He’s held stocks for decades. Should he sell before he dies?
Dear Liz: My father-in-law, age 100, has more than $1 million in stocks and bonds purchased in the 1980s and 1990s. With the stock market so high, I have suggested that he might want to sell the investments, take the tax hit and consolidate into short-term certificates of deposit or similar. This would make it easier for his family to manage (in trust) upon his death. Does this make sense or do we leave it alone?
Answer: Selling now means your father-in-law would have to pay a substantial and perhaps unnecessary tax bill on the gains he’s incurred over the years. If he instead leaves those assets to his heirs at his death, most likely no tax would be owed on the gains.
There are some exceptions, such as if the investments are held in retirement accounts or an irrevocable trust. But investments held in revocable trusts, such as living trusts, should qualify for the favorable step-up in basis that would eliminate the taxable capital gain at his death.
Yes, there’s always a risk that the markets could drop — but they would have to drop pretty far to wipe out all his gains, assuming he’s got a reasonably diversified portfolio. A fee-only, fiduciary financial planner could review the portfolio and offer recommendations about any changes that might be needed, while a tax pro could discuss potential strategies for minimizing the tax bill.
Closing the case on the couple moving into their rental property
Dear Liz: You recently answered a question from a couple who wanted to move into their rental property, make it their primary residence and use the $500,000 home sale exclusion if they sold the property after living there for two years. You should have made it clearer that not all of the gains on the property would qualify for the exclusion.
Answer: Quite right. In 2008, Congress closed the loophole that allowed people to exclude all the gains when they turn rental property into their primary residence. So the couple would not be able to count the gain that occurred between 2009 and whenever they move in. They would, however, be allowed to include the gain from 1988, when they bought the property, through 2008, as well as any increase in value after they move in if they live in the house at least two years, says Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting.
In some parts of the country, there may not be enough gains from those two periods to qualify for the full $250,000-per-owner exclusion, especially after accounting for the depreciation recapture, which requires landlords to pay back the depreciation tax break when they sell a rental property.
In higher-cost areas, however, there still could be more than $500,000 of qualifying gains, Luscombe says.
An update on the inheritor trying to stay below the poverty line
Dear Liz: I have an update about a recent question in your column. A reader wrote that they had been low income but had recently inherited $175,000. You noted that Medicaid has strict asset limits. Actually, that is no longer the case in California, where Medicaid is known as Medi-Cal. I just received literature from it that says, “A new law means assets will not be counted during Medi-Cal renewals.”
Answer: Again, quite right! Some other states have increased asset limits for Medicaid, the government health program for the poor, but California is the first to remove asset limits entirely as of January 2024.
This column appears in different states, which can vary dramatically in their laws and policies. That’s why I constantly suggest getting personalized advice from attorneys, tax pros and financial planners. A column can dispense general education but can’t offer individualized advice tailored to the realities of where you live.
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.
