Posts By: Gene Osofsky

Q.  My mother named me as her agent under a power of attorney several years ago. Sadly, she recently passed.  Can I still use it to take care of her financial matters as her agent?

A.  Unfortunately, no. Your mother’s financial power of attorney expired upon her death and is no longer valid. This fact often comes as a surprise to some clients who believe that a power of attorney (“POA”) survives the principal’s death, especially if designated as a “durable” POA.  That is simply not the case.  Rather, the word “durable” in this context only means that it survives the principal’s incapacity.

The POA is a feature of the law of agency.  Historically, the agent could only act in the principal’s name so long as the principal were alive and able to later affirm, if necessary, the act of his agent.  In former times, therefore, the agent’s powers in a POA terminated upon either the death or incapacity of the principal. Reason: after either event, the principal could no longer affirm the agent’s acts.

Eventually, however, the law changed to provide that disability would not necessarily be a terminating event.  In 1984, California adopted the Uniform Durable Power Of Attorney Act which provided that, if the POA were expressly made to be “durable”, it would survive the principal’s incapacity and remain valid. The law reasoned that the occurrence of disability was precisely when the POA was needed most.   However, death still remains a terminating event.  Exception: if the agent is unaware of the principal’s death, the agent’s actions until so notified are lawful.

Other terminating events include: revocation of the agent’s authority by the principal, dissolution or annulment of the marriage as between the principal and the agent, death of the agent, and the fulfillment of the purpose of the POA if designed for a specific purpose.

Compare the powers of a health care agent under an Advance Health Care Directive.  In this instrument, the agent is expressly authorized to make some decisions after the principal’s death, including the following: making a disposition of the principal’s body or organs under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, authorizing an autopsy, directing the disposition of remains, and authorizing the release of the principal’s medical records where necessary.

So, after your mother’s death, your authority to take care of her financial matters would no longer derive out of the POA.  Instead, they would arise–if at all–from other legal instruments:   (1) from your mother’s Living Trust, if you have been nominated as successor trustee, (2) from her Last Will, if you have been nominated as her executor, but only after the court approved the validity of the will, or, (3) if no will, upon your designation by the court as the administrator of your mother’s estate.  By contrast, you would have some limited powers, after death, under her Advance Health Care Directive so that you could direct the disposition of her final remains.

It may be helpful to think of the powers granted in the different legal instruments in this manner: the powers in the POA end upon your mother’s death, the powers in her Last Will arise only after her death, and the powers in her Living Trust, if any, can straddle the period both before and after her death.

Posts By: Gene Osofsky

Q.  My wife and I created a Living Trust some years ago and put our home in our trust. I recall hearing something on the radio recently about making sure that the transfer into our trust did not void our title insurance. Do you know anything about this?

A.  Yes. You refer to the concern that the transfer of ownership of your home from you and your wife as individuals, to you and your wife as trustees, might nullify your title insurance coverage, depending upon the terms of your policy. To understand this problem, and the appropriate “fix”, a bit of background is helpful:

Title insurance is a policy of insurance issued to the buyer of real property to protect against defects in title, easement disputes, liens, right of access and the marketability of title.  But in order to be covered you must remain a named “insured” under the policy.

When you and your wife bought the property years ago, you likely took title in your individual names.  When you later created your Living Trust, you presumably transferred title to yourselves ”as trustees”.  The legal issue is whether you and your wife, as trustees, are still the named insureds under the policy.

This very question was decided against the homeowners by a California court a few years ago in a case called Kwok vs Transnation Title Ins. Co.  In that case, a couple created a Limited Liability Company (“LLC”) to acquire a piece of real property with the plan of constructing a home.  Title insurance was issued at escrow closing in the name of the LLC.  Subsequently, the couple created a Living Trust and transferred the property from their LLC into their trust.  During construction, an easement dispute arose with their neighbor, and they turned to their title insurance company for help. The company denied coverage.  It reasoned that the insured under the policy was the LLC, not the trustees of the Living Trust, even though the owners of each entity were the very same husband-and-wife.  The Court agreed with the insurance company and upheld its denial of coverage.

Since then, many title companies have taken the position that a transfer of real property into a Living Trust nullifies the title insurance, especially with older policies.

