Got a big inheritance coming your way? You may want to just say no. Here's why.
An inheritance often is seen as a financial windfall, but there are times when people may want to consider saying thanks, but no thanks.
Receiving a sizable gift, if not structured properly, can have unintended consequences that may upend your financial situation or cause friction between family members. If either of those is the case, consider refusing it, experts said. It may not be worth your time, money or emotions.
'It's very important what type of asset you're inheriting -- what it can do for you and if it fits into your universe, and are you the best custodial of those assets,' said Miklos Ringbauer, certified public accountant in Southern California.
Why should people think about inheritance now?
The so-called great wealth transfer has begun. Nearly $124 trillion in assets will change hands through 2048, according to estimates by the consulting firm Cerulli Associates. Recipients are expected to inherit some $106 trillion of that amount, mainly from baby boomers, with the rest going to charity.
Assets passed down will include cash and other liquid assets, stocks and bonds, real estate, business interests, retirement accounts, other investments, and personal property.
When might you want to say no?
Saying no to an inheritance isn't typical, and experts suggest you consult with a financial planner and an accountant to help you determine if it's right for you.
However, some instances in which you might want to consider refusing an inheritance include if:
Beware, tricky government benefits
Claiming an inheritance can push you above income and asset limits to qualify for government programs like Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income (SSI). However, it isn't as simple as disclaiming an inheritance to stay within the limits because refusing an inheritance is seen as gifting, which also isn't allowed.
Because disclaiming an inheritance can still hurt you, some experts suggest you take the inheritance and spend it down immediately to requalify for benefits.
Medicaid recipients can use their inheritance to pay off debt, pay for long-term care, make home modifications for safety and accessibility, prepay funeral and burial expenses via an Irrevocable Funeral Trust, or buy assets that are exempt from Medicaid's asset limit such as furniture and appliances for one's home, clothing, or upgrading a vehicle, according to the American Council on Aging.
The best way to avoid this is to ensure the 'parent doesn't leave the person money,' Simasko said. 'Use a special trust instead and the person can draw from it.'
For example, assets to a beneficiary of an irrevocable trust don't affect the beneficiary's assets and wouldn't count against their qualification for government benefits, Ringbauer said. Yet, the beneficiary would be able to tap those assets.
How to decline an inheritance
The legal process is 'disclaiming' an inheritance, which means you're refusing to accept the rights to the assets you were supposed to inherit. Here's generally how it would work:
What happens to the disclaimed inheritance?
Disclaimed inheritances will go to the next person, or beneficiary, in line. You can't choose the person to receive the asset.
If there isn't another person named as a next beneficiary, the asset would go through the probate process to be left to someone related to the deceased.
Medora Lee is a money, markets, and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@usatoday.com and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans scramble to save Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Senate Republicans are scrambling to resurrect President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which stalled Thursday after Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected one of its biggest cost-cutting provisions. The chamber's referee ruled the Senate's proposed cap on health care provider taxes violated the Byrd Rule, which governs what legislation can pass with a simple-majority and avoid a filibuster under budget reconciliation rules. The provision would cut hundreds of billions of dollars in federal Medicaid spending. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters his leadership team has 'contingency plans' to keep the bill moving forward, even though the key piece may now fall out of the bill. 'We have contingency plans, plan B, plan C,' he said as he walked into a Republican lunch meeting. Losing the Senate's proposal to deeply cut on federal Medicaid payments means Republican leaders will need to come up with hundreds of billions in new savings to pay for the cost of making several corporate tax cuts permanent. The surprise decision, which was announced Thursday, has Republican senators scrambling for a way to pass the legislation by the July 4 deadline set by Trump. 'We have no idea what's going to happen here, we got to work on some kind of a fix,' said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). 