Any good tax lawyers/financial planners here?

I can think of two proposals and one I mentioned in the OP...that he just open a separate tax deferred account at the same financial institution and designate the other family members as equal beneficiaries. They would be the ones to pay any taxes. His current plan puts that tax onus on himself but he either doesn't seem to care or disagrees that this will be the case. The other thought, if he insists on withdrawing the money soon, is just give it to them directly now. He'd need to pay any gift tax if that was also due. I have nothing personally to gain or lose here and I'm sure his plan would be welcomed by the IRS. I don't feel a need to welcome them.

If they don't then why would they take advice from the crowd?

At one point in this journey I was about ready to chuck the whole thing to the lawyer and let them whine to the lawyer. That would have shot the money down to near zero as lawyer's fees would be about what the inheritance was worth.

What do they say to folk that self represent?

making their final plans. If a mistake in judgement was made, they won't be around to say "Oops!...shouldn't a' done that."

Which I did to the letter but still had to ask a lawyer how to avoid troubles down the road.

The lawyer gave some boiler plate paper for heirs to sign before they got their payment. And all had to sign before a dime went out. That way any holdout would feel the fire.

The lawyer's boilerplate went something like "this is the final dispensation from the estate of ____ ___ _____." which meant there was no going back to the well. It's the last and some passage about payout begins when all heirs had signed, notarized and returned the forms. The lawyer boilerplate gave a time period of 6 months to dispense after the last agreement was returned so the lawyer could check the papers.

There was a lot of whining but as one signed, notarized the rest caved and that was the end.

The original will was done by one lawyer and emended by another when the first retired. The entire intent was to avoid the probate process. For titled property such as automobiles and home homes, and personal bank accounts, it's done here by doing a "TOD" or "Transfer on Death" process. This differs from the "Durable Power of Attorney" process in that authority to act on behalf of a person doesn't end with their death. A TOD of a bank account allows for payment of bills and other expenses right away rather than waiting for the probate process to complete and all claimants to come forth before some deadline.

As for the family involved in this case, those of the man still alive will not be a problem. None seem to have no interest in maximizing their inheritance but would just as soon keep everything simple. As for the other family, it's an unknown as to what they might do. Because their family member died first, they could have been shut out entirely if it hadn't been for the good will gesture of her husband wanting to give her IRA to her own family. Avoiding probate and a possible family feud is the objective but I see no reason to cut the IRS or additional lawyers larger checks than necessary.

The lawyer part was done and when it came to the execution the questions had changed so back to the lawyer to clear it up. I understand that folk hate to use them but for me the advice was sound. Let me share the 2 items that I felt really were worth it.

1. Never commingle funds.
2. That letter the heirs had to sign+notarize with the words so carefully chosen. "This is the final dispensation..." made it clear there was no going back to the well.

As to TOD, while interesting, if that was all set up, then the executor would not have a thing to do with that.

Power of Attorney in Financial Matters and a Joint Account with her. For real property it's transfer ownership but retain non revocable life estate. For other stuff like her vehicle it was TOD as you mentioned.

For each one he could open a separate stock account with something like ETrade or Ameritrade with the amounts for each person and be sure to file a beneficiary statement for each person on each account. Doesn't even have to buy a single stock.

with the same institution that would qualify as a traditional IRA just as is the original. He could name the other family members as beneficiaries. They are not officially kinfolk so I don't think they could "inherit" the IRA in the same way family members could. Inherited IRAs have their own set of rules which allow phased withdrawal but I suspect this may not be the case for non-family beneficiaries.

Apparently, there is little distinction between someone who inherits and someone who is a beneficiary as far as the government is concerned. I've been under the impression that one who can inherit must be a spouse, of natural lineage or through adoption.

Further checking finds that creating a separate account will also have its complications in that the minimum withdrawal requirements apply to each individual account rather than the sum of their value. As was suggested in another post, co-mingling of IRAs is mine field. Not only is it a mine field, no one gets out without stepping on at least one.

It's no wonder the government created and passed IRA legislation. It does so many wonderful things for THEM.

For the most part, the maximum amount allowed was a counter offensive by the IRS to wealthy parents who wanted to give their kids an "advance" on their inheritance in order to avoid taxes later. In the case I've mentioned here, the potential recipients cannot inherit because there is no family lineage between the two. They can be beneficiaries of polices, accounts, etc. I really don't know about deferred tax accounts. One can inherit an IRA or be a beneficiary but I don't know if the two instances are treated equally. My thought, however, was that a deceased person probably cannot gift anyone by living proxy. Fulfilling the gift that was specified in the will would be done by someone who inherited the money and that person could be liable for gift taxes.

So if it would save them taxes on the money, better to be in the will or have a codicile supplied to them they can exercise at the time a will is in effect.

in this case, it's not the executor that is doing anything with any account. It's the will maker who is doing this in an effort to be more fair with his deceased spouse's IRA. This women had no children of her own so no descendants can make a claim should this go to probate. The objective is to avoid probate and the additional involvement of lawyers. The IRA money is to go to the women's closest kin...brother, sisters, etc. An executor has no power by him or herself to do anything prior to the death of the will maker who elects him/her. In fact, the executor may have no claim himself unless he/she is a potential heir. In this case, the man's personal checking account will become the property of two heirs who are also co-executors. Their job will be to use the account for all expenses and any collected debts or the sale of any property or other assets. Once all is settled, any remaining funds will be distributed according to the will. No muss, no fuss, no waiting around for a probate process. The problem being seen is that the account would also be used gift the family of the deceased spouse with a portion of what was her IRA. That would mean withdrawing it as a distribution and paying a much higher rate of tax than would any beneficiaries of an inherited IRA. Since the account would become the property of two of the heirs, the gift money might be subject to a tax as well. Who'd want to execute a plan like that?