In view of the above, I recommend the following:  (1) Check your title insurance policy for the definition of “insured”.  Make sure that it continues to cover you if you transfer your home into your Living Trust, and contact your title insurance company to verify your reading of the policy; (2) If you are concerned that it may not provide coverage, ask for a special endorsement to extend coverage to you and your wife, in your capacity as “trustees”.  The cost, if any, should be nominal.

While it is unusual for title insurance problems to arise after purchase, yet if they do arise they can be very costly to resolve.  Keep your title insurance in force. It takes only modest effort to either verify coverage on your existing policy or, if necessary, to purchase a special endorsement to preserve that coverage.

Posts By: Gene Osofsky

Q: I heard on a radio program that Living Trusts should be HIPAA compliant, but I didn’t quite catch the full comment. Can you shed any light on this?

A. Sure. Most trusts and powers of attorney contain provisions which call for a change in trustee or agent when the maker of these instruments becomes incapable of handling his or her own financial or personal affairs. These documents typically require that incapacity be proved by the written statement of one or, sometimes, two physicians. The problem: these provisions often assume that the physicians will provide the written statements upon the simple request of another family member. But here’s the catch: under current law relating to medical privacy, the physicians cannot legally provide the statements unless a “HIPAA Authorization” has been signed in advance by the trust-maker.

HIPAA refers to a federal law designed, in part, to protect the privacy of one’s medical records. It stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and the provisions concerning medical privacy became generally effective in April, 2003. The law provides stiff fines for doctors, hospitals and other providers who disregard the requirement of written authorization.

So, the term “HIPPA Compliant” refers to a trust or other estate planning document which includes, among its provisions, a section expressly authorizing someone — usually the nominee next in line to be trustee or agent — to request competency statements from the trust maker’s physicians. Alternatively, the HIPAA Authorization may be contained in a separate document. But preauthorization, in some form, must be part of the person’s estate plan in order to satisfy the medical release requirement, encourage physicians to provide the needed statements and thereby permit the smooth transfer of management responsibility when incapacity arises.

Many persons with long standing relationships with their physicians assume that their own doctors will comply with a request from the family without the necessity of a release. However, this approach is risky, because at the time of need you may not be under the care of your own personal physicians: for example, you may be in a critical care hospital or in a nursing home where your care is managed by other physicians who practice only in that care facility. Further, even your own doctors may be reluctant to breach privacy protocols if the request for disclosure arises at a time of family conflict.

A word to the wise: review your trust, powers of attorney and related documents to make sure that you have pre-authorized designated persons to request letters from your physicians when they reasonably believe that you are no longer capable of managing your own financial and personal affairs. Doing so will help smooth the transfer of management responsibility as you originally intended and may avoid the need for court intervention to resolve the issue.

Posts By: Gene Osofsky

 Q.  My father is in a nursing home and could really use a Medi-Cal subsidy to help with the cost, which is running about $8,500 per month. He has dementia and cannot manage his own finances.  Years ago he signed a Power Of Attorney naming me as his agent.  Can I use it to make gifts of his excess assets to his family in order to help him qualify for Medi-Cal?

A.  Whoa! Not so fast. There are a couple of real concerns here: (1) whether the Power Of Attorney legally authorizes gifts, and (2) whether making gifts of excess assets will help or hurt his eligibility for Medi-Cal.

The POA: in California, a Power Of Attorney (“POA”) must expressly authorize the agent to make gifts.  Gifting powers cannot be implied from other clauses, no matter how comprehensive they appear.  This requirement often comes as a surprise to clients, as many assume – especially if the POA was prepared by an attorney – that the POA authorizes virtually any action that the agent desires, including the making of gifts.  Quite the contrary: an agent under a POA is a fiduciary and cannot just give away the principal’s assets, no matter how well intended the act, unless the power to do so is expressly authorized in the POA document.

A companion concern is that you, as agent, cannot include yourself as a gift recipient unless the POA expressly authorizes you to “self deal”.  The phrase “self deal” means acting in your own self-interest.  In the absence of the right to “self deal, the making of gifts to yourself would be viewed as acting in your own self- interest and breaching the higher duty you owed to your father, the maker of the POA.  Further, those unauthorized gifts to yourself could also be viewed as theft and/or as elder financial abuse.

Of course the POA must also be “durable”, meaning that it survives your father’s incapacity and remains valid even though he is no longer competent.

