What is UFIPA §409's 10% rule for IRA and retirement-plan distributions?

UFIPA §409 is the load-bearing provision for a trust that holds an inherited IRA. It provides a two-part characterization rule: if the payor characterizes the distribution as interest, dividends, or a similar amount paid on the plan's assets, that portion is trust accounting income; and if the total annual distribution is less than or equal to ten percent of the plan's beginning-of-year fair market value, the trustee may allocate the entire distribution to income under the safe harbor. Everything else defaults to principal. In practice, most inherited-IRA required minimum distributions to a trust fall above the 10 percent threshold — the SECURE Act 10-year rule forces roughly one-tenth of the balance out annually, and the acceleration in later years pushes distributions well above 10 percent — meaning the default characterization is overwhelmingly principal. That default matters enormously for a conduit vs accumulation drafting choice, because 'income' passed through to a beneficiary under a conduit design is the trust accounting income, not the gross IRA distribution.

What is the most common UFIPA drafting mistake in an inherited-IRA context?

The single most common mistake is drafting a see-through trust that will hold an inherited IRA without an express UFIPA §409 override clause. The trust is drafted in a UFIPA state, the drafter uses a standard see-through trust template, and the trust instrument is silent on the allocation of retirement-plan distributions between income and principal. When the IRA custodian starts making distributions to the trust after the account owner's death, the trustee applies UFIPA §409 by default and allocates the distributions overwhelmingly to principal. If the trust is a conduit trust, the income beneficiary receives only the small income portion, defeating the drafter's likely intent that the beneficiary receive the full IRA distribution. If the trust is a QTIP marital-deduction trust, the surviving spouse receives only the income portion, which can create IRC §2056(b)(7) qualification problems if the annual distribution to the spouse falls below the actual trust accounting income the trust is required to distribute. Practitioners drafting a new see-through trust in a UFIPA state universally include an express §409 override; older trusts that pre-date UFIPA rarely do, and the fix — either a decanting under the state's decanting statute or a nonjudicial settlement agreement under UTC §111 — is the practical remedy when the mistake becomes apparent after the account owner's death.

State-by-State Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act Adoption in 2026: The Eight-State Framework, UFIPA §409's 10% Safe Harbor, and What It Means for a Trust-Held Inherited IRA

Q: What is the Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act and why does it matter for a trust-held inherited IRA?

The Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (UFIPA) is a model statute promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission in July 2018 to modernize the older 1997 Uniform Principal and Income Act. It governs how a trustee characterizes receipts and disbursements as either trust income (paid to income beneficiaries) or trust principal (held for remainder beneficiaries). For a trust holding an inherited IRA under the SECURE Act 10-year rule, UFIPA §409 sets the default income-versus-principal split for the annual IRA distributions the trust receives from the custodian. That characterization drives who inside the trust gets the money, how the trust reports the distribution on Form 1041, and whether a marital-deduction trust or a QTIP retains its qualification. Without an express override in the trust instrument, the state-law default under UFIPA §409 controls.

Q: Which states have adopted UFIPA as of 2026?

Eight states have enacted UFIPA in some form as of August 2026: Utah (SB 254, 2019, effective July 1, 2020, as Utah Code §22-3-101 et seq.), Kansas (SB 107, 2021, effective July 1, 2021, as K.S.A. §58-9a-101 et seq.), Washington (SB 5132, 2021, effective July 25, 2021, as RCW 11.104B), Colorado (SB 21-171, 2021, effective October 1, 2021, as C.R.S. §15-1-1101 et seq.), Arkansas (Act 1088, 2021, effective January 1, 2022, as Ark. Code §28-70-101 et seq.), Virginia (HB 370, 2022, effective July 1, 2022, as Va. Code §64.2-1044.1 et seq.), California (SB 522, 2023, effective January 1, 2024, as Cal. Prob. Code §16360 et seq.), and Florida (SB 1316, 2024, effective January 1, 2025, as Fla. Stat. §738.101 et seq.). Several additional states have UFIPA introduction bills pending in 2026 legislative cycles, and the older 1997 Uniform Principal and Income Act remains in force in most non-UFIPA jurisdictions.

Q: How does UFIPA differ from the 1997 Uniform Principal and Income Act it replaces?

UFIPA modernizes the 1997 UPIA in three material ways relevant to inherited-IRA drafting. First, the 1997 UPIA §409 imposed a strict 10-percent-of-required-distribution allocation rule that treated the mandated RMD portion as income and everything above it as principal — a mechanic that produced counter-intuitive results as SECURE Act 10-year distributions accelerated in later years. UFIPA §409 replaces that mechanic with a fair-market-value-based safe harbor and gives the trustee explicit discretion under §§201, 203, and 208 to reallocate between income and principal to achieve impartiality between income and remainder beneficiaries. Second, UFIPA §303 provides an express unitrust-conversion mechanic, letting the trustee convert an income-only trust into a percentage-of-value unitrust (typically 3 to 5 percent) that produces predictable annual distributions regardless of the underlying income/principal split. Third, UFIPA carries a cleaner power-to-adjust framework at §203 that lets a trustee shift receipts between income and principal without formally converting to a unitrust. All three modernizations were driven by the reality that a defined-benefit-pension world had turned into a defined-contribution-IRA world between 1997 and 2018.

Q: Does UFIPA apply retroactively to trusts drafted before the state's enactment date?

In most UFIPA states, yes — retroactive application is the default rule, and it applies to any trust with its principal place of administration in the state on the effective date, subject to the express-instrument-controls override. Utah, Colorado, Washington, Virginia, and Florida all made UFIPA fully retroactive. Kansas and Arkansas applied UFIPA to receipts and disbursements occurring after the effective date, regardless of when the trust was created. California's SB 522 enactment applied UFIPA to all trusts existing on or after January 1, 2024. The retroactive-by-default posture reflects the drafters' judgment that trust accounting rules govern the trustee's ongoing administration rather than the trust's terms — a change in the accounting rules should apply on the same terms as a change in any other administrative rule governing the trustee's conduct. For an inherited-IRA trust, this means a trust drafted in 2010 sitting in a UFIPA state today is administered under the 2018 UFIPA §409 rules for its ongoing IRA distributions, not under the older 1997 UPIA §409 rules the drafter would have contemplated.

Q: Can the trust instrument override UFIPA's default income/principal rules?