'Hopefully their fix will involve protecting rural hospitals.' Hawley was one of several GOP senators, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who expressed strong concerns that capping health care provider taxes could push scores of rural hospitals across the country into bankruptcy. Senate Democrats estimate that the parliamentarian had rejected approximately $250 billion spending cuts from the Republican bill, giving GOP leaders a huge task in finding new ways to offset the cost of corporate tax cuts. Offsetting the cost of corporate tax breaks beyond the 10-year budget window is a critical element of Thune's and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo's (R-Idaho) strategy because they want to make them permanent. 'I think the monetary implications are fairly significant,' said a Senate Republican who requested anonymity to discuss the parliamentarian's impact on the reconciliation package. Asked how long the bombshell ruling would delay the centerpiece of Trump's legislative agenda, Crapo quipped: 'Sometime between now and next March — I'm just joking.' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said the parliamentarian's ruling against a key spending cut in the bill is going to be a major problem for Senate conservatives unless GOP leaders can find another way to fit additional deficit-reduction measures into the bill. 'I don't anticipate now us voting on the motion to proceed tomorrow. I think my colleagues who view the bill more as a spending reduction bill than an extend-the-tax-cuts bill are probably going to be screaming like they're part of a prison riot because this substantially reduces savings,' he said. 'We don't know if we can save the Medicaid portion,' he said. He questioned whether Republican lawmakers would stay in town over the July 4 recess if there's no certain timeline for voting on the legislation. 'I'm prepared to stay the whole week but as a practical matter a lot of people are running for an election, a lot of people have plans. One of John's challenges is going to be … keeping people here,' he said of Thune. 'People say, 'Well, when you're ready, call me. I'm going home.'' Trump on Tuesday urged lawmakers to stay in Washington and skip the upcoming July 4 recess to finish the bill. 'To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don't go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK,' he posted on social media. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a member of the Finance Committee, called the parliamentarian's ruling 'a big ol' grenade' that could blow up the bill. Johnson wants GOP leaders to go back to the drawing board and come up with alternative spending cuts. He is proposing leaving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone and focusing instead on other mandatory spending that he says has swelled the annual federal budget by more than $400 billion a year. Crapo said his staff would try to 'work it out' to keep the bill on track 'This is regular process. Now we know what the guidance was, we will react to it,' he said. Some Republicans say the language in the provision to cap health care provider taxes, which states use to increase their shares of federal Medicaid funding, can be reworked to pass the parliamentarian's review. 'We're going to have to keep working on it. It's a scam, it's a scam the states are using to not have to put up their money for Medicaid,' Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said. 'I'm focused on getting a deal done.' Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Thursday that he's working with Thune and Crapo'to find a pathway forward regarding the provider tax ruling from the parliamentarian. 'The provider tax is one of the biggest scams I've ever seen in Washington and I'm hopeful we can find a way forward that is Byrd compliant,' he said. Hawley, who has criticized the Senate GOP plan to drastically restrict states use of health care provider taxes, said his colleagues should look at the less stringent Medicaid reforms passed last month by the House last month. He called the House language 'better.' 'The rural hospitals would like a few small tweaks to that,' he said. He said Trump suggested in a recent conversation that Senate negotiators return to the House-passed Medicaid language. Hawley said Trump told him Wednesday that he doesn't want the bill to become too focused on cutting Medicaid. 'I think he wants it done but he wants it done well. He does not want this to be a Medicaid cuts bill. He made that very clear to me: this is a tax-cut bill, it's not a Medicaid-cut bill. I think he's tired of hearing about all of these Medicaid cuts, as am I,' Hawley. 'That's because there are too many Medicaid cuts in this bill.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Missing in the Republican tax bill: A real answer to the US medical debt crisis