The Medi-Cal issue: as you apparently know, in order to qualify for a Medi-Cal nursing him subsidy, an applicant’s countable resources must be under certain limits.  For a single individual, the ceiling is $2,000, and for a married couple it is approximately $120,000.  Against that backdrop, many clients believe that the way to help a loved one qualify for Medi-Cal is to simply help them transfer away excess assets to other family members.  However, unless handled in a very special way, gifting away a loved one’s excess assets could backfire: the transfers could potentially disqualify them from a Medi-Cal subsidy, perhaps for a lengthy period going forward.

In summary: your father’s POA must first be evaluated to determine if it includes broad gifting powers and self-dealing powers, and next whether it is a “durable” power.  If it meets these tests, and if gifting otherwise appears appropriate to accelerate his eligibility for a Medi-Cal subsidy, then you should seek professional guidance to develop an appropriate divestment plan that is compliant with the Medi-Cal rules.  If those rules are not strictly observed, the making of gifts could result in a long period of ineligibility from the very Medi-Cal subsidy that you seek.

 

Posts By: Gene Osofsky

Q. My husband and I hold title to our home in joint tenancy.  When we bought it years ago we were told that was the simplest way to avoid probate.  However, I now hear that there may be tax advantages to holding title as community property.  If so, is there a way to get the tax benefits of community property while still avoiding probate?  

A.  Yes.  Since 2001, a married couple may hold title to California real property as Community Property With Right of Survivorship (“CP-WROS”).  Like joint tenancy, upon the first death the property passes to the survivor without probate. However, it comes with an important bonus:  the survivor also enjoys the more favorable tax treatment afforded Community Property (“CP”). Now, married couples who hold title as CP-WROS can get the best of both worlds, i.e. probate avoidance plus the favorable tax treatment given to CP.

The CP Tax Benefit Explained: If a married couple holds title as CP or CP-WROS, upon the death of one spouse all of the taxable appreciation between the date of the couple’s original purchase to the date of the first spouse’s death is wiped clean and the property is given a “fresh start.”  Its appreciated value on the date of death is deemed, for tax purposes, to be equivalent to its cost for purposes of computing taxable gain on a later sale.  This fresh start is called an adjusted basis.  In a JT situation, only the decedent’s one-half (1/2) receives this benefit.  This difference can mean dramatic tax savings for the survivor.   Here is an example of how this works:

Example: The Browns bought their home years ago for $100,000. Assume Mr. Brown dies when it is worth $800,000, that the home continues to appreciate in value, and that Mrs. Brown sells it 2 years later for net sale proceeds of $900,000.  If the couple held title as CP or CP-WROS, Mrs. Brown’s capital gain would only be $100,000 ($900K – $800K). By contrast, if the couple held it as JT, her capital gain would be $450,000 ($900K – ($50K as H’w 1/2 + $400K as W’s 1/2).  Of course, in both situations, since the property was their home, she would likely be able to shelter up to $250,000 in gain under the “sale of principal residence rule,” but in the JT situation $200,000 ($450K — $250K) would still be exposed to capital gain tax.  By contrast, if the home were held as CP or CP-WROS, the $250K “sale of principal residence” exclusion would more than shelter all of the more modest $100K in capital gain ($900K — $800K) and she would incur no tax at all.

The JT form of title would thereby cost her tens of thousands of dollars in capital gain tax that she might have otherwise avoided.  Moreover, if the property were not her principal residence but were, instead, a vacation home or rental property the tax benefit in holding title in one of the CP forms would be even more dramatic, because the opportunity to shelter up to $250K in gain under the “sale of a principal residence” rule would not be available.

Note:  While the IRS has not yet issued a definitive statement that CP-WROS will qualify for this basis adjustment upon the death of the first spouse, a few other states have similar laws and the IRS appears not to have challenged this treatment.

Of course, another technique for both avoiding probate and securing the tax benefits of  CP title is to create a Living Trust with recitals in the trust (or in the funding deeds) that real property placed into the trust is deemed to be “community property”, and many couples wisely choose this option. But for those couples without a Living Trust who desire a quick fix to a potential tax problem, the CP-WROS form of title is well worth considering. The change can be made by a simple deed.

