for the context, for everybody watching, 529 plans are designed to allow individuals to accumulate funds, save, invest and hopefully profit on funds that are tax-deferred until they are spent on qualified educational expenses.

If they are spent on qualified educational expenses, there's no income tax.

This is a very, very powerful educational savings plan, used to be called a college savings plan.

But now the rules have changed, and it can be used for any education experience, literally from preschool right on through continuing and professional development through the whole of your life.

So 529 plans are beneficial to many more people than just those who have young children or young grandchildren.

Now the issue of appreciated stock is an interesting one.

This gentleman is suggesting, this caller is suggesting, that if he or she had stock, he paid $10 a share.

It's worth $190 of profit he really doesn't want to pay capital gains on, should that be contributed to a 529?

Is there going to be a point down the road where that will be taxed?

And the answer is no, but not for the reason that you were hoping.

The reason it's not going to be taxed is it's not going into the 529 plan at all.

The 529 plan is designed to accept cash contributions, cash investments.

It is not designed to accept depreciated stock.

So while gifting appreciated stock, perhaps to a charity where, hey, I didn't pay the tax on it, they're not going to pay the tax on it, that could be a very good idea.

Gifting appreciated stock, maybe to a family member who's in a very low tax bracket, maybe mom or dad during their senior years.

And with energy prices through the roof, heating oil expensive, gas expensive, they need a little help.

If you gifted them appreciated stock, they could sell it and likely pay no income tax.

Perhaps a child that's in college working very, very hard needs a little support.

You could give some appreciated stock.

They would sell it and pay little or no tax.

But in this particular case, gifting it into a 529 or investing it into 529 plan sadly is not permitted.

Sorry.

Megan, can I give a better answer, or a more hopeful answer to our next emailer?

- I hope so.

This next question has a couple steps and characters in it, so I'll try to explain it, as I say again.

This person says, "My partner has been self-employed for "his whole working life.

He is 78 years old.

"He has been divorced for about 35 years and never remarried.

"He's collecting Social Security.

"He would like to see if he can collect on his "ex-wife's Social Security.

"She did remarry and her husband had an office job "and collected a good Social Security benefit.

"He recently passed away.

"She is now collecting her late husband's Social Security.

"Can her ex-husband claim on her new Social Security "benefit which is more than he is collecting on his own?

"I understand he would be eligible for half "of her benefit.

"Her individual Social Security benefit was very much when "her late husband was alive.

Thank you for your help."

- Social Security questions.

You want to talk about head-crunchers?

There are so many moving parts with every Social Security question.

We are very fortunate that we have assembled a team that includes Mark Becak.

Mark is our Social Security expert.

And of course, we got some good counsel when we took a peek at this email, because goodness gracious.

What it appears this young lady is asking is can her partner of many, many years, but they are not married, so he does, by the way, qualify to make a Social Security claim against his divorced spouse's record.

So if we were simply asking the question, he has his Social Security, his now 35-year-divorced spouse has her Social Security.

If half of hers is larger than his, he can absolutely claim a spousal benefit and would receive that increase.

But that's not what this question is asking.

This question is asking if we're looking at the ex-wife, she remarried, her then- husband had a much higher Social Security benefit, so she, at his passing, has stepped up to his benefit.

So the real question is, does this young lady's significant other have the opportunity to claim half of another man's Social Security benefit who happened to marry his ex-wife?

And the answer is no.

That's not how it works.

On her benefit, yes, on the benefit she's currently receiving as a widow, the answer is unfortunately, no.

Megan, that wasn't very positive.

Let's get something that'll be positive before the end of the show.

What do you have?

- OK, this next question says, "My father established an "irrevocable trust in 1980 in New Jersey, naming myself "and my stepmother as co-trustees.

"He died in 1985 and his wishes were for his wife to be paid "dividends up until her death, at which time the trust should "be divided equally among his three children.

"I now am the sole trustee and want to liquidate the account.

"Morgan Stanley will send the assets to me, approximately "60,000, which I will divide equally with all my siblings.

"My question is, do I pay Pennsylvania inheritance tax on "the full amount since it will come to me for distribution, "or on my third share?"

Sorry, I stumbled through that one.

- It's an interesting question.

Megan, did I understand correctly, this gentleman was in New Jersey?

- Yes.

- Very good.

OK, so the executrix, in this case, this young lady, she was the trustee.

Now she is the executor of the estate.

The residence of the executrix, or executor does not determine the inheritance tax status.

It's the residence of the decedent.

In this case, going through the trust back to her father's original passing.

1985 in New Jersey.

New Jersey laws, from an inheritance standpoint, very much follow the federal laws, which leads me to believe that this 60,000 will be largely or completely inheritance tax-free.

So her concern about, does she pay inheritance tax on the full 60, or does she pay it only on her portion, I think is going to end up being, I used to tease that it's a "moo" point because I grew up with cows.

No, I think it's going to end up being a moot point.

I don't think it's going to apply.

I don't think there's going to be that inheritance tax.

This is the dissolution of the trust.

This is the final, what, dispensation of the assets to the ultimate, the remainder people, the remainder men is the technical term of the trust.

And as a result, I think each of them is going to get their share tax-free.

By the way, if there is a small tax, that's easily handled, it's taken out from the 60,000 first, sent off, and then, the splits are made.

But again, I think you're going to find out Pennsylvania does not have any claim on any of this.

I think New Jersey will be a much more accommodating tax scenario, and you're going to be just fine.

Megan, thank you so much for all the questions.

Thank you for sending us all your questions.

If you would like to see your question answered on a future show, send those to me, Gene@AskMTM.com.

They can be on any topic that you find interesting and important to you.

That's the most important.

Again, Gene @AskMTM.com.

Folks, it's a crazy world out there, but there are strategies that can help you get from Point A to point B.

That's why we have More Than Money.

Thanks for being part of our show tonight.

Hopefully, you'll be part of next week's show right here on More Than Money