The federal coronavirus relief bill has sent direct emergency payments to some 150 million Americans in the wake of the pandemic. Among the recipients are possibly millions of deceased individuals, raising questions about what their survivors should do with the money. After weeks of silence, the IRS has finally confirmed that the money should be returned and explained how to do it.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, signed into law March 27, 2020, included one-time payments of up to $1,200 to millions of eligible individuals, based on their income. To determine who was eligible, the IRS looked at 2018 and 2019 tax returns, without first cross-checking with the Social Security Administration’s master file of U.S. deaths, which apparently would have taken weeks.
As a result, some individuals who passed away after filing 2018 or 2019 taxes have been receiving relief payments, causing confusion for their families. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.8 million people died in 2018, which means the IRS potentially could have sent out millions of checks to deceased individuals. Although Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in an interview that the money had to be returned, the IRS was slow to explain how exactly to go about doing that. 
The IRS has now issued guidance, clarifying that the money must be returned. According to the agency, the full amount of the payment sent to a deceased individual should be returned unless there is a surviving spouse. In that case, only the deceased spouse’s portion should be returned. Checks should be voided and returned by mail to the IRS. If a family member cashed a check or the money was received via direct deposit, the recipient of the funds should send the funds back via a personal check or money order. 
Whether you have to return the money is another question. “There’s no legal interpretation,” Nina Olson, a former IRS official and current executive director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, told The Wealth Advisor.  “I don’t know how they’re basing their decision” to request the money be returned.  Olson said it is “unlikely” the IRS would sue taxpayers for the erroneously awarded stimulus money.

Retirement account owners, many of whose retirement balances have been pummeled by a stock market drop due to the coronavirus pandemic, do not have to take mandatory withdrawals this year. 

Federal law requires individuals who were age 70 1/2 before the end of 2019 to begin taking required minimum distributions (RMDs) from their retirement plan in April of the year after they turned 70. (Note that those who were younger than 70 ½ at the end of 2019 can wait until they turn 72 to take RMDs) The amount of the distribution is based on the value of the account at the end of the previous year, but the funds you withdraw are treated as taxable income in the year you take the distribution. 

The coronavirus pandemic caused the stock market to tumble, depleting many retirement accounts. RMDs for this year would be based on the value of the account at the end of 2019, when the account likely had more money in it because the stock market was at a high point. Although the market has rallied somewhat, it still isn’t back to where it was at the end of 2019. 
Recognizing this, the coronavirus relief bill known as the CARES Act waives the requirement that individuals take RMDs from their non-Roth IRAs and 401(k)s in 2020. This includes any 2019 distributions that would otherwise have to be taken in 2020.  Waiving RMDs will allow retirees to retain more of their savings. The waiver applies to individuals taking RMDs from their own retirement accounts as well as people who have inherited retirement accounts. 

Generally, it is considered a good idea to not take a withdrawal if you do not need to because leaving the money in the account allows it to continue growing tax-deferred. Taking a withdrawal can also increase your 2020 tax burden. However, there are circumstances where it may make financial sense to take an RMD, for example if you need the money to live on. In addition, if you know you are going to be in a much lower tax bracket in 2020, but expect your tax bracket to increase next year, it might make sense to withdraw the money now so you can pay taxes on the withdrawal at a lower rate. 
​
If you already took an RMD, you may have the option to return it to the account it came from or another retirement account. Usually RMDs cannot be rolled over into another account, but because the CARES Act waived RMDs, they are considered voluntary distributions. This means they can be redeposited or rolled over into a new retirement account (including a Roth account) as long as you do it within 60 days. The IRS has provided guidance, waiving the 60-day rule if you took an RMD between February 1 and May 15 as long as you roll over the RMD by July 15, 2020. This type of rollover can only occur once per year, so if you rolled over a distribution within the previous 365 days, you cannot do it again. 

With older Americans being most at risk from the COVID-19 coronavirus, the response to the pandemic is highlighting issues of ageism in the United States. According to experts, ageism is evident both in the response to the virus and the lack of protective equipment allocated to nursing homes.

Experts on aging assert that the medical field, politicians, and the public may have acted quicker and taken the coronavirus more seriously if the perception had been that it primarily affected younger Americans. In an article in the Washington Post, Syracuse law professor Nina Kohn argues that the “devaluation of older lives” has caused more older Americans to die than necessary. 

Many young people ignored social distancing recommendations at the start of the pandemic. Headlines emphasizing the virus’s effect on young people (For example: "It isn’t only the elderly who are at risk from the coronavirus" and "Not just older people: Younger adults are also getting the coronavirus") were used to persuade Americans to take the virus seriously. Geriatrician Louise Aronson pointed out that “when you say ‘just’ older people, it sounds like, well, it’s just killing old people, they’re all dying anyway.” Aronson adds that even some older Americans have not followed social distancing recommendations because they do not want to think they are “old.” According to Aronson, “It’s almost as if, if they’re not out there doing things, then they’re one of those old people that doesn’t count. We have created that cultural reality, so shame on all of us.” As the debate raged about closing our economy to prevent the spread of the virus, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick even suggested that seniors would be willing to give up their lives in order to help the economy.

Even though COVID-19 has been more deadly for seniors who have contracted the virus, hospitals have focused on helping younger patients. A geriatrician in San Francisco writes in The Atlantic about that special clinical protocols to deal with COVID were developed for children and adults, but not for seniors. Kohn explained that “Ageism is evident in how we talk about victims from different generations, in the shameful conditions in many nursing homes and even -- explicitly -- in the formulas some states and health-care systems have developed for determining which desperately ill people get care if there’s a shortage of medical resources.” 

Nursing homes have been a hotbed for coronavirus, but have been slow to receive the necessary protective equipment for their employees and patients. Bob Kramer, the leader of Nexus Insights, a think tank on aging issues, told Forbes that ageism is apparent everywhere during the pandemic. “It showed up when the management of your parent’s assisted living, memory care, or skilled nursing facility asked for help from their state or county government in securing personal protective equipment (PPE) for their staff and residents. They were told to get in line behind hospitals, medical personnel, government facilities, and military installations. Test kits? Same story. They are victims of our government’s unwillingness to prioritize the health and safety of older adults and those who care for them.”
​
Ageism is nothing new, but the coronavirus has exposed the phenomenon in a stark way. 

For years people have been worried about Social Security’s future, but what is the actual outlook? According to the federal government, unless Congress acts to intervene, Social Security shortfalls are expected beginning in 2035.   
Social Security retirement benefits are financed primarily through dedicated payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers, with employees and employers splitting the tax equally. Employers pay 6.2 percent of an employee's income into the Social Security system, and the employee kicks in the same. Self-employed individuals pay the entire 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax. This money is put into a trust fund that is used to pay retiree benefits. 
The trustees of the Social Security trust fund have reported that if Congress doesn’t take action, the fund’s balance will reach zero in 2035. This is because more people are retiring than are working, so the program is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in. Additionally, seniors are living longer, so they receive benefits for a longer period of time. 
Once the fund runs out of money, it does not mean that benefits stop altogether. Instead, retirees’ benefits would be cut. According to the trustees’ projections, the fund’s income would be sufficient to pay retirees 77 percent of their total benefit. 
Congress can act to shore up Social Security before this happens. Some ideas include eliminating the cap on benefits. Right now, workers only pay Social Security tax on the first $137,700 of income (in 2020). That amount can be increased, so that higher-earning workers pay more in taxes. The Social Security tax or the retirement age could also be increased.
Social Security is immensely popular and lawmakers are unlikely to allow steep benefit cuts to take place. The last time the program was in financial trouble and received a major overhaul was in 1983, when President Ronald Reagan and congressional Democrats struck a deal to increase taxes and gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 67.

The spread of the coronavirus to nursing home residents has caused the federal government to direct nursing homes to restrict visitor access, and many assisted living facilities have done the same. While the move helps the residents stay healthy, it can also lead to social isolation and depression. Families are having to find new ways to stay in touch.  
Nursing homes have been hit hard by the coronavirus. The Life Care Center of Kirkland, Washington near Seattle was one of the first clusters of coronavirus in the United States and is one of the deadliest, with at least 35 deaths associated with the facility. In response, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued guidance to all nursing homes, restricting all visitors, except for compassionate care in end-of-life situations; restricting all volunteers and nonessential personnel; and cancelling all group activities and communal dining. While these actions are necessary to prevent the spread of the virus, they can leave families worried and upset and residents feeling isolated and confused. 
Families are taking varying tacks to keep in contact with their loved ones, many of whom don’t fully understand why their family is no longer visiting. Nursing homes are also helping to facilitate contact. Some options for keeping in touch, include the following: 

• Phone calls. Phone calls are still an option to be able to talk to your loved one. 
• Window visits. Families who are able to visit their loved one’s window can use that to have in-person visits. You can hold up signs and blow kisses. Talking on a cell phone or typing messages on it and holding them up to the window may be a way to have a conversation. 
• Facetime and Skype. Many nursing homes are facilitating video calls with families using platforms like Facetime or Skype. Some nursing homes have purchased additional iPads, while others have staff members going between rooms with a dedicated iPad to help residents make calls. 
• Cards and letters. Sending cards and letters to your loved ones is another way to show them that you are thinking of them. Some nursing homes have also set up Facebook pages, where people can send messages to residents. 

In this unprecedented time, families will need to get creative to stay in touch with their loved ones.

​The coronavirus relief bill includes a direct payment to most Americans, but this has MassHealth recipients wondering how the payment will affect them. Because the payment is not income, it should not count against a MassHealth recipient’s eligibility. 
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provides a one-time direct payment of $1,200 to individuals earning less than $75,000 per year ($150,000 for couples who file jointly), including Social Security beneficiaries. Individuals earning up to $99,000 ($198,000 for joint filers) will receive smaller stimulus checks. Payments are based on either 2018 or 2019 tax returns.  
The basic MassHealth rule for nursing home residents is that they must pay all of their income, minus certain deductions, to the nursing home. If the stimulus payment were considered income, it would likely have to go straight to the nursing home. Since MassHealth recipients cannot have more than $2,000 in assets, there was also concern that the stimulus payments could put many recipients over the asset limit. 
Nonetheless, a plan should be made as to how to spend down these funds to bring the recipient back under the $2,000 asset limit.  Everyone's situation is different but options may include prepaying for final arrangements, purchasing clothing, electronics or other items that the recipient can use.
In a blog post, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) has clarified that the SSA will not consider stimulus payments as income for Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI) recipients, and the payments will be excluded from resources for 12 months. Because state Medicaid programs cannot impose eligibility requirements that are stricter than SSI requirements, the payments should not affect MassHealth eligibility. 

With the coronavirus pandemic hitting nursing homes and assisted living facilities especially hard, families are wondering whether they should bring their parents or other loved ones home. It is a tough decision with no easy answers. 
The number of coronavirus cases in nursing homes and assisted living facilities across the country continues to grow. A Washington state nursing home was one of the first clusters of coronavirus reported in the United States, with at least 37 deaths associated with the facility.  As of April 2, the Associated Press estimated that “at least 450 deaths and nearly 2,300 infections have been linked to coronavirus outbreaks in nursing homes and long-term care facilities nationwide.” In New York, nursing homes account for one in four deaths, according to one report. On April 9, more than 700 cases had been reported in assisted living facilities across the country. 
To contain the virus’s spread, most long-term care facilities are limiting or excluding outside visitors, making it hard to check on loved ones. Social activities within the facility may also be cancelled, leading to social isolation for residents. In addition, long-term care facilities face staffing shortages even in the best of times. With the virus affecting staff as well as residents, facilities are having trouble providing needed care. Assisted living facilities, which are not heavily regulated, may have greater trouble containing the virus than nursing homes because their staff is not necessarily medically trained. 
With this in mind, many families are considering bringing their loved ones home. A Harvard epidemiologist is warning that nursing homes are not the best place to house the vulnerable elderly at this time. And a local judge in Dallas has recommended that families remove their loved ones from infected facilities. Before taking this extreme step, however, you need to consider the following questions:

• Is your family able to provide the care that your loved one needs? Some patients require help with eating, dressing, medication, and going to the bathroom. You need to consider whether you can adequately provide that care at home. In addition to your loved one’s practical needs, you need to think about your physical and emotional stamina. Also, is your house set up to safely accommodate your family member? Are there a lot of stairs? Does the bathroom have rails? If your loved one has dementia, there may be other considerations to take into account. 
• How well can you prevent infection? Will you be better able to prevent infection than a nursing home? If your entire household is homebound, you may be in a good position to prevent bringing home the virus. However, if one or more member of your household is working outside of the home, you will have to take extra precautions to make sure you don’t bring the virus to your loved one. Are you taking the necessary precautions to keep your house and yourself disinfected? 
• Will the resident be allowed to return to the facility when the threat of the virus has abated? If you take your family member out of the nursing home or assisted living facility, the facility may not let your family member back in right away. You should check with the facility to determine if your loved one will be able to return. 

Bringing a family member home is a hard decision and it depends on the individual circumstances of each family. 

Donor-advised funds are a growing trend in giving that may get more popular due to the new tax law. These funds allow you to donate money, receive a charitable tax deduction, and continue to grow the money until you are ready to distribute it to a charity or charities of your choice. 
A donor-advised fund is established through a charity or nonprofit. The way the fund works is that you donate assets (it can be cash, stocks, or real estate) to the fund. The gift is irrevocable – the nonprofit controls the assets and you cannot get the assets back. You may then take an immediate tax deduction for the gift to the fund. Once the fund is established, you can tell the fund where to donate the money, and when. 
These funds are becoming more popular in part because the new tax law enacted in 2017 doubled the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for couples. This means that if your charitable contributions along with any other itemized deductions are less than $12,000 a year, the standard deduction will lower your tax bill more than itemizing your deductions. For most people, the standard deduction will be the better option and they will get no deduction for their charitable contributions. 
A donor-advised fund allows you to contribute several years' worth of charitable donations to the fund at once and receive the tax benefit immediately, making it more likely that itemizing would be more advantageous than taking the standard deduction. 
There are different types of donor-advised funds. Some are spinoffs of large financial investment firms like Fidelity and Schwab. Others may be smaller community funds. Some universities and faith-based organizations also have funds. Each fund has its own rules on how the money is distributed. There may be limits on how much you can donate each year or a requirement that you donate a certain amount. Some funds are single-issue funds that may require that at least some of the donations go to a particular charity or cause. Each fund also has its own rules on whether the fund can be passed down to heirs. 
Before deciding to give to a donor-advised fund, you should investigate the fund's rules, fees, and how established the fund is. It is best to consult with your financial advisor before making any major donations. 
For more information about donor-advised funds from the Chronicle of Philanthropy, click here.

Parents want their children to be taken care of after they die. But children with disabilities have increased financial and care needs, so ensuring their long-term welfare can be tricky. Proper planning by parents is necessary to benefit the child with a disability, including an adult child, as well as assist any siblings who may be left with the caretaking responsibility.

Special Needs Trusts
The best and most comprehensive option to protect a loved one is to set up a special needs trust (also called a supplemental needs trust). These trusts allow beneficiaries to receive inheritances, gifts, lawsuit settlements, or other funds and yet not lose their eligibility for certain government programs, such as Medicaid, MassHealth and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The trusts are drafted so that the funds will not be considered to belong to the beneficiaries in determining their eligibility for public benefits.
There are three main types of special needs trusts:

• A first-party trust is designed to hold a beneficiary's own assets. While the beneficiary is living, the funds in the trust are used for the beneficiary's benefit, and when the beneficiary dies, any assets remaining in the trust are used to reimburse the government for the cost of medical care. These trusts are especially useful for beneficiaries who are receiving Medicaid, SSI or other needs-based benefits and come into large amounts of money, because the trust allows the beneficiaries to retain their benefits while still being able to use their own funds when necessary.
• The third-party special needs trust is most often used by parents and other family members to assist a person with special needs. These trusts can hold any kind of asset imaginable belonging to the family member or other individual, including a house, stocks and bonds, and other types of investments. The third-party trust functions like a first-party special needs trust in that the assets held in the trust do not affect a beneficiary's access to benefits and the funds can be used to pay for the beneficiary's supplemental needs beyond those covered by government benefits. But a third-party special needs trust does not contain the "payback" provision found in first-party trusts. This means that when the beneficiary with special needs dies, any funds remaining in the trust can pass to other family members, or to charity, without having to be used to reimburse the government.
• A pooled trust is an alternative to the first-party special needs trust.  Essentially, a charity sets up these trusts that allow beneficiaries to pool their resources with those of other trust beneficiaries for investment purposes, while still maintaining separate accounts for each beneficiary's needs. When the beneficiary dies, the funds remaining in the account reimburse the government for care, but a portion also goes towards the non-profit organization responsible for managing the trust.

Life Insurance
Not everyone has a large chunk of money that can be left to a special needs trust, so life insurance can be an essential tool. If you've established a special needs trust, a life insurance policy can pay directly into it, and it does not have to go through probate or be subject to estate tax. Be sure to review the beneficiary designation to make sure it names the trust, not the child. You should make sure you have enough insurance to pay for your child's care long after you are gone. Without proper funding, the burden of care may fall on siblings or other family members. Using a life insurance policy will also guarantee future funding for the trust while keeping the parents' estate intact for other family members. When looking for life insurance, consider a second-to-die policy. This type of policy only pays out after the second parent dies, and it has the benefit of lower premiums than regular life insurance policies. 
ABLE Account
An Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) account allows people with disabilities who became disabled before they turned 26 to set aside up to $15,000 a year in tax-free savings accounts without affecting their eligibility for government benefits. This money can come from the individual with the disability or anyone else who may wish to give him money.
Created by Congress in 2014 and modeled on 529 savings plans for higher education, these accounts can be used to pay for qualifying expenses of the account beneficiary, such as the costs of treating the disability or for education, housing and health care, among other things. ABLE account programs have been rolling out on a state-by-state basis, but even if your state does not yet have its own program, many state programs allow out-of-state beneficiaries to open accounts. (For a directory of state programs, click here.)
Although it may be easy to set up an ABLE account, there are many hidden pitfalls associated with spending the funds in the accounts, both for the beneficiary and for her family members. In addition, ABLE accounts cannot hold more than $100,000 without jeopardizing government benefits like Medicaid and SSI. If there are funds remaining in an ABLE account upon the death of the account beneficiary, they must be first used to reimburse the government for Medicaid benefits received by the beneficiary, and then the remaining funds will have to pass through probate in order to be transferred to the beneficiary's heirs.  
Get Help With Your Plan
However you decide to provide for a child with special needs, proper planning is essential. Talk to your attorney to determine the best plan for your family. 

It is a very good idea to create advance directives in order to plan for the possibility that you may one day be unable to make your own medical decisions. In doing so, there can be confusion about the difference between a living will and a "do-not-resuscitate" order (DNR). While both these documents are advance medical directives, they serve different purposes.
A living will is a document that you can use to give instructions regarding treatment if you become terminally ill or are in a persistent vegetative state and unable to communicate your instructions. The living will states under what conditions life-sustaining treatment should be terminated. If you would like to avoid life-sustaining treatment when it would be hopeless, you need a living will. A living will takes effect only when you are incapacitated and is not set in stone -- you can always revoke it at a later date if you wish to do so.
When drawing up a living will, you need to consider the various care options and what you would like done. You need to think about whether you want care to extend your life no matter what or only in certain circumstances. A living will can dictate when you want a ventilator, dialysis, tube feeding, blood transfusions, and other life- saving or life-prolonging options. 
A DNR is a different document. A DNR says that if your heart stops or you stop breathing, medical professionals should not attempt to revive you. This is very different from a living will, which only goes into effect if you are unable to communicate your wishes for care. Everyone can benefit from a living will, while DNRs are only for very elderly and/or frail patients for whom it wouldn't make sense to administer CPR.