Call us: (212) 244-6166

Supreme Court: Inherited IRAs don’t get Bankruptcy Code protection

Clark v. Rameker, (Sup Ct 6/12/2014)

A unanimous Supreme Court has held that inherited IRAs do not qualify for a bankruptcy exemption, i.e., they are not protected from creditors in bankruptcy.

Background. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor may exempt amounts that are both (1) “retirement funds,” and (2) exempt from income tax under one of several specified Internal Revenue Code provisions, including one providing a tax exemption for IRAs.

Facts. In 2001, Heidi Heffron-Clark inherited her deceased mother’s traditional IRA, as sole beneficiary. The IRA was worth about $450,000, and Heidi and her husband Brandon (the Clarks) elected to take monthly distributions from the IRA.

In 2010, the Clarks filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. In their petition, the Clarks sought to exempt the inherited IRA, then worth about $300,000, from their bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy trustee and the Clarks’ unsecured creditors objected, arguing that the funds held in the inherited IRA were not “retirement funds” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code rules, and so could not be exempted from the bankruptcy estate under that provision. The bankruptcy court agreed, finding that inherited IRAs don’t hold “anyone’s” retirement funds, because the funds are not set aside for retirement needs, nor are they distributed upon retirement.

The bankruptcy court’s decision was appealed to a federal district court, which reversed the decision and held that the inherited IRA did qualify for the Bankruptcy exemption. This decision was again appealed, this time to the Seventh Circuit, which found that the bankruptcy court had gotten it right, and that the Clarks’ inherited IRA did not qualify for the Bankruptcy Code exemption.

Split among the circuits. The Seventh Circuit’s decision was at odds with an earlier holding by the Fifth Circuit (In re Chilton, (CA 5 3/12/2012) 109 AFTR 2d 2012-1375, see Weekly Alert ¶ 15 03/22/2012), so the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the split among the circuit courts.

Supreme Court says “no exemption.” Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous court, stating that “text and purpose” of the Bankruptcy Code provided that funds held in inherited IRAs are not “retirement funds” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code exemption.

The Court began its review by noting that the Bankruptcy Code does not provide a definition of “retirement funds.” Using the ordinary meaning of the term, the Court stated that “retirement funds” refers to money that is set aside for the time that a person is no longer working. The determination of whether funds held in an account are “retirement funds” should be based on the legal characteristics of the account holding the funds and on whether the account is one that was set aside for when an individual is no longer working.

The Court stated that there were three legal characteristics of inherited IRAs that made funds held in these accounts “not objectively set aside for the purpose of retirement.”

First, said the Court, the Internal Revenue Code prevents holders of inherited IRAs from putting additional funds into the account. Thus, where traditional and Roth IRAs allow their account holders to add to their retirement savings over time, inherited IRAs prohibit contributions to the account.

Second, holders of inherited IRAs must withdraw money from such accounts, without regard to the number of years until the account holder reaches retirement. That the tax rules governing inherited IRAs require that the accounts be depleted over time, regardless of how close their holders are to retirement, said the Court, is not a feature of an account set aside for retirement.

Third, inherited IRA owners may make penalty-free withdrawals from the account at any time, up to the entire balance of the account, without triggering a 10% early withdrawal penalty. In contrast, withdrawals from a traditional or Roth IRA before the account holder reaches age 59 1/2 are subject to the early withdrawal penalty, unless one of several limited exceptions apply. Thus, funds held in inherited IRAs can be used for current consumption, while those in traditional and Roth IRAs cannot.

Fresh start v. free pass. According to the Court, the exemptions provided by the Bankruptcy Code create a balance between the rights of creditors and the needs of debtors. Allowing debtors to protect funds held in traditional and Roth IRAs aligns with this balance by helping to ensure that debtors will be able to meet their basic needs during retirement. At the same time, the limits on traditional and Roth IRAs help make sure that the debtors who hold these accounts (but who have not yet reached age 59 1/2) do not enjoy a windfall due to the exemption.

By contrast, nothing about an inherited IRA’s legal characteristics prevent or discourage an individual from using the entire balance immediately after bankruptcy for purposes of current consumption. Allowing the exemption for inherited IRAs, said the Court, would turn the Bankruptcy Code’s “fresh start,” into a “free pass.”

Change in status from regular IRA to inherited IRA. The Clarks further argued that, because the funds in an inherited IRA were once set aside for retirement of the initial IRA owner, the funds continued to have the legal characteristics of funds set aside for retirement even after the original owner’s death. That is, the death of the initial IRA holder would not in any way affect the funds in the account.

Calling this a “backward-looking inquiry,” the Court said that the ordinary use of the term “retirement funds” implied that the funds were currently in an account set aside for retirement, not that they were set aside for retirement at some point in the past.

To avoid the result that the Clarks had in this case, trusts for the beneficiaries could be established, and the IRA owner, instead of naming, for example, individuals A, B and C as beneficiaries, could name Trust f/b/o A, Trust f/b/o B and Trust f/b/o C as beneficiaries of his IRA.

A spousal beneficiary of a decedent’s IRA has the option of treating the IRA as his or her own, rather than being subject to the general rules for “inherited IRAs.” Where such an election is made, the surviving beneficiary spouse, as IRA owner, may defer the start of lifetime IRA distributions to his or her required beginning date. This situation is factually distinct from that of the Clark case.