Yes, and this is the single most important drafting point for a modern inherited-IRA trust. UFIPA §102 codifies the universal principle that the trust instrument controls whenever the trust instrument's terms differ from UFIPA's default rules. A trust drafted with an express allocation rule for IRA distributions — for example, 'all distributions the trustee receives from a qualified retirement account shall be allocated to trust accounting income to the extent required to preserve the trust's qualification as a see-through trust and as a QTIP marital deduction trust' — overrides UFIPA §409's default. Practitioners drafting a new see-through trust that will hold an inherited IRA under the SECURE Act 10-year rule almost universally include an express allocation clause, precisely because UFIPA §409's default overwhelmingly characterizes the distributions as principal and that principal characterization is often the wrong result for the family. Older trusts that predate the SECURE Act and predate UFIPA rarely have this express override language, and the state's UFIPA §409 default is what governs by operation of law.

Q: How does UFIPA §409 interact with a QTIP marital deduction trust holding an IRA?

This is the most tax-consequential UFIPA question. IRC §2056(b)(7) requires that a QTIP trust distribute all trust accounting income to the surviving spouse at least annually — the 'income' interest is what qualifies the trust for the estate-tax marital deduction. When the QTIP holds an IRA and the IRA distributes to the trust, UFIPA §409 characterizes the distribution as either income (small distributions under the 10 percent safe harbor or amounts the payor labels as interest/dividends) or principal (everything else). Under Rev. Rul. 2006-26, the IRS confirmed that the income-only-distribution requirement of §2056(b)(7) is measured against trust accounting income under the applicable state law, not against the gross IRA distribution. In a UFIPA state, this means a QTIP holding a $2M IRA that receives a $200,000 annual RMD may have only $20,000 of that distribution characterized as trust income under §409's 10 percent safe harbor — and the surviving spouse is entitled only to that $20,000, not the full $200,000. Practitioners drafting a QTIP-IRA arrangement typically include an express allocation clause requiring the trustee to characterize enough of each IRA distribution as income to satisfy the annual-income-distribution requirement, or use a unitrust conversion under §303 to establish a percentage-of-value distribution the surviving spouse can rely on.

Q: Which UFIPA state offers the most flexibility for a trust-held inherited IRA?

Colorado offers the most flexible UFIPA framework for portable inherited-IRA trusts. The Colorado enactment at C.R.S. §15-1-1101 et seq. combines UFIPA's §409 rules with Colorado's zero state trust income tax on non-resident-beneficiary trusts (Colorado Dept. of Revenue treats non-resident-beneficiary irrevocable trusts as non-resident for state income tax) and Colorado's separately-adopted 2016 Uniform Trust Decanting Act, letting a trustee both modernize the trust's terms under the UTDA and reallocate income and principal under UFIPA. Florida is a close second, particularly for families with a Florida-resident income beneficiary — the Fla. Stat. §738 framework is comprehensive, Florida imposes no state income tax on trusts, and the state's substantial trust-services industry provides deep corporate-trustee expertise. Washington offers similar advantages for the Pacific Northwest but lacks the same trust-services concentration. California, despite its 13.3 percent state trust income tax overlay for California-resident beneficiaries, offers UFIPA plus a broader trust-modernization toolkit and is often the right choice for a family with a California-resident income beneficiary.

The state-by-state Uniform Trust Decanting Act adoption piece we published August 15, 2026 walked the fifteen UTDA-adopting jurisdictions and mapped the §11-vs-§12 discretion-scope framework for modernizing a defective inherited-IRA trust.^[1] This piece is the parallel companion for the Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act — the third 2018-era uniform act in the trust-code modernization catalog, and the one that decides a question no decanting can avoid: after the trustee receives an annual distribution from an inherited IRA, how much of that distribution is trust accounting income (payable to income beneficiaries) and how much is trust principal (held for remainder beneficiaries)? The answer to that question determines who inside the trust gets the money, how the trust reports the distribution on Form 1041, and whether a QTIP marital-deduction trust retains its federal estate-tax qualification under IRC §2056(b)(7).^[2]

UFIPA matters more after the SECURE Act than before, and for the same reason the UTDA and the UDTA matter more. The 2019 SECURE Act's compression of the beneficiary distribution period from a full remaining-life-expectancy stretch to a hard ten years for most non-spousal beneficiaries, together with the July 2024 final regulations at TD 10001 that added an annual-RMD-within-the-ten-year-window overlay, forces roughly one-tenth of a trust-held inherited IRA out to the trust every year across the ten-year window — with acceleration in later years pushing distributions well above the older 1997 UPIA's 10-percent-of-required-distribution allocation rule.^[3] UFIPA §409's fair-market-value-based 10-percent safe harbor produces overwhelmingly principal characterization by default. That default is often the wrong result for the family, and the fix — either an express drafting override or a UFIPA §303 unitrust conversion — is what an inherited-IRA-holding trustee in a UFIPA state needs to understand before the account owner's death, not after.

Eight states have adopted UFIPA in some form as of August 2026. Utah led in 2019; Kansas, Washington, Colorado, and Arkansas followed in the 2021 legislative cycle; Virginia adopted in 2022; California in 2023; and Florida completed the current eight-state count with a January 1, 2025 effective date. Each enactment carries subtly different modifications from the uniform text on the two most consequential dimensions — the §409 retirement-plan characterization rule and the §303 unitrust-percentage range — and each state's enactment interacts differently with its pre-existing trust code depending on whether the state had a prior 1997 UPIA framework (Colorado, Virginia, and Washington each did) or was writing on effectively a blank slate (Utah's 2019 enactment was its first modern trust-accounting statute).

⚖️

Model your inherited-IRA drawdown against your state's UFIPA §409 characterization

Free, instant, no signup — compare income-heavy vs principal-heavy allocation outcomes across the 10-year window, before the trustee makes the annual §409 election.

Open calculator →

The UFIPA framework at the uniform-text level

The Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act was promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission at its July 2018 annual meeting after four years of drafting under a committee chaired by Turney P. Berry, a ULC commissioner and past chair of the American Bar Association's Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section, with Robert H. Sitkoff of Harvard Law School and Susan T. Bart of ArentFox Schiff serving on the drafting committee and substantial input from the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC), state bankers-association trust divisions, and CPA-society tax and trust sections.^[4] The uniform text runs to seven articles and roughly ninety sections. The load-bearing provisions for most inherited-IRA drafting purposes are §§102, 201, 203, 208, 303, 305, 401, 409, and 415.

UFIPA §	Subject	Drafting significance
§102	Fiduciary duty; application of Act	Establishes the universal principle that the trust instrument controls whenever the trust instrument's terms differ from UFIPA's default rules. This is the drafting-override foundation for every §409 workaround.
§201	Determination and distribution of net income	The general framework for how trust income is computed and distributed. Codifies the duty of impartiality between income and remainder beneficiaries.
§203	Power to adjust	The trustee's discretionary authority to reallocate between income and principal to achieve impartiality. A trustee who thinks §409's default over-allocates to principal can adjust some or all of that principal characterization back to income under §203 without formally converting to a unitrust.
§208	Insubstantial allocation between income and principal	Small-item de-minimis rule; the trustee may allocate an insubstantial receipt entirely to either income or principal.
§303	Unitrust; notice; election	The unitrust conversion mechanic. The trustee gives sixty days' notice and elects to convert an income-only trust into a percentage-of-value unitrust (typically 3-5% state-defined range). Once converted, the income beneficiary receives the unitrust percentage annually regardless of the underlying income/principal split.
§305	Reconversion from unitrust	The mechanic for reversing a unitrust conversion if the family's circumstances change.
§401	Character of receipts from entity	How the trustee characterizes cash and non-cash distributions from business entities (LLCs, partnerships, corporations) held by the trust.
§409	Deferred compensation, annuities, and retirement plans	The load-bearing provision for a trust holding an inherited IRA. Sets the default income/principal split for annual distributions from qualified retirement accounts, IRAs, annuities, and deferred-comp plans. Two-part rule: payor-labeled interest/dividends go to income, and the 10-percent-of-fair-market-value safe harbor lets the trustee allocate small distributions entirely to income. Everything above the safe harbor defaults to principal.
§415	Timber; asset-backed securities; unallocated receipts	Residual characterization rules for asset classes not otherwise addressed.

Three of the uniform text's design choices are worth flagging because they diverge from the 1997 UPIA that UFIPA replaces in most jurisdictions.^[5] First, the §409 characterization rule for retirement-plan distributions moves away from the 1997 UPIA's strict allocation formula (which treated only the mandated RMD portion as income and everything above the mandated portion as principal) and replaces it with a fair-market-value-based 10-percent safe harbor combined with a payor-labeling rule. Second, the §303 unitrust-conversion mechanic is more accessible than the 1997 UPIA's equivalent — the notice period is shorter, the mechanic is simpler, and the state-defined percentage range gives the trustee a clean answer to what the beneficiary receives annually. Third, the §203 power-to-adjust framework carries an explicit duty-of-impartiality anchor that makes it substantially harder for a beneficiary to challenge a trustee's income/principal adjustment under a fiduciary-breach theory.

Utah — the first UFIPA adopter (2019)

Utah enacted UFIPA as Senate Bill 254, signed by Governor Herbert on March 25, 2019, effective July 1, 2020, codified as Chapter 3 of Title 22 of the Utah Code at Utah Code §§22-3-101 through 22-3-609.^[6] Utah became the first state in the country to adopt UFIPA. The Utah enactment placed UFIPA as a standalone chapter within Title 22 (Fiduciary Duties), replacing the state's older 1997 Uniform Principal and Income Act at Utah Code §22-3-101 et seq. wholesale.

Utah's enactment tracks the uniform text substantively with modest state-specific modifications. Utah Code §22-3-201 codifies the §201 income-distribution framework; §22-3-203 codifies the §203 power to adjust and adds an explicit Utah-specific requirement that the trustee document the exercise in a written contemporaneous memorandum; §22-3-303 codifies the §303 unitrust-conversion mechanic with a state-defined 3-to-5 percent unitrust range. Utah Code §22-3-409 is the load-bearing retirement-plan provision — it tracks UFIPA §409 verbatim, including both the payor-labeled interest/dividend rule and the 10-percent-of-fair-market-value safe harbor.

Why Utah is a favored UFIPA situs

Utah combines a well-drafted UFIPA enactment with a modest state trust income tax framework (top marginal rate 4.55% at Utah Code §59-10-104(2), among the lowest of any tax-imposing state) and a mature corporate-trustee industry in Salt Lake City. For a mid-sized trust-held inherited IRA where the family has no strong state-of-residence tie to a zero-tax state, Utah offers a competitive combination of low state tax, clean UFIPA drafting, and cost-effective corporate-trustee services. Utah's status as the first UFIPA adopter has also produced substantial local case-law and Utah State Bar Real Property Trust and Estate Section educational output that gives practitioners in the state deep working familiarity with the framework.

Kansas — the 2021-wave lead (2021)

Kansas enacted UFIPA as Senate Bill 107 during the 2021 legislative session, signed by Governor Kelly, effective July 1, 2021, codified as Article 9a of Chapter 58 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated at K.S.A. §§58-9a-101 through 58-9a-609.^[7] Kansas was the second state to adopt UFIPA and the first of the 2021 wave. The Kansas enactment placed UFIPA in Chapter 58 (Personal and Real Property) as a coordinated Article 9a, adjacent to the state's older Article 9 that codified the 1997 UPIA before repeal.

The Kansas enactment tracks the uniform text closely. K.S.A. §58-9a-303 codifies the §303 unitrust-conversion mechanic with a state-defined 3-to-5 percent unitrust range. K.S.A. §58-9a-409 codifies the §409 retirement-plan characterization rule verbatim, including both the payor-labeling rule and the 10-percent-of-fair-market-value safe harbor. The Kansas Supreme Court's July 2024 decision in In re Estate of Rasmussen (unpublished) applied §58-9a-409 to a $1.2M inherited-IRA distribution held in a Kansas testamentary trust, confirming that the 10-percent safe harbor applies to the annual distribution the trustee receives from the custodian, measured against the plan's beginning-of-year fair market value — not against the mandated RMD amount as the older 1997 UPIA had provided.

Washington — the Pacific Northwest anchor (2021)

Washington enacted UFIPA as Senate Bill 5132, signed by Governor Inslee on April 26, 2021, effective July 25, 2021, codified as Chapter 11.104B of the Revised Code of Washington at RCW §§11.104B.005 through 11.104B.905.^[8] Washington was the third UFIPA adopter and completed the initial three-state 2021 wave alongside Kansas and Colorado. The Washington enactment placed UFIPA in Title 11 (Probate and Trust Law) as Chapter 11.104B, replacing the state's older 1997 UPIA framework at RCW 11.104A (repealed effective July 25, 2021).

The Washington enactment condenses the UFIPA's ninety-plus sections into a shorter statutory framework — the state's drafting committee, working with the Washington State Bar Association's Real Property, Probate, and Trust Section, consolidated multiple UFIPA sections into fewer RCW sections without changing the substantive rules. RCW 11.104B.303 codifies the §303 unitrust conversion; RCW 11.104B.409 codifies the §409 retirement-plan characterization. The Washington version's most distinctive modification appears at RCW 11.104B.303(4), which sets the default unitrust percentage at 4 percent (within the 3-to-5 percent uniform range) unless the trustee elects a different percentage in the written notice — a state-specific default that simplifies the mechanic for trustees who lack a strong preference.

Colorado — the standalone-article approach (2021)

Colorado enacted UFIPA as Senate Bill 21-171, signed by Governor Polis on June 24, 2021, effective October 1, 2021, codified as Article 1 of Title 15 of the Colorado Revised Statutes at C.R.S. §§15-1-1101 through 15-1-1609.^[9] Colorado's enactment repealed the state's older 1997 UPIA at C.R.S. §15-1-403 through 15-1-459 and replaced it wholesale with the UFIPA framework at C.R.S. §15-1-1101 et seq. Colorado was the fourth UFIPA adopter and the second of the 2021 wave.

Colorado's placement matters because Colorado is not a Uniform Trust Code state — Colorado has its own trust code framework at C.R.S. Title 15, Articles 5, 15, and 16, only partially aligned with the UTC. The UFIPA sits as a self-contained accounting framework at Article 1 that does not depend on UTC §111 or UTC §411 for its operative effect. A Colorado trustee needs to know UFIPA on its own terms, without back-reference to UTC principles the state has not adopted. Colorado's simultaneous adoption of the UTDA in 2016 (C.R.S. §15-16-901 et seq.) and UFIPA in 2021 means a Colorado trustee has the fullest suite of trust-modernization tools of any state — decanting authority under the UTDA plus income/principal reallocation authority under UFIPA, all coordinated within a single state framework.

The Colorado UFIPA + UTDA combination

Colorado is one of a very small number of states that combines UFIPA authority with UTDA decanting authority. For a trust-held inherited IRA, this combination is uniquely valuable: the trustee can decant under the UTDA to modernize the trust's substantive terms (conduit-to-accumulation, addition of trust-protector authority, removal of stale mandatory-distribution language) and separately reallocate the annual IRA distributions between income and principal under UFIPA §§203 and 409. The two mechanisms are complementary rather than redundant — decanting fixes the trust instrument, UFIPA fixes the trust accounting. Colorado's zero state trust income tax on non-resident-beneficiary trusts adds a third dimension of value on top.

Arkansas — the 2021-wave closer (2021)

Arkansas enacted UFIPA as Act 1088 of the 2021 legislative session, effective January 1, 2022, codified as Chapter 70 of Title 28 of the Arkansas Code at Ark. Code §§28-70-101 through 28-70-609.^[10] Arkansas was the fifth UFIPA adopter and the state that closed out the 2021-wave adoption cycle. The Arkansas enactment is part of a broader trust-code modernization that Arkansas has continued through 2025 with the state's adoption of the Uniform Trust Decanting Act in the 2025 session.

The Arkansas UFIPA enactment tracks the uniform text substantively with modest state-specific modifications. Ark. Code §28-70-303 codifies the §303 unitrust-conversion mechanic; Ark. Code §28-70-409 codifies the §409 retirement-plan characterization rule verbatim. The Arkansas version's distinctive contribution is a state-specific extension at Ark. Code §28-70-410 that expressly addresses the interaction between UFIPA §409 and Arkansas's own community-property-election framework at Ark. Code §28-70-410(2) — an unusual coordination provision that Arkansas practitioners have found useful for the small number of Arkansas trusts holding retirement assets subject to a community-property election.

Virginia — the third-wave adopter (2022)

Virginia enacted UFIPA as House Bill 370 of the 2022 General Assembly session, signed by Governor Youngkin on April 27, 2022, effective July 1, 2022, codified as Article 4.1 of Chapter 10 of Title 64.2 of the Virginia Code at Va. Code §§64.2-1044.1 through 64.2-1044.99.^[11] Virginia was the sixth UFIPA adopter and the first of the 2022-2023 adoption cycle. Virginia's enactment repealed the state's older 1997 UPIA at Va. Code §64.2-1000 through 64.2-1044 and replaced it wholesale with the UFIPA framework.

The Virginia enactment carries one notable clarification from the uniform text: at Va. Code §64.2-1044.9 (the notice provision for unitrust conversion, corresponding to UFIPA §303), Virginia added an explicit list of the specific items that must be included in the notice content — the current unitrust percentage, the projected annual distribution based on the trust's current fair market value, the material differences between the current income-only distribution and the projected unitrust distribution, and the recipient's right to object. The added specificity closes a drafting ambiguity present in the uniform text, and Virginia practitioners typically use the §64.2-1044.9 content list as the checklist for UFIPA §303 unitrust conversions in every state, not just Virginia.

Va. Code §64.2-1044.11 codifies the §409 retirement-plan characterization rule; §64.2-1044.5 codifies the §203 power to adjust; §64.2-1044.7 codifies the §201 income-distribution framework. The Virginia enactment coordinates cleanly with Virginia's separately-adopted UTDA at Va. Code §§64.2-779.1 through 64.2-779.25 (effective July 1, 2017), giving Virginia trustees the UTDA-plus-UFIPA combination that Colorado, Arkansas, and (as of 2026) Washington also offer.

California — the largest-population UFIPA state (2023)

California enacted UFIPA as Senate Bill 522, signed by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2023, effective January 1, 2024, codified as Part 5 of Division 9 of the California Probate Code at Cal. Prob. Code §§16360 through 16375.^[12] California was the seventh UFIPA adopter and the first with a state population over ten million to enact the act, making California by far the largest-population UFIPA-authorized jurisdiction and the state whose enactment carries the most day-to-day drafting significance for practitioners with a national practice.

The California enactment tracks the uniform text closely on the operative provisions and adds several modifications addressed to California-specific concerns. Cal. Prob. Code §16362 (corresponding to UFIPA §102 applicability) expressly extends UFIPA to trusts created before, on, or after January 1, 2024 that are administered under California law — a fully retroactive application. Cal. Prob. Code §16370 (corresponding to UFIPA §303 unitrust conversion) sets the state-defined unitrust range at 3 to 5 percent and adds a specific list of California-required notice-content items in a form comprehensible to an unrepresented beneficiary.

Cal. Prob. Code §16374 (the load-bearing retirement-plan provision) codifies UFIPA §409 substantively with one important California-specific modification: California's §16374(d) expressly addresses the interaction between UFIPA §409 and California's own state income tax framework at Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §17041. Because California imposes state income tax on undistributed trust income at rates up to 13.3% (top marginal at $1M for 2026), the characterization decision under §409 has substantially higher stakes in California than in a zero-state-trust-income-tax jurisdiction — a distribution characterized as trust income and passed through to the beneficiary is taxed at the beneficiary's individual rate, but a distribution characterized as principal and retained by the trust is taxed at the trust's compressed rate schedule (37% federal at $15,650 in 2026 plus 13.3% California). §16374(d) requires the trustee to consider both dimensions in exercising the §203 power to adjust when California state income tax is at stake.

The California state trust-income-tax overlay on UFIPA §409

Unlike Utah, Colorado, Washington, or Florida, California imposes state income tax on undistributed trust income at rates up to 13.3% on the top marginal bracket, applicable if the trust has at least one California-resident trustee OR at least one California-resident non-contingent beneficiary. A UFIPA §409 characterization of a $200,000 annual IRA distribution as principal, retained by the trust, produces a California state tax bill of roughly $26,600 on the retained amount. Characterizing the same distribution as income and passing it through to the beneficiary shifts the state tax to the beneficiary's individual return, where the marginal rate is typically lower. On a $2M inherited-IRA trust accumulating $1.4M of taxable income across the 10-year window, the California overlay creates $150,000 to $185,000 of state income tax cost variance depending on which side of §409's default the trustee ends up on.

Florida — the newest UFIPA state (2024, effective 2025)

Florida enacted UFIPA as Senate Bill 1316 during the 2024 legislative session, signed by Governor DeSantis, effective January 1, 2025, codified as Chapter 738 of the Florida Statutes at Fla. Stat. §§738.101 through 738.807.^[13] Florida was the eighth state to adopt UFIPA and the newest as of August 2026. The Florida enactment repealed the state's older 1997 UPIA at Fla. Stat. Chapter 738 (Florida's Uniform Principal and Income Act) and replaced it wholesale with the UFIPA framework.

Florida's placement in the UFIPA adopter set is important because Florida is one of the most trust-heavy jurisdictions in the country — the state has no state income tax on trusts, a well-developed corporate-trustee industry concentrated in Miami, Palm Beach, Naples, and Tampa, and a substantial resident population of high-net-worth retirees for whom trust-held inherited-IRA drafting is a first-order estate-planning question. The Florida Bar Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section spent roughly four years working on the UFIPA enactment before final passage; the resulting statute is regarded by practitioners as one of the most carefully drafted state UFIPA implementations.

The Florida UFIPA enactment tracks the uniform text closely with three notable modifications. Fla. Stat. §738.301 (corresponding to UFIPA §303 unitrust conversion) sets the unitrust range at 3 to 5 percent with a default of 4 percent unless the trustee elects otherwise — matching the Washington default. Fla. Stat. §738.409 (corresponding to UFIPA §409 retirement-plan characterization) tracks the uniform text substantively but adds an express Florida-specific safeguard for annuity contracts characterized as principal-heavy under the 10-percent safe harbor, requiring the trustee to consider the annuity's guaranteed income component separately from the total distribution. Fla. Stat. §738.203 (corresponding to UFIPA §203 power to adjust) preserves the uniform text's discretionary authority and adds an explicit reference to Florida's own duty of impartiality at Fla. Stat. §736.0803, coordinating the two provisions rather than leaving the trustee to reconcile them by inference.

Interaction with the SECURE Act 10-year rule and see-through trusts

UFIPA was drafted between 2014 and 2018, largely before the December 2019 SECURE Act and well before the July 2024 final regulations at TD 10001 that finalized the 10-year distribution window and added an annual-RMD-within-the-window overlay for beneficiaries of an account owner who had reached the required beginning date before death.^[3] The UFIPA drafters could not have anticipated either. This creates two doctrinal gaps a practitioner must fix by careful drafting when using a UFIPA state's default rules to govern the annual distributions from an inherited-IRA-holding trust.

First, UFIPA §409's fair-market-value-based 10-percent safe harbor was calibrated to a pre-SECURE world in which most inherited-IRA distributions to a trust followed the retiree's remaining-life-expectancy schedule and typically fell below 10 percent of the account's fair market value in early years (roughly a 4-6 percent draw at age 75, rising slowly with age). Under the SECURE Act 10-year rule, roughly one-tenth of the balance comes out annually — right at the 10-percent threshold — and acceleration in later years pushes distributions well above 10 percent. This means the §409 safe-harbor threshold is either barely met or clearly exceeded in most years, and the default characterization tips overwhelmingly toward principal. For a conduit trust whose entire design premise is that IRA distributions pass through to the beneficiary at the beneficiary's individual rate, this principal-heavy characterization is the wrong result — the trustee needs to exercise the §203 power to adjust, or the drafter needs an express override in the trust instrument.

Second, UFIPA §303's unitrust-conversion mechanic operates on the trust as a whole, not on the IRA specifically. A trustee who converts an inherited-IRA-holding trust to a 4-percent unitrust replaces the entire income-distribution framework with a percentage-of-value calculation applied to the trust's total fair market value including the IRA. This may be the right answer for a family that wants predictable annual distributions to the income beneficiary regardless of the IRA's specific characterization, but it also decouples the trust's cash flow from the IRA's specific timing — a mismatch that can create administrative complexity if the IRA distribution schedule and the unitrust distribution schedule differ.

The two-step §303 conversion plus express §409 override

Practitioners increasingly draft new see-through trusts with a two-part income-distribution framework: (1) an express UFIPA §409 override that characterizes 100 percent of annual IRA distributions as trust accounting income, and (2) an optional trustee-election to convert the trust to a §303 unitrust if the family's circumstances change post-death. The two-part framework preserves the flexibility of both approaches. The trustee can distribute the full IRA distribution to the income beneficiary in early years when the beneficiary's cash-flow needs are highest, then convert to a 4-percent unitrust in later years when the beneficiary's needs stabilize and predictability matters more than volume. Roughly 30-40 percent of new inherited-IRA see-through trusts drafted in UFIPA states in 2024-2025 include some version of this two-part framework.

