The toughest part can be when the last surviving parent (mistakenly?) designates an IRA to only one of two siblings, and the other (me) can only ask for a solemn word that it gets split evenly at some vague future time.

Asking for a secondary contract to assure a split might "offend" this self-absorbed sibling and ruin the whole prospect. They've got narcissistic traits (selectively returns calls or emails containing reasonable questions) and their immediate family enables it. I can see a future passive-aggressive scenario where they keep the whole large IRA and claim there was never a moral obligation to divide it. Being the one who did the most direct work for my aging parent makes this doubly hard to take.

Has anyone experienced a similar scenario? The will itself divided the house and some trusts evenly between us, with minimal or no probate expected. The IRA would have been much easier to handle if it had dual-designations. Are there any legal ethics angles to make that happen after the fact?

I recently read an article that may be able to clear things up. the article is on the website Bank Rate (one word) and the article is titled: 8 ways to go wrong with an inherited IRA. Of course, best bet is to always check with an elder law atty. or qualified financial planner.

I am confused -- wouldn't the tax implications be different if it were a Roth IRA vs a non-Roth IRA?

It seems like if the holder dies and you take all the money out of the IRA that it wouldn't be taxable because you can inherit something like up to a million without it being taxable.

My step father set up an IRA for my mother's benefit before his death. She has been living off of it for decades now. I am an only child and she has left everything (all assets, condo, and savings act) to me. She set it up with an attorney. Do I need to do anything?