Posts By: Gene Osofsky

Q.  My husband suffers from dementia and we have significant expenses for care in the home.  In order to help with these expenses, I’ve been thinking about selling our vacation property which we no longer use or cashing in one of his annuities. I would also like to set up a Living Trust and make Wills. The problem is that my husband can’t sign the necessary legal documents.  Unfortunately, he does not have a Durable Power of Attorney which would allow me to sign for him.  Is there some way to overcome this problem?

A.  Yes.   There is a legal procedure whereby you can petition the superior court to make an order that takes the place of your husband’s signature. It is called “Substituted Judgment” and  involves petitioning the court for an order that, in essence, substitutes the court’s judgment for your husband’s. The resulting court order would then be accepted in lieu of your husband’s signature by title companies, banks, insurers and others.  It could also authorize the creation of estate planning documents for both of you.  This could be a perfect solution to your problem.  For a married person, a formal conservatorship is not required to invoke this procedure.

Upon your petition, the court will assess your husband’s situation to determine whether the proposed order seems reasonable under the circumstances and whether, if granted, your husband’s interests will be protected and his ongoing needs for support and care met.  If the court is satisfied, an order will then usually be made in accordance with the petition.  Often, the court’s decision is based upon your written petition and the written report of the court-appointed Guardian, and is frequently made without a formal hearing.  Once granted, you would then be free to engage in the  transactions and planning that you propose.

This procedure is designed to provide the necessary consent for a particular transaction or series of transactions which involve, primarily, community property.   However, the procedure has even broader application and can also be used to help you handle other legal matters for him, such as the following: creating, modifying or revoking a Living Trust, making a will, making gifts, selling real property, arranging a loan, exercising options under life insurance, annuity policies and/or retirement plans, and for other purposes.  In our practice, we have used the Substituted Judgment procedure very effectively to assist with asset preservation strategies and Medi-Cal planning for long-term care.

By the way, the Substituted Judgment procedure is also available to unmarried individuals, albeit in the context of a full-blown conservatorship, which typically requires ongoing court management and associated legal proceedings for the remainder of the incapacitated person’s lifetime.  By contrast, for a married couple, the procedure is much more streamlined and the court’s powers are invoked by a petition which usually is resolved in one proceeding.

As you imply, had your husband previously signed a Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) with adequate powers when he had full mental capacity, his DPOA might then have been used to achieve your goals.  However, in situations such as yours, the Substituted Judgment procedure can be a very powerful tool to overcome legal impediments associated with incapacity.

Posts By: Gene Osofsky

Q.  My father had a Living Trust which originally held title to his house.  He recently died and when we went to handle his affairs, we discovered that the home was no longer in his trust.  It seems that he took it out of his trust when he refinanced his home some years back.  I know this is not what he intended.  Any idea what is going on here?

A.  You describe a common problem.  Here is what I believe happened: sometime after he created his trust, he refinanced his house.  My guess is that the lender required that he remove his home from trust during the loan escrow, so that he could sign the loan papers as an individual owner rather than as a trustee.  Your father may then have been unaware that he needed to restore the home to his trust after close of escrow.  Either no one so advised him or perhaps he neglected that advice.

It is not entirely clear to me why lenders make this request, but it seems to be common, especially in years past.  My guess is that his lender did not want to go through the trouble or expense of arranging for its own attorney to read the trust document to determine if your father, as trustee, had the power to encumber or borrow against the home.  Rather, perhaps the lender felt it would be easier to have your father sign the loan documents as an “individual” owner, rather than as trustee of his Living Trust.  The lender, or the escrow officer, may not have advised your father to restore the home to his trust after close of escrow.  Perhaps they both assumed that your father would see his own attorney to take care of that final step.

My colleagues in the mortgage loan business advise that this practice of lenders is less common today than in years past, and that many lenders today permit the homeowner to sign loan documents  “as trustee”, thus eliminating the need to remove the home from trust to close the loan.  Sometimes lenders will have their own attorney review the trust and give an opinion to the lender that the trustee has such powers.  So, in the future, we should see fewer problems such as the one you present.

The question, now, is whether you are stuck with a full probate in order to deal with the home outside of trust.  For guidance, you should contact an attorney for advice as to whether there may be an alternative to probate that would correct the situation and allow you to proceed with trust administration.  In this regard, there is a procedure which attorneys often refer to as a “Heggstad Petition”, which might allow the court to restore the home to your father’s trust.  Whether it would be appropriate in your case is a fact specific analysis.  The good news is that there has been a very recent development which might enhance the chance that such a petition might work. See the Ukestad case referenced below.