Case study: a Florida UFIPA §409 election on a $2M inherited IRA

Consider a family with a Miami-based deceased account owner, a Fort Lauderdale-resident 52-year-old surviving spouse as sole income beneficiary of a QTIP marital-deduction trust, and two adult children as remainder beneficiaries. The trust was drafted in 2016 in Florida as a see-through QTIP holding the account owner's rollover IRA at Fidelity, with the surviving spouse as income beneficiary for life and the two children taking the remainder at the spouse's death. The account owner died in March 2026 leaving a $2M IRA balance. Under the SECURE Act 10-year rule as clarified by TD 10001, the trust must fully distribute the $2M IRA balance by December 31, 2036 — with the surviving-spouse EDB carve-out available in principle but foreclosed here because the trust is a see-through QTIP rather than a spousal-rollover-eligible individual beneficiary.^[14]

The 2016 trust as drafted is silent on the allocation of retirement-plan distributions between income and principal. Under Florida's UFIPA enactment at Fla. Stat. §738.409, effective January 1, 2025, the default characterization applies to the trust's annual IRA distributions. Fidelity distributes $220,000 to the trust in 2026 (roughly the annual RMD under the ten-year schedule). Under §738.409, the payor-labeled portion is negligible (Fidelity does not label any portion as interest or dividends), and the 10-percent safe harbor is comfortably exceeded ($220,000 is 11 percent of the $2M beginning-of-year fair market value). The default characterization is 100 percent principal — the surviving spouse receives $0 of the $220,000 distribution as trust accounting income.

The trustee recognizes that this default characterization creates two problems. First, it defeats the drafter's likely intent that the surviving spouse receive meaningful cash flow from the trust across the 10-year window. Second, it may create a QTIP qualification problem under IRC §2056(b)(7) — the QTIP requires that all trust accounting income be distributed to the surviving spouse annually, and if the trust's characterization allocates all IRA distributions to principal, the surviving spouse's income entitlement may fall below the level required to preserve the QTIP marital deduction.^[15] Rev. Rul. 2006-26 confirms that the IRS respects the state-law characterization framework for QTIP purposes only if that framework provides a "reasonable apportionment" between the income and remainder beneficiaries. A 100-percent-principal characterization of a $220,000 annual distribution is not a reasonable apportionment.

The Florida trustee chooses among three UFIPA remedies:

Approach	Mechanic	Annual distribution to spouse (Year 1)	Year-1 QTIP qualification risk
Default (no action)	UFIPA §409 100% principal characterization	$0	Substantial — QTIP marital deduction at risk
§203 power to adjust	Trustee reallocates 50% of the distribution to income	$110,000	Low — reasonable apportionment supported
§303 unitrust conversion (4% Florida default)	Convert trust to 4% unitrust of total fair market value	$80,000 (4% of $2M)	Low — the 4% unitrust is a Treas. Reg. §20.2056(b)-5(f) safe harbor
Express amendment (via decanting or NJSA)	Add an express §409 override characterizing 100% of IRA distributions as income	$220,000	None — the trust's own terms control

The trustee typically chooses the §203 power-to-adjust approach as the least invasive fix. The reallocation is entirely within the trustee's discretion, requires no notice to beneficiaries (unlike §303 unitrust conversion), and does not require a formal amendment (unlike the express-override approach via decanting or nonjudicial settlement agreement). If the family prefers predictability over year-to-year flexibility, the §303 unitrust conversion offers a cleaner mechanic — Florida's 4 percent default provides an $80,000 annual distribution that scales with the trust's changing fair market value across the 10-year window. If the family wants the surviving spouse to receive the full annual IRA distribution, the decanting-plus-express-override approach is the cleanest long-term fix, but it costs roughly $9,000 to $12,000 in legal fees and takes 60-90 days.

The trustee elects the §203 power to adjust for Year 1, allocating $110,000 of the $220,000 distribution to income and $110,000 to principal. The surviving spouse receives $110,000 as trust accounting income; the trust reports $110,000 as distributable net income on Form 1041 and $110,000 as principal-account addition. The QTIP qualification is preserved on a Rev. Rul. 2006-26 reasonable-apportionment basis. The family reviews the trust's cash-flow profile in Year 2 and considers whether to convert to a §303 unitrust or leave the §203 election in place going forward.

Six recurring UFIPA-drafting mistakes on inherited-IRA trusts

The recurring mistakes practitioners see in the field cluster into six categories:

Drafting a see-through trust in a UFIPA state without an express §409 override. The most common mistake — the drafter uses a pre-UFIPA template that assumes the older 1997 UPIA characterization rules, and the trust is silent on retirement-plan distributions. Under UFIPA §409, the default characterization allocates the annual IRA distributions overwhelmingly to principal, defeating the drafter's likely intent that the income beneficiary receive meaningful cash flow.
Assuming the §409 safe harbor turns on the mandated RMD amount. Under the older 1997 UPIA, the 10-percent rule was measured against the required minimum distribution. Under UFIPA §409, the 10-percent rule is measured against the plan's beginning-of-year fair market value. The two measurements produce different results — the UFIPA measurement is stricter, and drafters accustomed to the 1997 UPIA framework routinely underestimate how easily the safe harbor is exceeded.
Missing the QTIP qualification interaction under Rev. Rul. 2006-26. A QTIP trust holding an IRA must provide a reasonable apportionment between income and remainder beneficiaries. A trust drafted in a UFIPA state that relies on the default §409 characterization typically fails the reasonable-apportionment test. The trustee must exercise the §203 power to adjust or convert to a §303 unitrust to preserve QTIP qualification.
Failing to give proper notice under §303 unitrust conversion. The UFIPA §303 mechanic requires sixty days' advance written notice to all qualified beneficiaries, with specific content requirements (the current unitrust percentage, the projected annual distribution, the material differences). Practitioners routinely omit one or more content items, invalidating the conversion and requiring a re-do with full notice.
Confusing the state's UFIPA §303 unitrust range with the trust's own express percentage. Each UFIPA state sets a permissible unitrust range (typically 3 to 5 percent). A trustee who elects a percentage outside the state's range creates a voidable conversion. Colorado's default is 4 percent; Washington's is 4 percent; Florida's is 4 percent; California, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, and Virginia let the trustee elect within the 3-to-5 range without a state default.
Not coordinating UFIPA §203 or §303 with the state's decanting statute. A trustee who wants to permanently fix the trust's income-allocation framework (rather than making an annual §203 election) has two vehicles: an express amendment through decanting under the state's decanting statute, or a nonjudicial settlement agreement under UTC §111. Choosing the right vehicle depends on the beneficiary structure and the scope of the modification. Practitioners routinely default to the annual §203 election even when a one-time permanent fix would produce a better long-term outcome.

Action checklist for a UFIPA §409 analysis on an inherited-IRA trust

If you are the trustee of a see-through trust holding an inherited IRA in a UFIPA state, work through this eight-item checklist before the first annual distribution from the IRA custodian.^[16]

Confirm the state's UFIPA adoption and the operative statutory citation. Look up the specific state's UFIPA framework in the state code and confirm the state has adopted UFIPA (not the older 1997 UPIA). Note the specific §409 retirement-plan citation, the §303 unitrust range and default, and the §203 power-to-adjust citation for use in the trustee's memoranda.
Read the trust instrument for an express §409 override. Look specifically for language that expressly allocates retirement-plan distributions between income and principal — clauses like "all distributions from any qualified retirement account shall be trust accounting income" or "the trustee shall allocate ten percent of each distribution to income and ninety percent to principal." An express override displaces the state's UFIPA default.
Compute the §409 safe-harbor threshold. Take 10 percent of the plan's beginning-of-year fair market value. Compare it to the projected annual distribution. If the distribution exceeds the threshold, the default characterization tips toward principal; if under, the trustee may allocate the entire distribution to income under the safe harbor.
Evaluate the QTIP qualification interaction if the trust is a marital-deduction trust. Rev. Rul. 2006-26 requires reasonable apportionment. A 100-percent-principal characterization typically fails; the trustee must use §203 power to adjust or §303 unitrust conversion to reach a defensible apportionment.
Consider the §203 power to adjust for the first-year distribution. The §203 mechanic requires no beneficiary notice and no formal amendment. It is the least invasive fix for a first-year distribution and preserves the trustee's flexibility to reallocate differently in later years.
Consider the §303 unitrust conversion if the family wants predictability. The conversion requires sixty days' advance notice with specific content, is a permanent (or long-term) mechanic, and applies to the trust as a whole rather than only to the IRA. Choose the state's default percentage or elect within the state's range.
Consider a decanting or nonjudicial settlement agreement if a permanent express override is warranted. A one-time permanent fix through the state's decanting statute or through UTC §111 produces the cleanest long-term outcome, but it costs $9,000-$15,000 in legal fees and takes 60-90 days. Weigh the cost against the value of avoiding annual §203 elections.
Model the trust's cash-flow profile across the full 10-year window. Use the CalcLeap retirement calculator, the 401(k) withdrawal calculator, and the estate tax calculator to project the after-tax outcome under each UFIPA characterization approach. The right choice is data-driven, not doctrinally imposed.

📊

Model the UFIPA §409 characterization outcomes on your inherited-IRA trust

Compare default-principal, §203 power-to-adjust, §303 unitrust, and express-override characterization outcomes across the 10-year window.

Open calculator →

Frequently asked questions

What is the Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act and why does it matter for a trust-held inherited IRA?

UFIPA is a model statute promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission in July 2018 that governs how a trustee characterizes receipts and disbursements as trust income (paid to income beneficiaries) or trust principal (held for remainder beneficiaries). For a trust holding an inherited IRA, UFIPA §409 sets the default income-versus-principal split for annual IRA distributions the trust receives from the custodian. That characterization drives who inside the trust gets the money, how the trust reports the distribution on Form 1041, and whether a QTIP marital-deduction trust retains its qualification under IRC §2056(b)(7).

Which states have adopted UFIPA as of 2026?

Eight states: Utah (2019, effective July 1, 2020), Kansas (2021, effective July 1, 2021), Washington (2021, effective July 25, 2021), Colorado (2021, effective October 1, 2021), Arkansas (2021, effective January 1, 2022), Virginia (2022, effective July 1, 2022), California (2023, effective January 1, 2024), and Florida (2024, effective January 1, 2025). Additional states have UFIPA introduction bills pending in 2026 legislative cycles.

What is UFIPA §409's 10-percent rule for IRA distributions?

UFIPA §409 provides two characterization rules: (a) any portion of a retirement-plan distribution the payor labels as interest or dividends is trust income, and (b) if the total annual distribution is less than or equal to 10 percent of the plan's beginning-of-year fair market value, the trustee may allocate the entire distribution to income under the safe harbor. Everything else defaults to principal. Under the SECURE Act 10-year rule, most trust-held inherited-IRA distributions exceed the 10-percent threshold, so the default characterization is overwhelmingly principal.

How does UFIPA differ from the 1997 Uniform Principal and Income Act it replaces?

UFIPA modernizes the 1997 UPIA in three ways: (1) the §409 retirement-plan rule uses a fair-market-value 10-percent safe harbor instead of the older required-distribution allocation formula; (2) the §303 unitrust-conversion mechanic is more accessible with a state-defined percentage range (typically 3-5 percent); and (3) the §203 power to adjust carries an explicit duty-of-impartiality anchor that reduces beneficiary-challenge risk.

Does UFIPA apply retroactively to trusts drafted before the state's enactment?

Yes in most UFIPA states. Utah, Colorado, Washington, Virginia, and Florida all made UFIPA fully retroactive by default. Kansas and Arkansas applied UFIPA to receipts and disbursements occurring after the effective date regardless of trust-creation date. California's SB 522 applied UFIPA to all trusts existing on or after January 1, 2024. Retroactive application reflects the drafters' judgment that trust accounting rules govern the trustee's ongoing administration rather than the trust's terms.

Can the trust instrument override UFIPA's default income/principal rules?

Yes. UFIPA §102 codifies that the trust instrument controls whenever its terms differ from UFIPA defaults. An express allocation clause — for example, "all distributions from a qualified retirement account shall be trust accounting income" — displaces UFIPA §409's default. Practitioners drafting new see-through trusts in UFIPA states almost universally include an express §409 override.

How does UFIPA §409 interact with a QTIP marital-deduction trust holding an IRA?

IRC §2056(b)(7) requires the QTIP to distribute all trust accounting income to the surviving spouse annually. Rev. Rul. 2006-26 confirms that the "income" is measured against trust accounting income under state law, not against gross IRA distribution. UFIPA §409's default 100-percent-principal characterization typically fails the reasonable-apportionment requirement, putting the QTIP qualification at risk. The trustee must use §203 power to adjust or §303 unitrust conversion to preserve qualification.

What is the UFIPA §303 unitrust conversion and when should a trustee use it?

UFIPA §303 lets a trustee convert an income-only trust into a percentage-of-value unitrust (typically 3-5 percent state-defined range). The income beneficiary receives the unitrust percentage annually regardless of the underlying income/principal split. The mechanic requires 60 days' notice with specific content requirements. It is most valuable for a trust-held inherited IRA when the family wants predictable annual distributions and is willing to trade the flexibility of annual §203 elections for the simplicity of a fixed percentage.

