ILNews

SCOTUS adds IRA dispute in effort to avoid future chaos

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

In agreeing to hear an appeal on the question of whether retirement funds remain retirement funds after they are inherited, the Supreme Court of the United States seems to be acknowledging that what is today a rare question could arise more often as the population ages and more parents leave money to their children.

The case, Clark v. Rameker, 13-299, came from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and concerns an Individual Retirement Account passed down to a daughter who subsequently filed for bankruptcy. Judge Frank Easterbrook, writing for the court, held that when the IRA was inherited by someone other than the owner’s spouse, it was no longer exempt from creditors’ claims.

This decision, handed down in April 2013, is contrary to a March 2012 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and opened a split within the Circuit courts.

dible-jeffrey-mug Dible

While a split alone is not always enough to entice the Supreme Court to wade into a dispute, some attorneys speculate that the justices added this case to the current docket because they want to clarify the law now, rather than let chaos prevail if the issue of exemption increasingly comes up as the baby boomers leave behind assets.

John Carr, of counsel at Ayres Carr & Sullivan P.C., described the question surrounding inherited IRAs as an emerging issue. He’s not surprised it caught the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is a significant issue concerning the debtor’s right to an exemption or right to a fresh start versus receiving a windfall at the expense of the creditors,” Carr said. “Are they getting a fresh start or a head start?”

Public policy has been designed to reward individuals who save for retirement by keeping those accounts beyond creditors’ reach. Any time IRA owners get into financial difficulties, their assets intended for financial support in retirement will be protected.

Courts have had to decide a handful of times whether that protection continues when a non-spouse inherits the IRA. The cases that have popped up in U.S. Bankruptcy and District courts have focused on Section 522 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This federal provision provides an exemption for IRA owners and trumps all state bankruptcy codes.

The decision for In re Chilton, 674 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2012), was the first time the question reached a federal court of appeals. Using the plain-meaning doctrine that Congress said exactly what it meant, the court held that an IRA passed along after the death of the owner still met the main characteristic in that the money was “set apart” for retirement. Consequently, the funds remained exempt from any bankruptcy proceeding.

Easterbrook was clear that the 7th Circuit disagreed with that analysis. The Chicago-based court used the rational-basis test and found that there is some ambiguity in what constitutes a retirement fund. In considering the Clark case, the 7th Circuit held that even though the inherited IRA continued to be sheltered from taxes until the money was withdrawn, the account had lost other key attributes.

Namely, the beneficiary could not contribute to the IRA nor roll it over into any other account. Also, the beneficiary was not allowed to hold the funds until her own retirement but had to begin making withdrawals within a year of the owner’s death.

The dispute before the 7th Circuit centered on Heidi Heffron-Clark and the IRA worth about $300,000 she inherited after her mother, Ruth Heffron, died in 2001. When the pizza parlor owned by Clark and her husband, Brandon, failed in 2010, the couple filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy but claimed the inherited IRA was still a retirement fund and, therefore, was exempt from creditors under Section 522.

Robert Martin, chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, ruled the exemption did not apply to inherited IRAs, but the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin reversed.

Easterbrook stated the bankruptcy judge got the decision right. The 7th Circuit held the problem with taking the 5th Circuit’s view that an inherited IRA is exempt in bankruptcy is that it keeps from creditors a pool of money that the debtor could freely use at any time.

To underscore his ruling, Easterbrook offered the scenario of Ruth Heffron withdrawing funds from the IRA prior to her death and giving them as a gift to her daughter. Once in Heidi Heffron-Clark’s bank account, the money would be no different from any other assets she had and would be within creditors’ reach.

“Why should it make a difference whether the money passed to Heidi on Ruth’s death or a little earlier,” Easterbrook asked. “Either way, the money used to be ‘retirement funds’ but isn’t now.”

motsinger-dan-mug Motsinger

Dan Motsinger, partner and chair of the creditors’ rights and bankruptcy practice group at Krieg DeVault LLP, was struck by Easterbrook’s reasoning, comparing it to that of a mathematician. The decision is logical in a mathematical sense, Motsinger said, with the way Easterbrook views the bankruptcy code within the context of the tax statute.

“This opinion is very strongly worded,” Motsinger said. “There is no waffling at all in this opinion.”

At the Supreme Court, the Clarks could have a tougher time trying to convince the justices that the 7th Circuit was wrong. Motsinger said the presumption that the Supreme Court will affirm the 7th Circuit is not “wild speculation” given the reputation the 7th Circuit has as being a court that “doesn’t shoot from the hip,” coupled with the high regard in which both Easterbrook and Martin are held.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. (2010), also gives Carr, with nearly 40 years of practice in bankruptcy law, reason to believe the 7th Circuit’s decision will be upheld.

Prior to the 2005 bankruptcy reform, the Supreme Court seemed to lean toward the plain-meaning doctrine. But after the reform, the court shifted, as Hamilton v. Lanning demonstrates, to doing what the 7th Circuit did by looking at what Congress intended.

The impact of having the 7th Circuit affirmed would fuel renewed emphasis on estate planning to try to prevent children with financial troubles from losing their inheritance.

Jeff Dible, an attorney at Frost Brown Todd LLC who concentrates his practice on estate planning, taxation and general business law, sees the potential for an increase in qualified disclaimers and spendthrift trusts should the Supreme Court agree with the 7th Circuit. Both would provide ways for the inherited IRA to be used for the benefactor’s wellbeing rather than going to creditors.

With a qualified disclaimer, a benefactor who owes money could turn down the inheritance, sending the funds either back to the estate or to a secondary benefactor. Through a spendthrift trust, the inherited retirement funds would be administered by the trustee who could guard against the benefactor’s worst impulses by making payments directly to the third party.

Not seeing how the Circuit courts could have healed the split on their own, Dible asserted the U.S. Supreme Court was right to tackle the question about inherited IRAs. As it stands, the division between the Circuits could spur some debtors to forum shop and file their petitions in the court most likely to rule in their favor.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT