[Editor's Note: Today, WCI Network partner, The Physician Philosopher, gives us the straight scoop on Stretch IRAs, a topic I last covered 8 years ago on this blog! There have been some proposals over the years to eliminate/limit the ability to stretch IRAs, and there is one in Congress now, but under current law, your heirs can still stretch an IRA for decades!]
Everyone has different goals when it comes to leaving money for their heirs. For example, the White Coat Investor aims to give money to his kids in their 20’s and during college while a lot of what is left at the end will go to charities. Others decide to leave money at the end that will be available to their children (or grandchildren) at an older age. One of the best ways to do this is through a Stretch Roth IRA.
Gold Level Scholarship Sponsor
Today, we are going to dive a little more into that topic and see what it’s all about, and if it’s right for you.
The Basics of a Stretch Roth IRA
There are a lot of different ways to get to Roth IRA money. You could consider utilizing the backdoor Roth IRA (here is a Backdoor Roth IRA tutorial if it is your first time). You could contribute Roth money to a retirement account at your employer. And you can even take part in a Roth ladder conversion in early retirement.
Unlike pre-tax contributions, Roth contributions are made post-tax. This has some benefits. Namely, Roth investments experience tax-free growth and it remains tax-free when you take it out. A Roth decision is a decision to pay the tax up-front.
It is usually recommended as the last source of money you touch in retirement. This is for two reasons. First, Roth money is not impacted by required minimum distributions (RMD’s) when you turn 70.5 years old. Second, Roth IRA money provides the best kind of money to leave to your heirs because of the ability to turn it into a Stretch Roth IRA.
What is a Stretch Roth IRA?
First, remember that with Roth money, the tax has already been paid prior to investing the money. Therefore, even your heirs will not have to pay tax on it as it grows. This remains true for when they take it out, too. It’s tax-free, which is pretty cool.
There is one important distinction for your heirs compared to Roth IRA money that you contributed yourself. While RMD’s do not apply to you (or to your spouse if they inherit it), RMD’s do apply to any others inheriting your IRA. The RMD is determined by the life expectancy of either the person who died or by the beneficiary inheriting the Roth IRA. The younger they are, the lower the RMD. Regardless of age, they must take an RMD.
This sounds like a bad thing, but imagine it from the standpoint of the person receiving this money. Every year they would be given an RMD payment to use as income. This income would not increase their tax burden (it’s tax-free). The rest of the money would continue to grow (tax-free). This is pretty awesome if you ask me.
That heir could take that monthly money and use it for expenses or to allow them to invest, which they would be doing because you taught them about money when they were kids. It is wealth that begets wealth.
Facts about Stretch IRA’s you need to know
Before we get to some helpful examples below of what this might look like, we need to discuss some facts that you must know in order to take part in a Stretch IRA.
Fact 1: Timing Matters
The person receiving the inheritance must make the decision to stretch out the IRA by December of the year AFTER the person they inherited it from dies. If you don’t elect to do this, you will be forced to take out all of the money out in the five years after the original owner’s death.
Fact 2a: RMD’s are Determined by Age
While RMD’s must occur the year after which the deceased die, the amount of the RMD is determined by the beneficiary’s age (unless the person who provided the inheritance was younger). The younger the beneficiary of the stretch IRA, the lower the RMD. This leaves more money to grow for a longer time.
Fact 2b: Multiple Beneficiaries Can Complicate Matters
If you name multiple beneficiaries, then the eldest age of the multiple beneficiaries will be chosen to determine RMD’s. This makes the RMD’s higher, depletes the account faster, and the money has less time to grow. Separating the multiple recipients at the time they are given is key.
Stretch Roth IRA Examples
I find examples to be helpful. So, let’s think through a few here:
Example 1: The Grandpa on Roth FIRE
Platinum Level Scholarship Sponsor
Let’s say that you decide to FIRE (Financial Independence and Retire Early) at the age of 50. Your 28-year-old daughter just had a baby girl who is age 0. Five years later, you and your wife face an unexpected early demise in a car accident. (Morbid, I know, but this post is about inheritance money).
You decided to convert your 401k to an IRA when you left your employer and designated your granddaughter (now she is 5 years old) as the beneficiary because she is the youngest grandchild in the family. You had $2 million dollars in this account. Under this assumption, the money will continue to grow at 6%.