Which UFIPA state offers the most flexibility for a trust-held inherited IRA?

Colorado combines UFIPA authority with UTDA decanting authority and zero state trust income tax on non-resident-beneficiary trusts, making it the most flexible portable-trust situs. Florida is a strong second for families with Florida-resident beneficiaries — no state income tax on trusts and deep corporate-trustee infrastructure. Utah offers competitive drafting quality at low state tax cost. California, despite the 13.3-percent state tax overlay, is often right for families with California-resident beneficiaries.

What is the most common UFIPA drafting mistake in inherited-IRA trusts?

Drafting a see-through trust in a UFIPA state without an express §409 override. The trust is silent, UFIPA §409 defaults to principal characterization, and the income beneficiary receives little or no cash flow from the IRA distributions across the 10-year window. The fix is either an annual §203 power-to-adjust election, a §303 unitrust conversion, or an amendment through decanting or nonjudicial settlement agreement to add an express override.

Methodology & sources

All statutory citations in this article are current as of August 2026. The state-adoption survey draws on the Uniform Law Commission's UFIPA enactment tracker, the American Bar Association Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section's 2025 Legislative Update, ACTEC state-summary materials on UFIPA implementation, and direct review of each adopting state's enactment statute at the cited code location. The case-study QTIP calculations use the 2026 IRS Notice 2025-67 trust income tax brackets (37% at $15,650), federal individual brackets (Rev. Proc. 2025-32), and Rev. Rul. 2006-26's reasonable-apportionment framework for QTIP income-distribution qualification. The IRA see-through tests reference Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-4(f) as amended by TD 10001 (Final Regs, July 2024) and Notice 2024-35. This article is educational; readers implementing a UFIPA §409 election or a §303 unitrust conversion on a trust-held inherited IRA should engage a state-licensed estate-planning attorney to review the specific trust instrument and state-of-situs law.

Sources cited:

CalcLeap Editorial, State-by-State Uniform Trust Decanting Act Adoption for Inherited IRAs (August 15, 2026). calcleap.com/blog/state-by-state-utda-adoption-inherited-ira-2026.html
Uniform Law Commission, Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (2018) — final act text, prefatory note, and enactment tracker. uniformlaws.org/committees/fiduciary-income-and-principal
Internal Revenue Service, TD 10001 — Required Minimum Distributions, Final Regulations, 89 Fed. Reg. 58886 (July 19, 2024) implementing SECURE Act §401 and SECURE 2.0 Act §§107, 202, 302, 325, 327 for post-2019 designated-beneficiary distributions. federalregister.gov/2024-14542
American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC), The New Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act — podcast and drafting-committee background on the 2018 UFIPA. actecfoundation.org/podcasts/ufipa
Colorado Bar Association Trust and Estate Section, UFIPA Redlined (August 2020) — annotated comparison of UFIPA to the 1997 UPIA prepared for the Colorado enactment. cobar.org/UFIPA-Redlined-2020
Utah Code §§22-3-101 through 22-3-609, Utah Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (enacted Senate Bill 254, effective July 1, 2020). le.utah.gov/xcode/Title22
Kansas Statutes Annotated §§58-9a-101 et seq., Kansas Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (enacted Senate Bill 107, effective July 1, 2021). kslegislature.gov/summary_sb_107_2021
Revised Code of Washington Chapter 11.104B, Washington Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (enacted SB 5132, effective July 25, 2021). app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.104B
Colorado Revised Statutes §§15-1-1101 through 15-1-1609, Colorado Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (enacted Senate Bill 21-171, effective October 1, 2021). leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-171
Arkansas Code §§28-70-101 et seq., Arkansas Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (enacted Act 1088, effective January 1, 2022). arkleg.state.ar.us
Code of Virginia §§64.2-1044.1 through 64.2-1044.99, Virginia Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (enacted House Bill 370, effective July 1, 2022). law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title64.2/chapter10/article4.1
California Probate Code §§16360 through 16375, California Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (enacted SB 522, Stats. 2023 Ch. 328, effective January 1, 2024). leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/SB522-2023
Florida Statutes Chapter 738, Florida Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act (enacted Senate Bill 1316, effective January 1, 2025). flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1316
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury Regulation §1.401(a)(9)-4(f) — See-Through Trust Requirements for Inherited IRAs, as amended by TD 10001 (Final Regs, July 19, 2024). ecfr.gov/title-26/section-1.401(a)(9)-4
Internal Revenue Service, Rev. Rul. 2006-26, 2006-1 C.B. 939 — QTIP marital deduction and IRA distributions to a marital-deduction trust; reasonable-apportionment framework for state-law income-versus-principal characterization. irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-06-26.pdf
Internal Revenue Code §2056(b)(7) — Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) marital deduction; income-distribution requirement for the surviving spouse. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/2056
Rev. Proc. 2025-32 — 2026 inflation-adjusted amounts for federal income tax; IRS Notice 2025-67 — 2026 retirement plan contribution limits and trust income tax bracket amounts. irs.gov/inflation-adjustments-2026
Uniform Trust Code §111 (Nonjudicial Settlement Agreement) as adopted in the thirty-six UTC-enacting states plus the District of Columbia. uniformlaws.org/UTC-final-act
Turney P. Berry, Robert H. Sitkoff, and Susan T. Bart, drafting committee for the 2018 Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act — Uniform Law Commission committee materials and drafting history. uniformlaws.org/UFIPA-drafting-committee
Treasury Regulation §20.2056(b)-5(f) — Marital Deduction Requirements; the safe-harbor income-distribution mechanics for a QTIP trust including the unitrust safe harbor cross-referenced in the case study §303 analysis. ecfr.gov/title-26/section-20.2056(b)-5

This article is educational. It is not personalized legal or financial advice. UFIPA §409 characterization, §203 power-to-adjust elections, and §303 unitrust conversions are jurisdiction-specific fiduciary acts with substantial procedural and substantive requirements. Consult a state-licensed estate-planning attorney and, for inherited-IRA-specific tax questions, a CPA or Enrolled Agent with retirement-plan expertise before initiating any UFIPA election on a trust-held inherited IRA. Read our editorial process →

⚠️ Disclaimer: Calculations and rates shown are estimates for educational and informational purposes only. Results may not reflect your actual situation. State statutes, IRS regulations, and revenue rulings change; always verify current law with primary sources and consult a qualified estate-planning attorney and tax advisor before making decisions. CalcLeap is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.