How to handle cash savings of deceased parents
Dear Liz: My mother passed away a little over a year ago, and my father about 18 months prior to her. I discovered that my parents saved up quite a lot of cash (in the six figures), and I'm afraid to deposit it without triggering the IRS. My parents routinely saved anywhere from $5,000 to up to $20,000 per year for the last 30 years. I read my mom's handwriting on the envelopes with the dates. How can I deposit all this without triggering the IRS? Some of the bills are 'vintage' so I will keep them to see if they're worth more than face value. I also thought about using it to buy real estate.
Answer: You mention 'triggering the IRS' as if your deposit might set off an explosion of audit notices and tax liens. In reality, you're far more likely to cause yourself grief by trying to avoid IRS notice than you are by simply depositing the money.
Banks report large cash deposits — typically those of $10,000 or more — to the IRS as a way to combat money laundering. Anti-money-laundering rules also have been extended to real estate deals. Banks are looking for smaller deposits that could add up to more than $10,000, so don't think spreading out the deposits will help you avoid scrutiny.
'Depositing the money all at once would probably arouse less suspicion with the bank than making a continuing series of deposits just under $10,000,' says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting.
Luscombe suggests retaining all those envelopes with your mother's handwriting. If you are questioned by your bank or the IRS, the envelopes could help show your parents were gradually saving the money over time rather than engaging in some money-raising scheme on which taxes were never paid.
You didn't mention if your parents had wills or other estate documents, or if there are other beneficiaries. Consult with an estate planning attorney to see if the cash needs to be deposited in the name of your mother's estate.
Jennifer Sawday, an estate planning attorney in Long Beach, Calif., recommends going in person to your bank to ask for an appointment to make a large cash deposit. Ideally, you can discuss the situation and disclose the source of the funds in a private office, where you can't be overheard. Ask if the bank can hire an armored courier to pick you up at your home to reduce the chance you'll be robbed en route, Sawday suggests.
Please don't delay, since theft isn't the only concern. Cash also can be lost to fire, floods and other disasters. (One can only imagine how many bank-averse people lost cash in the recent Los Angeles fires.) Plus, cash tends to lose value over time thanks to inflation–the vast majority of 'vintage' bills are worth much less than when they were printed. You'll want to at least start earning some interest on the money, and perhaps put it to work in other investments.
Dear Liz: Your recent column on the divorced couple where the ex-wife can apply for Social Security benefits has me wondering about my own benefits. I'm 60 and my husband is 79. Can I get his Social Security benefits, and if so, when should I apply? I am working and have worked all my adult life. He has an ex and was married to her for 11 years, so she is getting his and he is getting his. Do I qualify for his and also my own?
Answer: To repeat, Social Security is typically 'either/or,' not 'both.' When you apply for Social Security, your own retirement benefit will be compared with a spousal benefit based on your husband's earnings record. You'll get the larger of the two benefits. The spousal benefit can be up to 50% of your husband's benefit at his full retirement age, not the amount he's currently getting.
You can apply as early as age 62, but that means accepting a permanently reduced benefit. Also, early benefits will be subject to the earnings test, which withholds $1 for every $2 earned over a certain limit, which in 2025 is $23,400.
You won't face the earnings test if you apply after reaching your full retirement age, which is 67. If you delay filing, your own benefit will continue to grow. It maxes out at age 70.
Figuring out the best time to apply can be complicated. AARP has a free calculator that may help, or you can use the more sophisticated paid versions at Maximize My Social Security.
Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner®, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the 'Contact' form at asklizweston.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows DOGE staffers to access Social Security data
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data. On Friday, the Court's six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population. In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions. In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: "We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision. The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." Social Security Works posted on X: "No one in history -- no commissioner, no president, no one -- has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have." White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that "the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law." Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the "Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." She concluded her dissent by writing: "The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process." Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs "from cradle to grave." "While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have 'God-level' access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more," Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers. DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion. The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare. SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs wrote: "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure -- and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it." Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that"The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. Musk called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28. The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers' payroll tax payments to people who are already retired. The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Supreme Court allows DOGE staffers to access Social Security data
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data. On Friday, the Court's six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population. In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions. In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: "We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision. The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." Social Security Works posted on X: "No one in history -- no commissioner, no president, no one -- has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have." White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that "the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law." Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the "Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." She concluded her dissent by writing: "The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process." Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs "from cradle to grave." "While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have 'God-level' access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more," Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers. DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion. The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare. SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs wrote: "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure -- and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it." Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that"The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. Musk called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28. The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers' payroll tax payments to people who are already retired. The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
House witness flips script on Dem who ambushed him during hearing with unearthed tweet: 'Iceberg is ahead'
FIRST ON FOX: A House committee witness who was called out by Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California during a hearing this week is pushing back after the congressman unearthed a past social media post on Social Security in an attempt to discredit his testimony. During a House oversight DOGE subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Garcia grilled Power the Future CEO Dan Turner while holding up a posterboard of a past tweet calling Social Security a "government-sponsored Ponzi scheme." "Madoff went to jail for it. Congress runs on it," the post said. "I should be able to keep 100% of my money and not watch government waste it with a paltry percentage return." Garcia then suggested that post was evidence that Turner lacks the credibility to be testifying about the billions of federal tax dollars directed to left-wing NGOs. Social Security Commissioner Breaks Down Plan To Save Agency From Insolvency "A Ponzi scheme and so I think it's interesting, of course, as one of our Republican witnesses is calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and that's the person that we should be taking advice from here today," Garcia said. Read On The Fox News App "Without Social Security, 22 million people would be pushed into poverty. That includes over 16 million seniors and nearly 1 million children. And in fact, Elon Musk has also said and agreed with you, sir, that this is a Ponzi scheme. I think it's ironic that you are one of our witnesses talking about efficiency when you want to attack the single best program that we have to support people not just out of poverty, but across this country to uplift them, to ensure they can afford a decent life." Fox News Digital spoke to Turner, who stood by his post and outlined his belief, echoed by many, that Social Security is structured like a Ponzi scheme by definition. Sen Elizabeth Warren: Social Security Is Under Attack. Gutting It Is A Broken Promise "Rep Garcia does not know the definition of Ponzi scheme," Turner said. "Social Security is the ultimate Ponzi, demanding more and more people at the bottom pay in to fund the people at the top, expect our demographics have this now reversed. The system will default. Mr. Garcia nor I will likely never see a dime. That should worry him more than my social media feed." Turner told Fox News Digital that if Garcia's staff were to spend as much time trying to save Social Security as it did "combing through my social media" then "perhaps the Ponzi scheme can survive long enough for me to get a small percentage of what the government confiscated during my lifetime." Turner explained that his father had received a "paltry percentage" of what he paid into the program and the the government "kept the rest" when his father died. "That's not just a Ponzi scheme, it's government greed and politicians running a money-laundering operation to get reelected. No one should be compelled to pay into a failed system, yet in a free America, you don't have that choice." In addition to Turner and Elon Musk suggesting that Social Security is by definition set up like a Ponzi scheme, Fox News Digital previously spoke to James Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, who said the characterization has "validity." 'Failure's Not An Option': Trump Budget Bill Will Be 'Big' Help For Seniors, Top House Tax-writer Says "A Ponzi scheme operates by taking money from new investors to pay current investors," Agresti said. "That's the definition given by the SEC, and contrary to popular belief, that's exactly how Social Security operates." Agresti explained to Fox News Digital that Social Security, a program mired for decades with concerns about waste, fraud, and improper payments, "doesn't take our money and save it for us, as many people believe, and then give it to us when we're older" like many Americans might believe. "What it does is, it transfers money when we are young and working and paying into Social Security taxes," Agresti said. "That money, the vast bulk of it, goes immediately out the door to people who are currently receiving benefits. Now, there is a trust fund, but in 90 years of operation, that trust fund currently has enough money to fund two years of program operations." The trust fund only being able to last for two years is not a result of the fund being "looted," Agresti explained, but rather it was put in place to "put surpluses in it" from money that Social Security collects in taxes that it doesn't pay out immediately and pays interest on. "The interest that's been paid on that has been higher than the rate of inflation," Agresti said. "So, the problem isn't that the trust fund has been looted. The problem is that Social Security operates like a Ponzi scheme." Democrats have vocally pushed back against efforts by Republicans and DOGE to reform Social Security or make cuts to what they say are examples of wasteful or improper spending from the department. "There's been a lot of misinformation about that as of late," Agresti told Fox News Digital. "You know, when DOGE came in and suggested that the Social Security Administration cut, I think it was about 10,000 workers, Democrats erupted that this is going to weaken Social Security. But the fact of the matter is that Social Security pays those workers who are for administrative overhead from the Social Security trust fund. So, by cutting out the money that they're paying them, you actually strengthen the program financially." Agresti told Fox News Digital that the current administrative overhead for Social Security is $6.7 billion per year, which is enough to pay more than 300,000 retirees the average old-age benefit. "Every single study shows social security going completely bankrupt in the next few years. Garcia and other democrats know the iceberg is ahead but rather than turn the ship, they are yelling at the iceberg about the senior citizens onboard," Turner said. "This Ponzi scheme is collapsing fast, and turning my tweets into posters is not going to stop it."Original article source: House witness flips script on Dem who ambushed him during hearing with unearthed tweet: 'Iceberg is ahead'