America is drowning in medical debt. It is a reality for nearly one in 12 adults, with at least $220 billion owed nationwide. This burden cuts across income, gender, geography and profession. Medical debt doesn't care about your politics; it quietly undermines families and the broader economy. Creating targeted tax incentives — both credits and deductions — for consumers should be on the table. Whether you cheer or groan, a Republican tax bill, approved by Congress, and signed by President Trump is likely to happen. Whatever emerges from the legislative sausage-making, the status quo is about to shift. And beauty to some is ugliness to others. The Republicans tout market-friendly reforms, such as expanding Health Savings Accounts and updating Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Accounts. These tools use tax incentives to nudge Americans toward smarter health care spending. These are good for middle class, mostly healthy consumers, but not for low-income Americans. There will likely be steep Medicaid cuts and trims to Affordable Care Act subsidies. That means millions at or near the poverty line could lose coverage, driving up medical debt and forcing many into bare bones plans with high out-of-pocket costs and limited provider networks. The think tank Third Way estimates that proposed Medicaid cuts alone could push 2.8 million more Americans into medical debt, adding $26 billion to the nation's tab — a 10 percent jump. Is there a way to bridge this divide? Yes — if Congress is willing to think creatively. Supplemental 'gap' insurance plans, like those from Aflac, FlexBenefits or Colonial Penn, are designed to cover what primary insurance doesn't. Yet these plans are almost always paid for with after-tax dollars, and individuals receive no tax credits for buying. Why not change that? Let's make these plans tax-deductible for those who pay for their own health insurance. This isn't a radical idea — it's how health insurance deductions evolved for the self-employed over decades, growing from a 25 percent deduction in the 1980s to 100 percent by 2003. Back then, a typical plan cost $150–$300 a month with a $1,000 deductible. Today, premiums can run $500–$1,500 a month, with deductibles of $5,000 or more, plus co-pays and out-of-network charges. For $50–$100 a month, consumers can buy a comprehensive gap plan that covers up to $5,000 for accidents or illness, and even more for serious conditions like cancer or heart attack. If these plans were tax-deductible or — for lower-income Americans — came with a refundable tax credit enrollment would soar. Are all gap plans equal? No. Should there be minimum standards? Perhaps. But we need to start somewhere. What would it cost? If 10 million low-income Americans received a $500 tax credit for gap insurance, the price tag would be about $5 billion. Not everyone would sign up immediately, but those who do would see fewer medical bills leading to bankruptcy or collections and would avoid the 'private recession' of high-interest credit card debt. Freeing families from medical debt boosts consumer spending, increases sales tax revenue, and helps people get better jobs — raising state and federal tax receipts in the process. If 20 million Americans got a tax deduction — at a 25 percent tax rate — for a $1,000-a-year gap plan, the cost would also be $5 billion, phased in over time. This would further reduce medical debt, improve preventive care, and ease mental health burdens — key drivers of health care costs. There's a cost, but also a payoff: less cost-shifting by providers, more consumer spending, and a healthier, more productive workforce. When the self-employed could finally deduct health insurance in the 1990s, more farmers, tradespeople and blue-collar workers bought coverage. Tax incentives work. Make gap plans tax-advantaged, and millions more will buy them. It gives consumers new tools to manage out-of-pocket costs and encourages smarter health care choices. Reducing medical debt through tax incentives should be a bipartisan cause. It's smart politics for both parties. All it takes is a few leaders willing to think differently about rewarding responsible consumer behavior — no matter what income. Under current law, businesses can deduct disability insurance and, in some cases, life insurance as overhead. But accident and illness coverage doesn't get the same break. Accident insurance isn't deductible under an Health Savings Accounts or Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Accounts, though it is under a Section 125 plan. Isn't it time to fix that? Jeff Smedsrud is a longtime advocate for market-centric health insurance reforms who started seven companies in the health insurance space, focusing on niche markets.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Latest: Key Medicaid provision in Trump's bill found to violate Senate rules
The Senate parliamentarian has advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to President Donald Trump's tax cut and spending bill doesn't adhere to the chamber's procedural rules, delivering a crucial blow as Republicans rush to finish the package this week. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. The attention falling on Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's ruling reflects a broader change in Congress: Lawmakers are increasingly trying to wedge top policy priorities into bills that can't be filibustered. That process comes with special rules designed to deter provisions unrelated to spending or taxes, and that's where the parliamentarian comes in, offering analysis of what does and doesn't qualify. 11 a.m. — Trump receives an intelligence briefing in the Oval Office 3 p.m. — Trump will meet with foreign ministers from Congo and Rwanda in the Oval Office
