Can Creditors Reach The Retirement Account Of A Divorced Spouse?

Let’s say that you divorce. Let say that retirement savings are unequal between you and your ex-spouse. As part of the settlement you receive a portion of your spouse’s 401(k) under a “QDRO” order.

COMMENT: A QDRO is a way to get around the rule prohibiting alienation or assignment of benefits under a qualified retirement plan. I generally think of QDROs as arising from divorce, but they could also go to a child or other dependent of the plan participant.

Your QDRO has (almost) the same restrictions as any other retirement savings. As far as you or I are concerned, it IS a retirement account.

You file for bankruptcy.

Can your creditors reach the QDRO?

Sometimes I scratch my head over bankruptcy decisions. The reason is that bankruptcy – while having tax consequences – is its own area of law. If the law part pulls a bit more weight than the tax part, then the tax consequence may be nonintuitive.

Let’s segue to an inherited IRA for a moment. Someone passes away and his/her IRA goes to you. What happens to it in your bankruptcy?

The Supreme Court addressed this in Clark, where the Court had to address the definition of “retirement funds” otherwise protected from creditors in bankruptcy.

The Court said there were three critical differences between a plain-old IRA and an inherited IRA:

(1)  The holder of an inherited IRA can never add to the account.

(2)  The holder of an inherited IRA must draw money virtually immediately. There is no waiting until one reaches or nears retirement.

(3)  The holder of an inherited IRA can drain the account at any time – and without a penalty.

The Court observed that:

Nothing about the inherited IRA’s legal characteristics would prevent (or even discourage) the individual from using the entire balance of the account on a vacation home or sports car immediately after bankruptcy proceedings are complete.”

The Court continued that – to qualify under bankruptcy – it is not sufficient that monies be inside an IRA. Those monies must also rise to the level of “retirement funds,” and – since the inheritor could empty the account at a moment’s notice - the Court was simply not seeing that with inherited IRAs.

I get it.

Let’s switch out the inherited IRA and substitute a QDRO. With a QDRO, the alternate payee steps into the shoes of the plan participant.

The Eighth Circuit steps in and applies the 3-factor test of Clark to the QDRO. Let’s walk through it:

(1)  The alternate payee cannot add to a QDRO.

(2)  The alternate payee does not have to start immediate withdrawals – unless of required age.

(3)  The alternate payee cannot – unless of required age - immediately empty the account and buy that vacation home or sports car.

By my account, the QDRO fails the first test but passes the next two. Since there are three tests and the QDRO passes two, I expect the QDRO to be “retirement funds” as bankruptcy law uses the term.

And I would be wrong.

The Eighth Circuit notes that tests 2 and 3 do not apply to a QDRO. The Court then concludes that the QDRO has only one test, and the QDRO fails that.

The Eighth Circuit explains that Clark:

… clearly suggests that the exemption is limited to individuals who create and contribute funds into the retirement account.”

It is not clear to me, but there you have it – at least if you live in the Eighth Circuit.

No bankruptcy protection for you.

Our case this time for the home gamers was In re Lerbakken.

Is Suing Your Tax Advisor Taxable?

For those who know me or occasionally read my blog, you know that I am not a “high wire” type of tax practitioner. Pushing the edges of tax law is for the very wealthy and largest of taxpayers: think Apple or Donald Trump. This is – generally speaking - not an exercise for the average person. 

I understand the frustration. A number of years ago I was called upon to research the tax consequence for an ownership structure involving an S corporation with four trusts for two daughters. This structure predated me and had worked well in profitable years, but I (unfortunately) got called upon for a year when the company was unprofitable. The issue was straightforward: were the losses “active” or “passive” to the trusts and, by extension, to the daughters behind the trusts. There was some serious money here in the way of tax refunds – if the trusts/daughters could use the losses. This active/passive law change happened in 1986, and here I was researching during the aughts – approximately 20 years later. The IRS had refused to provide direction in this area, although there were off record comments by IRS officials that were against our clients’ interests. I strongly disagreed with those comments, by the way.

What do you do?

I advised the client that a decision to claim the losses would be a simultaneous decision to hire a tax attorney if the returns got audited and the losses disallowed. I believed there was a reasonable chance we would eventually win, but I also believed we would have to be committed to litigation. I thought the IRS was unlikely to roll on the matter, but our willingness to go to Tax Court might give them pause. 

I was not a popular guy.

But to say otherwise would be to invite a malpractice lawsuit should the whole thing go south.

And this was a fairly prosaic area of tax law, far and remote from any tax shelter. There was no “shelter” there. There was, rather, the unwillingness of the IRS to clarify a tax law that was old enough to go to college.