This is how it works out for the granddaughter.
She would be required to start taking an RMD. Based on the IRS life expectancy table, age 6 has a life expectancy of 76.7. Her RMD = $2,000,000 / 76.7 = $26,075.
Remember, that’s tax-free because grandpa already paid the tax. Based on this inheritance IRA RMD calculator, if she doesn’t take out any more than the RMD each year, it will grow to a max of $16,000,000 by age 65. At that peak, her RMD will be approximately $1,000,000…which is still tax-free.
Hopefully, she will be investing the majority of that and it’ll continue on for the next grand-kid in the family.
The Standard Retirement Grandpa
Maybe those numbers seem astronomically high. For others, let’s include a more typical situation.
Let’s say that grandpa worked until age 65, and didn’t know as much about personal finances. Or let’s say he worked a modest job that was not high-earning. This grandpa retires, and again he dies 5 years later at age 70. The inherited IRA he is giving his 30-year-old granddaughter is worth $500,000. This was, again, Roth money.
In this example, the first RMD at age 31 will be ~$40,000. The account will peak at $5,780,000 (5.78 million) when the granddaughter reaches age 66. Her RMD that year will be around $330,000.
That’s still a ton of money – as in “you don’t have to work” money. And that is from only $500,000 of Roth money. If you saved $6,000 per year via a Roth mechanism that would turn into $500,000 in 30 years (if your average rate of return was 6%). That seems pretty do-able even for lower income earners.
Take Home
Despite leaving only $500,000 in that second example, the inheritance still provides a significant supply of money. And yet none of it raises the taxes of the granddaughters. It is provided as tax-free income to be spent or invested.
And it all continues to grow tax-free via the Stretch IRA.
I’d love to hear other thoughts on this. It’s a great big topic, and certainly important. Do you plan to leave money to your heirs? Spending every dime? Giving it away to charities? Some combination? Let us know below in the comments.
Stretch Roth IRA is also on the chopping block with the SECURE act. Might have to take out the money over 5 or 10 years. There is also something about being able to stretch the first 450k, I’m not sure if this applies to just tIRAs or Roth IRAs as well.
I have seen a few ideas about what to do with tIRAs if the stretch goes away, but haven’t thought about what to do with inherited Roth IRAs. Do you just take the money and invest it in a taxable account or are there other ways to preserve the tax-free status that are being bandied around?
What other choice do you have? It’s still great to inherit these things and it’s still better to inherit tax-free assets than tax-deferred assets. It’s just not as valuable as it was before. I’d still leave it in there the full 5 or 10 years if I could.
I am not following your math. If 500k compounds at 6% for 35 years you get 4 million. And that does not even account for taking the rmds out.
It would be great if this could be shown side by side with a lump sum invested in a taxable account. That would really show how much the stretch helps.
Thanks for the post!
Confirmed, using the Charles Schwab “Beneficiary RMD” calculator that was linked in this article. The Standard Retirement Grandpa’s IRA of $500,000 gifted to a 30-year-old grandchild peaks at around $1,444,000 at age 66 with RMD of around $82,000 that year. I get closer numbers to the author for Standard Retirement Grandpa if I leave the beneficiary at a five years of age (peak at $4,140,000 around age 66, with RMD around $248,000).
Thanks! I believe I linked the calculator, but really appreciate you running the numbers anyway!
Jimmy / TPP
according to james lange the secure act or a version will be law shortly and very unfortunately
a tax accelerator that will cost my kids/grandkids dearly
the senate version might have an exclusion of 400k per beneficiary
house version 10 yrs to distribute with no exclusions
start converting to roths up to the 24% bracket as suggested by lange to me
The Senate $400000 is per balance not beneficiary-so can’t divvy up a larger balance.. The bill passed the House 417-3 so something will happen. 2 ways to plan around it are to do Roth conversions-which by raising RMD age you have more time. Also postponing the start of Social Security to age 70 and withdrawing from IRA for the “bridge” will be even more attractive. But have to be mindful of the IRMAA limits for Medicare
Why would a Roth conversion give the heir more time?
Have more time to convert traditional ira money to Roth ira since the when RMD kicks in that dollar amount can’t be converted. If RMD age raised to 75 have 5 more years to convert to Roth a good chunk of money.
James Lange has been saying that for a decade. Maybe he’s right this time.