The lesson for parents who have taken out loans after creating a trust is this: make sure that you have restored your home to your trust, an act which requires the signing and recording of an appropriate deed.  Otherwise, your trust may not accomplish its purpose, and your children may be stuck with a probate to handle your final affairs.  

References: Ukestad v. RBS Asset Finance Inc. (03/16/2015); (Estate of Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943, 947–950, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 433 (Heggstad ); Carne v. Worthington (2016) 246 CA 4th 548, 200 Cal Rptr. 3d 920; California Probate Code § 850

Posts By: Gene Osofsky

Q.  I hear that the VA is now proposing a “look back” rule to make it more difficult for disabled veterans to qualify for an Aid and Attendance pension.  Do you know anything about this?

A.  Yes. As you may know, veterans who served during wartime and have either a non-service-connected disability or are over age 65 can receive a “Veterans Pension” to help pay for long-term care.  Some refer to this pension as an “Aid and Attendance” (A&A) pension. However, in order to qualify, the Veteran or surviving spouse must meet certain income and Net Worth requirements.

The Department Of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently issued proposed regulations that would heavily penalize veterans who made asset transfers within a 36 month “look back” period in order to qualify.

The announced purpose of the proposed regulations is to protect veterans from predatory sellers of financial products.   However, in operation the proposed rules would, instead, severely punish deserving veterans and their dependents:  Gift transfers of excess assets, or the purchase of annuities, if made within 36 months of application in order to reduce Net Worth would potentially disqualify the veteran or surviving spouse from a pension for a term up to 10 years.

This proposal represents a sea change for the VA.  Historically, gift transfers to reduce Net Worth were perfectly fine.  Likewise using excess assets to purchase an annuity to create an income stream was also an accepted strategy.  Both strategies helped many wartime veterans qualify for a VA Pension so that they could afford care to remain at home, rather than a nursing facility.

Under the proposed new rules, veterans who made these disqualifying transfers would be denied a disability pension for a term based on a formula: the value of the excess assets transferred would be divided by the monthly A&A benefit rate and the result would be the number of months of disqualification.

Example: an applicant who transferred $100,000 in excess assets would be disqualified for pension for the following number of months if the application were made in 2015:

Married Veteran:                     $100,000 / $2,120 = 47 months

Single Veteran:                        $100,000 / $1,788 = 55 months

Surviving Spouse:                   $100,000 / $1,149 = 87 months

There are a number of troubling aspects about the proposed rules: (1) there is no effective date given in the regulations, raising the risk that the rules could be retroactive; (2) there is no “grand-fathering” of existing claims; (3) there is no exception for innocent transfers such as birthday gifts to family members or donations to charity or church; and (4) the duration of the penalty would depend upon the marital status of the claimant. Example: the penalty for a surviving spouse would be approximately double what it would be for a married veteran.

The regulations are not yet final and the VA has invited comments through March 24, 2015, before issuing final regulations.

My advice: until the regulations are clarified in regard to their effective date and grand-fathering, Veterans and their surviving spouses — who might be considering application for a pension within the next 36 months — should refrain from making significant gifts or using excess assets to purchase an annuity.  For more on this topic, see the separate article on this website, designed for attorneys.

Posts By: Gene Osofsky

Q. About 6 months ago, I applied for Medi-Cal to help with my husband’s ongoing nursing home bill, and we are still waiting for a decision. I keep calling Medi-Cal, but nothing happens. The nursing home has been patient, but I do not think they can wait forever. Is there anything I can do?

A. Unfortunately, you are not alone. With the expanded eligibility for Medi-Cal provided under the Affordable Care Act, California counties have been flooded with Medi-Cal applications. The backlog at one point rose to 900,000 pending cases. The resulting delay in processing these applications has created great hardship for applicants, whose medical needs went unattended and health deteriorated while awaiting approval.

In one case, a mother’s son died of a pulmonary embolism while awaiting approval of his application filed seven months earlier. Sadly, two months after his death, his mother finally received the long awaited letter of approval.

Under the law, California counties are supposed to make decisions within 45 days of application, but for hundreds of thousands of deserving applicants this 45 day legal limit has been illusory. Finally, in the Fall of last year, a group of plaintiffs — including the mother referenced above — and a coalition of legal services organizations filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court seeking to put an end to this Medi-Cal application “limbo”. On January 20, 2015, in a case entitled Rivera vs. Douglas, a Superior Court judge issued an Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion For Preliminary Injunction, designed to put an end to the backlog, and indicated the judge’s intetion to make a further, more specific order to accomplish just that. As of this writing, the precise form of that more specific Order is still under consideration by the Judge. However, we expect that it will be issued very soon and that, once issued, it will direct the state to take specific and immediate actions, including the following:  (1) to grant provisional benefits in all cases pending more than 45 days where eligibility appears likely, and  (2)  to send written notice to all other applicants of their right to an Administrative Fair Hearing to secure a prompt ruling from an Administrative Law Judge on their pending applications.

So, there are several things you can do at this time: (1) write a letter to your eligibility worker making reference to the recent Rivera vs. Douglas case, [Alameda County Superior Court case # RG14740911], and ask that your husband be granted provisional Medi-Cal benefits immediately; (2) contact the Health Consumer Alliance (Legal Aid) for assistance at 1-888-804-3536, (3) make a written request for an Administrative Fair Hearing before a judge, sending the request to both your local Medi-Cal county office and the California Department of Healthcare Services, Appeals Unit, in Sacramento; and/or (4) seek guidance from an elder law attorney familiar with the Medi-Cal program. By pressing forward, my hope is that you will secure a favorable decision on your husband’s application in the very near future. Every good wish to you and your husband.

Alert:  On February 20, 2015, Judge Evelio Grillo of the Alameda County Superior Court issued the actual Preliminary Injunction in accordance with his earlier Order. That Preliminary Injunction will likely be followed, once again, by a more specific order requiring monitoring of the state’s compliance with the judge’s order.

Posts By: Gene Osofsky

Q. I just heard about a new IRS rule that gives favored treatment to the purchase of an annuity inside an IRA. Do you know anything about that?

A. Yes. You refer to the new IRS rule that allows an owner of a Traditional IRA to use a portion of his or her IRA or 401K funds to purchase a longevity annuity without the need to comply with the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) rules. This is great news for owners of Traditional IRA’s.

Background: previously, the RMD rules required that an annuity purchased inside a Traditional IRA or 401K had to start distributions when the owner turned 70.5, even if the owner did not need the money at that time. There was no real option to defer the annuity start date, so as to allow the annuity to grow in value inside the IRA and begin larger payouts at a later date. In short, the RMD rules previously clashed with the goal of planning for lifetime income. Thus, for those who wanted to defer the annuity start date, often the only option was to purchase an annuity outside the Traditional IRA with after-tax dollars, or use after-tax dollars inside a ROTH IRA.

The new rule now gives owners of Traditional IRA’s the green light to put a portion of their portfolio into a longevity annuity to provide for guaranteed income beginning at a future date, which can begin as late as age 85. By permitting this deferred start date, the rule allows for the interim growth of the annuity contract, and hence higher payouts beginning at a future date. The longer pay outs are deferred, the more money the owner receives. In short, the rule allows retirees to insure themselves against the risk of outliving their money, because they can provide lifetime income for themselves starting later in life.

There are some requirements, including the following: (1) Only up to 25% of the IRA account value, capped at $125,000, can be used to purchase a Qualifying Longevity Annuity Contract (“QLAC”); (2) the annuity must begin payout by age 85; and (3) the annuity must be irrevocable once purchased. The rule also permits the contract to have a “return of premium” feature: if the IRA owner dies before receiving back all of the annuity premium payment, the difference will be paid back to his or her beneficiary. Also, the $125,000 cap will be subject to cost of living adjustments. Retirees who choose to take advantage of this new option can still invest the remaining 75% of their IRA or 401(k) account balance in other assets, as before, with the understanding that only these assets will be used to calculate the RMD’s with the mandatory start date at age 70.5.

This new rule is especially significant for those persons who are not yet ready to retire or who do not need to begin drawing on their Traditional IRA or 401K at age 70.5. It is worth a serious look.

For more, see IRS Notice 2014-66, IRS Press Release and Regulations