I am reading about a CPA firm that decided to advise a tax shelter. It went south. They got sued. It cost them $375,000.

Here is a question that we have not discussed before: is the $375,000 taxable to the (former) client?

Let’s discuss the case.

The Cosentinos and their controlled entities (G.A.C. Investments, LLC and Consentino Estates, LLC) had a track record of Section 1031 exchanges and real estate.

COMMENT: A Section 1031 is also known as a “like kind” exchange, whereby one trades one piece of property for another. If done correctly, there is no tax on the exchange.

The Consentinos played a conservative game, as they had an adult disabled daughter who would always need assistance. They accumulated real estate via Section 1031 transactions, with the intent that – upon their death – the daughter would inherit. They were looking out for her.

They were looking at one more exchange when their CPA firm presented an alternative tax strategy that would allow them to (a) receive cash from the deal and (b) defer taxes. The Consentinos had been down this road before, and receiving cash was not their understanding of a Section 1031. Nonetheless the advisors assured them, and the Consentinos went ahead with the strategy.

OBSERVATION: It is very difficult to walk away from a Section 1031 with cash in hand and yet avoid tax.

Wouldn’t you know that the strategy was declared a tax shelter?

The IRS bounced the whole thing. There was almost $600,000 in federal and state taxes, interest and penalties. Not to mention what they paid the CPA firm for structuring the transaction.

The Consentinos did what you or I would do: they sued the CPA firm. They won and received $375,000. They did not report or pay tax on said $375,000, reasoning that it was less than the tax they paid. The IRS sent them a love letter noting the oversight and asking for the tax.

Both parties were Tax Court bound.

The taxpayers relied upon several cases, a key one being Clark v Commissioner. The Clarks had filed a joint rather than a married-filing-separately return on the advice of their tax advisor. It was a bad decision, as filing-jointly cost them approximately $20,000 more than filing-separately. They sued their advisor and won.

The Court decided that the $20,000 was not income to the Clarks, as they were merely being reimbursed for the $20,000 they overpaid in taxes. There was no net increase in their wealth; rather they were just being made whole.

The Clark decision has been around since 1939, so it is “established” law as far as established can be.

The Court decided that the same principle applied to the Cosentinos. To the extent that they were being made whole, there was nothing to tax. This meant, for example:

·        To extent that anything was taxable, it shall be a fraction (using the $375,000 as the numerator and total losses as the denominator).

·        The amount allocable to federal tax is nontaxable, as the Cosentinos are merely being reimbursed.

·        The amount allocable to state taxes however will be taxable, to the extent that the Cosentinos had previously deducted state taxes and received a tax benefit from the deduction.

·        The same concept (as for state taxes) applied to the accounting fees. Accounting fees would have been deducted –meaning there was a tax benefit. Now that they were repaid, that tax benefit swings and becomes a tax detriment, resulting in tax.

There were some other expense categories which we won’t discuss.

By the way, the Court’s reasoning is referred to as the “origin of the claim” doctrine, and it is the foundation for the taxation of lawsuit and settlement proceeds.  

So the IRS won a bit, as the Cosentinos had excluded the whole amount, whereas the Court wanted a ratio, meaning that some of the $375,000 was taxable.

Are you curious what the CPA firm charged for this fiasco?

$45,000.

What Happens To Inherited IRAs in Bankruptcy?

Let us discuss IRAs.

You may be aware that there is bankruptcy protection for IRAs. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 exempts up to $1 million in IRAs created and funded by the debtor. Employer plans have even more favorable protection.

Why? The government has expressed interest that citizens be able to save for their retirement. This diminishes the odds of future government assistance and deemed in the public interest.

Fair enough. But I have one more question.

Let us say that you inherited the IRA. Does the above protection still apply to you?

Why wouldn’t it, you might ask. It is like an ice cream bar. It is still an ice cream bar whether you or I take it from the freezer, right?

This very question made it to the Supreme Court in the recent case of Clark v Rameker. While a bankruptcy case, it does have tax implications.

In 2001 Ruth Heffron established a traditional IRA and named her daughter as beneficiary.

NOTE:  “Traditional” means the classic IRA: contributions to it are deductible and withdrawals from it are taxable. Contrast this with a “nondeductible” IRA (contributions are nondeductible and withdrawals are taxable, according to a formula) and Roths (contributions are nondeductible and withdrawals are nontaxable).

Mrs Heffron passed away a year later – 2001 – and left approximately $400,000 to her daughter in the IRA account. Inherited IRAs have special rules on distributions, and one has to take distributions over a life expectancy or withdraw the entire balance within five years. Her daughter – Ms. Heffron-Clark - elected to use life expectancy with monthly distributions.