At any rate $400K/beneficiary would completely cover my heirs.
A Roth conversion doesn’t affect proposed changes to the stretch IRA.
Thanks for this. A sample scenario comparing Roth, traditional, and nonretirement long term stock type bequests and how (me and my spouse) ought best to factor this into choices of Roth vs traditional and which accounts we draw from first if we will leave any bequests is something I need to work through, if one of you experts do it first it’ll be a big help to all of us!
And thinking through, I guess with current law (hah!!) granddaughter prefers $1 m Roth- grows no tax and have all or only RMD converted into ‘regular’ money which if reinvested then starts suffering taxation again- over $1 m traditional with full rate taxation of each RMD from the account, which is also worse than $1 m stocks which has NO tax if sold to net $1 m immediately, or has only capital gains tax rates on the growth over time above $1 m (probably can work within the portfolio if not all one purchase to alter amount of gain if that outweighs which particular stock/ mutual fund is sold).
But I guess given the many variables of will we even leave a bequest, will the laws change, etc etc maybe Jim’s idea of give it to them earlier is best!
Jenn, I have worked through your question on a post that is up at XRAYVSN “How to Leave Money to Your Heirs.” If interested, see
https://xrayvsn.com/2019/06/20/planning-the-next-life-how-to-leave-money-to-your-heirs/
Thank you X-ray vision and Fiphysician
Every situation is unique, but in general, leave heirs Roth assets first and then taxable assets (step up in basis) they can sell immediately tax free. Leave tax-deferred accounts to your favorite charity. Spend your entire HSA.
how is the roth rmd at age 31 on 500k to be $40,000
should it not be $4000
RMDs at age 31 are quite low so your $4K figure is likely correct. I think that extra zero is a typo, will correct.
According to the Charles Schwab Beneficiary RMD calculator, the RMD at age 31 in this situation is $10,115, about 1/50th of the balance.
Both are right. The numbers are wrong. I think the calculator carried over some numbers from my first example when writing the post. Sorry for the errors.
It should read as follows for the standard grandpa with the 31 year old heir :
“In this example, the first RMD at age 31 will be ~$10,000. The account will peak at $1,388,000 when the granddaughter reaches age 66. Her RMD that year will be around ~$80,000.”
Thanks for catching that.
Jimmy / TPP
I would rather inherit whole life insurance
Seriously? I’d rather inherit a $1 Million Roth IRA that can be stretched for years than a $200K whole life insurance death benefit that then must be invested in a taxable account. Heck, I’d rather inherit the Roth IRA than a $1M whole life benefit, but given the lower rates of return it would likely be much less than that.
I’m not sure you understand the benefit of ongoing tax protected growth.
I’ll take the extra 500k the death benefit provides and have 1,000,00 over a 500k Roth any day. I can take the insurance proceeds and buy munis if I choose
The likely outcome is that you will end up with less investing in insurance than in more traditional investments, especially inside a Roth account. But it’s your money and your life, you get to do whatever you want with it.
When the stretch is outlawed then I would think that the only way to maintain a tax advantage for distribution to heirs is to use life insurance since life insurance proceeds are tax free. I would like to see a discussion on how to integrate insurance with IRAs or 401Ks.
Here is something I wrote: https://xrayvsn.com/2019/06/20/planning-the-next-life-how-to-leave-money-to-your-heirs/
How to leverage life insurance if the stretch IRA is killed.
Leverage life insurance and a Charitable Remainder Unitrust.
I know, permanent life insurance is not popular in physician financial blogs. But, if you don’t need the RMDs from your IRA, yet you and your child are in high tax brackets, this can leverage your Always Taxable money into a Never Taxable life insurance payout.
The basic idea is to get a second-to-die guaranteed universal life (GUL) policy for the death benefit. There is no cash accumulation with these policies. I’ve heard insurance salesmen don’t like GULs as they don’t pay good commissions. Salesmen may also try to sell you on cash value, but what you want is death benefit and nothing more.
Since it is a second to-die-policy, it is less expensive than a single life policy. Use RMDs from the IRA to pay premiums. Upon the death of the second spouse, your heir gets $1-5 million dollars tax free. That’s right, death benefits are tax free! Apparently, these second-to-die policies may have internal rates of return above 5% per year. This is not bad considering you are leveraging an Always Taxable asset into a Never Taxable one.
Next, leave the rest of the IRA into a Charitable Remainder Trust. Without getting too far into the weeds, an irrevocable election to a Charitable Remainder Unitrust (CRUT) can pay income to your heirs for 20 or more years. Generally, depending on the terms of the trust, income is about 5-8% of total assets in the trust. Of course, this money is taxable. And at the end of the term, the remainder (at least 10% of the initial grant) must go to the named charity.
What if the named charity is your heirs’ Donor Advised Fund (DAF)? That way, your legacy will continue on in your family as they can then donate this remainder as they see fit.
That is a lot of verbiage. Best guess: you will hear a lot more about this strategy, as the stretch IRA is on the chopping block in Congress in 2019. If your heirs lose the ability to stretch inherited IRAs, they will rapidly owe massive taxes during their peak income years.
The above strategy gives them a tax-free bolus of money from life insurance. In addition, they get a taxable income for 20 or more years from the CRUT. And in the end, the money goes to their DAF or another charity of your choice
Thanks, my dad used a similar strategy in the last 6 years of his life. He had annuities that were just accumulating tax deferred interest since he never took any distributions. But at his death the beneficiaries would have a large tax bill since the cost basis was low. He exchanged the annuities for a SPIA and used the SPIA payments to pay current taxes on the distributions with the remainder used to buy a GUL policy. The insurance company calculated that with his medical history that his life expectancy was 6 years so the SPIA was medically underwritten to payout faster. The math worked out exactly as he lived 5 year 8 months and all the insurance went to the beneficiaries tax free. The amount they received was about $150K more than the original value of the annuities and saved another $260K in taxes that would have been due. Life insurance used in the right circumstances is a powerful leveraging strategy.
Have you run the numbers on what he could have had without screwing around with all those annuities and life insurance policies? He likely would have left more to heirs, totally tax-free due to the step-up in basis.
There’s no free lunch there.
No step up in basis for taxed deferred annuities. The value above the original cost basis is taxable to the beneficiaries as ordinary income. There were a lot of moving parts to get the desired result and I agree it would have been a lot easier if he hadn’t had annuities.
Seems to have worked out well for your family can you provide any more details?
Alternatively, you can reinvest the RMDs in a taxable account and likely leave your heirs more money than they would get in life insurance death benefit.
The CRT is irrelevant to that issue. If you want to give to charity, then give to charity. Personally, I think the best way for a retiree to do so is a QCD. Takes care of that little RMD issue, the charity gets the money right away, and no attorney fees need be paid.
FiPhysician: The CRT strategy seems quite complicated, which is hopefully a good thing, otherwise if it were better known, Congress would find a way to cut out this workaround.
But I don’t get the need for survivorship policy (2nd to die). This really only makes sense if you put it into trust to pay estate taxes (or have a survivor own the policy so it’s out of your estate)
Instead of paying premiums to get a death benefit, just invest it and get the step up. Insurance should normally be for unexpected death!
Yes, you could invest it and get the step up.
Second to die GULs are not infrequently used to fund special needs trusts as well, so there are other uses.
In this use, if both the parents and heirs are in high tax brackets, you take the unneeded RMDs and leverage them into the second to die GUL. These policies can have IRRs of about 5% and the death benefit is tax free. If the parents can make 5% after paying taxes on the dividends and interest in the brokerage account, and don’t mind paying the extra taxes during their life on the money sitting in their brokerage account, then investing for a step up at their death is fine too. It’s just one way to get money to you children tax efficiently.
I don’t think you understand what’s going on here.
Death benefit- tax free, then earnings going forward fully taxable.
Taxable asset- tax-free, then earnings going forward fully taxable.
Stretch Roth IRA- Tax-free and earnings going forward fully tax-free for at least a few years.
Stretch traditional IRA- Withdrawals fully taxable but earnings going forward grow in a tax-deferred manner.
Insurance is no more attractive than it was, a retirement account is just slightly less attractive but still more attractive than insurance, especially when you look at rates of return.
This thread was what to do with RMDs you don’t need if the stretch wasn’t an option. So, do you leave your kids an IRA that is fully taxable within 5-10 years? Or one option is to leverage life insurance with a second to die GUL. Another great idea is to invest in a brokerage account for the step up at death.
The CRT is totally relevant without the stretch. It is a way you can artificially stretch out the IRA 20+ years after you pass. Charity will get the 10% remainder, or you can give that to your DAF and give it out that way. Taxes are much less with a CRT than an IRA without a stretch…
First, I don’t worry about bills in Congress. I don’t change any plans until bills become laws. I’ve just seen too many bills go nowhere over the years, including previous bills that were supposed to eliminate the stretch IRA.
Second, I don’t know that I’m leaving MY kids an IRA at all. Their main inheritance will be their 20s fund and a working knowledge of how to earn, save, invest, give, and spend money.
Third, I think GULs are great for someone who needs/wants a permanent death benefit. Not against them at all for that purpose. And second to die policies do pay out more than a policy on a single person.
I agree that your tax bill is lower if you give a bunch of money to charity. I disagree that you somehow end up with more money by doing so, whether you give directly to charity or use a CRT. There’s a reason you get that charitable deduction, and the reason is you really are giving a chunk of your money to charity.
I disagree with your use of the word “leverage” with life insurance. That is a technically incorrect use of the word. There is no leverage involved. If you want to leverage life insurance, borrow a few hundred thousand of home equity and buy life insurance with it. But what you will likely realize if you do so is that return on that life insurance is likely to be pretty darn similar to your costs of borrowing and become a wash in the end.
I also disagree that using a CRT and a second to die GUL is somehow a magic way of having more money just because the laws about a stretch IRA changed from 80-100 years to 10 years. If you’re really worried about the taxes your heirs will pay, you’re better off paying them yourself, converting the IRA to a Roth IRA, and letting them have it all totally tax free a decade after your death.
just love how our congress changes rules in the middle of the game
will harm millions of middle class workers who planned for their kids to inherit their iras
LOL. Yep, millions of middle class workers every year leave their kids $400k+ IRAs and those kids are smart enough/well off enough to stretch them out.
just read an online article that under the senate plan a million dollar ira can be divied among beneficiaries to maintain a 400k exclusion for each beneficiary
this would be better than the house version with no exclusions; the house is 10yrs to take all distributions
both stink
too many of us cannot get life insurance as retirees
No big deal- few of us need life insurance as retirees. Life insurance is not a solution to the reduction of the stretch period.
Only solution if passed is to stretch and or spend it down
I don’t see the value of life insurance in this situation.
This only works to your advantage if you die much earlier than the insurance company expects. Otherwise, you pay all the expenses of the life insurance to get its expected value. If you don’t need the coverage, to support a family or pay estate taxes from outside of the estate, then skip the insurance and annuity products and invest the money with tax efficiency as a criterion.
VTI and munis in a taxable account throw off qualified dividends and essentially no short term capital gains. You or your heirs will pay some income taxes, but they will be at a low rate on the portion of income that is dividends or long term gains. Not worth paying insurance expenses to avoid that.
Consider a portfolio of $1M. Put it 60/40 into VTI and, say, VTEB. The muni dividends are not federally taxable. The $600,000 in VTI will pay, roughly, $12,000 at a 2% dividend rate. Call the federal tax rate on that 20%, of course depending on the owner’s other income. That is $2,400 per year in taxes one is trying to avoid. Clearly not worth paying more than $2,400 per year to avoid the tax.
I too was chagrined to hear about the reduction in the stretch for Roth. I don’t think it’s great tax policy for the reasons below.
Although the reduction in the stretch limit for inherited traditional IRAs is a downside, it is understandable as a “pay-for” to provide more revenue in return for deferred revenues from other aspects of the proposed bill, such as delayed RMDs.
I have to say though, that for middle class savers who can leave an IRA inheritance, that legacy can provide a good amount of financial security , as you illustrate, between generations for the majority of Americans who have struggled to see wage increases or pensions in the past 30-40 years. Every so often you hear about humbly-employed individual who leaves a substantial legacy gift to family and charity, which is not bad to encourage.
I can’t see why bill writers would want to subject the Roth to the same 10 year inherited IRA rule, since that change would provide no ‘pay-for’ benefit in govt revenue projections. If the Roth is spared, in fact, one might see a bump in govt tax revenues from greater interest in Roth conversions.
I think it’s bad policy just because it’s way harder to keep track of those ten years than having the law be uniform indefinitely. Just adds complexity to the code while in actuality impacting relatively few people. I suspect most who inherit an IRA have spent it within a year or two, much less 10.
Does having your trust as your beneficiary of your Roth affect this?
I am pretty certain there is no impact, as the distributions to the trust would still need to adhere to the stretch rules.
The trust mostly controls the use of the assets once the distribution has occurred. And the distribution of course is not a taxable event anyway.
Great blog post! Just as an FYI to readers, this discussion is also occurring on the WCI Forum under: SECURE Act – WE NEED TO ACT.
I’ll try not to repeat the discussion there other than to ask anyone if they know of other non-insurance, non-CRT, legal strategies to maintain the stretch? Will dynasty trusts accomplish the stretch? What is the cost of set up and maintenance of a dynasty trust and is the cost worth it?
Although not necessary to accomplish the stretch, I have been planning to use the IRA Inheritance Trust (TM) to make sure subsequent generations of heirs don’t “blow out” the plan via ignorance instead of “stretch out” the plan. As WCI accurately points out, pay out over 10 years is better than nothing, but I’d like to maintain the plan I originally intended if possible.
Here is a link to some detail:
https://ultimateestateplanner.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IRSRulingValidatesIRAInheritanceTrust_Keebler2005.pdf
No, I don’t think a dynasty trust would be the same as a stretch IRA. Nor do I think a CRT + GUL would be the same. The real key to “not blowing it” for your heirs is to not spend the money for a few decades. The extra tax protection is nice, but really it’s mostly about compound interest.
Jim, I might have missed something, but is there a form which must be filled out in order to “declare” the intent of using a stretch IRA? I’m basing this on your instruction that, “The person receiving the inheritance must make the decision to stretch out the IRA by December of the year AFTER the person they inherited it from dies. If you don’t elect to do this, you will be forced to take out all of the money out in the five years after the original owner’s death.” Thanks!
First, not my instruction. Not my article. Written by the Physician Philosopher.
Second, great question. This is the first I’ve heard of filling out a form. Let me Google it here….
Nope, can’t find a form. As near as I can tell, someone who inherits a non-spousal IRA has two “stretching” options:
# 1 Leave all the money there for 5 years, then pull it all out. This is the 5 year rule. It’s ONLY an option of the deceased died at an age < 70 1/2. # 2 Starting taking out RMDs based on the heir's age in year 1. Take out the RMD every year forever. This is what most think of when they say "stretch IRA". https://www.fool.com/retirement/iras/2017/06/01/5-inherited-ira-rules-you-should-know-by-heart.aspx
More info here: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590b#en_US_2018_publink1000230753
So there is no form, you just decide what you’re going to do by either taking out an RMD in year 1 or not taking it out.
The purpose of the stretch is to keep as much money as possible in tax favored accounts as possible. A trust, by itself, does not do this. If you make an accumulation trust the beneficiary, then the trustee has a choice whether to pay money taken out of the tas favored account by RMDs to the beneficiaries of the trust. To the extent the money stays in the trust after RMDs, it cannot be squandered. But the RMDs will still apply, so the tax favored investments will be forced into regular taxable accounts.
Life insurance has nothing to do with this. Yes, the cash value accumulation is not currently taxable, so there is a similarity to a traditional retirement account funded with pretax money. The difference is that the traditional retirement account does not require premium payments. You would have the expense ratios on mutual funds in the account, but those should be less than 0.1%.
If you buy life insurance the whole amount spent on premiums does not contribute to the cash value. Large deductions are taken for mortality risk, policy expenses and life insurance company profits. Only the amounts of premiums that are left after these expenses get to the cash value.
Any reported “return” on the policy is calculated ignoring this, looking only at the amount that made it to cash value. The only way to get a realistic idea of this is to get an in force illustration, put the cash flows into a spreadsheet and calculate the IRR. It will be less than whatever the company claims its return to be.
Insurance is not a good way to get tax favored investments. It does not become good just because the stretch goes away.
I need a little clarification on the last sentence.
“If you name multiple beneficiaries, then the eldest age of the multiple beneficiaries will be chosen to determine RMD’s. This makes the RMD’s higher, depletes the account faster, and the money has less time to grow. Separating the multiple recipients at the time they are given is key.”
How exactly do you separate multiple recipients, if all are named as beneficiaries?
Thanks