Fast forward to 2010 and Ms. Heffron-Clark and her husband file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The IRA has approximately $300,000 remaining, and you can bet that the couple considered the IRA to be an exempt asset. The unsecured creditors of the bankruptcy estate disagreed, thus beginning the litigation.

·       The Bankruptcy Court said that the IRA was not exempt and could be reached by creditors.

·       The District Court reversed, saying that the IRA was exempt and could not be reached by creditors.

·       The Appeals Court for the Seventh Circuit reversed, saying that the IRA was not exempt and could be reached by creditors.

This set up disagreement between the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, so the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Believe it or not, the Bankruptcy Code does not define the term “retirement funds,” resulting in the above courts drawing such different conclusions. The Supreme Court declared that the term must be defined in order to arrive at a correct conclusion. The Court looked a dictionary and saw that “retirement” is defined as …

       … withdrawal from one’s occupation, business or office.”

The Court wanted to look at the legal characteristics of funds set aside for the day one stops working. It focused on three:

(1)  One can put additional monies into a retirement account.

POINT: One cannot put additional monies into an inherited account. In fact, if one inherits again, one cannot mingle the two accounts. Each is to remain separate and unique.

COUNTERPOINT: One cannot put additional monies into an IRA after age 70 ½.

(2)  Holders of an inherited account are required to begin distributions in the year following the death.

POINT: There are no age 59 ½ or 70 ½ minimum distribution requirements here. It does not matter whether the beneficiary is three years old or ninety-three; distributions must begin in the year following death, unless one fully depletes the account over 5 years.

OBSERVATION: The Court asked obvious question: how does this distribution requirement tie-in to the beneficiary’s retirement in any way?

(3)  The beneficiary can withdraw the entire balance at any time, without penalty.

POINT: You and I cannot do that with our own IRA until we are age 59 ½. 

OBSERVATION”: The Court noted that there is a ‘stick” if one wants to access a traditional IRA early – the 10% penalty. That expresses Congress’ intent to discourage use of traditional IRA s for day-to-day non-retirement purposes. The inherited IRA has no such prohibition. What does that say about Congress’ intent with inherited IRAs?

Rest assured that Ms Heffron-Clark was arguing furiously that the funds in that inherited IRA are “retirement funds” because, at some point, they were set aside for retirement.

The Court looked at the three criteria above and said that the inherited IRA certainly constitutes “funds,” but it cannot see how they rise to the level of “retirement funds.” They simply do not have the characteristics of normal retirement funds.

The Supreme Court unanimously decided that an inherited IRA do not constitute “retirement funds” and are not exempt from bankruptcy claims. Ms. Heffron-Clark’s creditors could in fact reach that $300 grand.

Granted, this is a bankruptcy case, but I see two immediate tax consequences from this decision:

(1) First, a surviving spouse (that is, the widow or widower) has a tax  option offered no other IRA beneficiary.

The surviving spouse can take the IRA as an inherited IRA (and be subject to bankruptcy claims) or he/she can rollover the IRA to his/her own personal name.

In the past, this decision was sometimes made based on the survivor’s age. For example, if the surviving spouse thought he/she might need the money before age 59 ½, the tax planner would lean towards an inherited IRA. Why? Because there is no 10% penalty for early withdrawals from an inherited IRA. There would be penalties on early withdrawals from a rollover IRA.

This decision now gives planners another reason to consider a spousal rollover.

(2) Second, there may be increased attention to IRA accumulation trusts.

A trust is allowed to be an IRA beneficiary, but at the cost of some highly specific tax rules. There are two types of permitted trusts. The first is the conduit trust. The trust receives the annual minimum required distributions (MRDs) but is required to immediately pay them out to the beneficiary.  While you may wonder what purpose this trust serves, consider that the trust – while unable to protect the annual income – can still protect the principal of the trust.

The second type is the accumulation trust. It is eponymous: it accumulates. There are no required distributions to the beneficiaries. The tax cost for this can be enormous, however. A trust reaches the maximum federal tax rate at the insanely low threshold of approximately $12,000. Obviously, this strategy works best when the beneficiaries are themselves at the maximum tax bracket.

The other point that occurred to me is the future of stretch IRAs. There has been considerable discussion about imposing a five-year distribution requirement (with very limited exceptions) on inherited IRAs. This of course is in response to the popular tax strategy of “stretch” IRAs. The stretch is easy to explain: I leave my IRA to my granddaughter. The IRA resets its mandatory distributions, using her life expectancy rather than mine (which is swell, as I am dead). Say that she is age 11. Whereas there are mandatory distributions, those distributions are spread out over the life expectancy of an eleven-year-old girl. That is the purpose and use of the “stretch.”

Consider that the Court just decided that an inherited IRA does not constitute “retirement funds.” This may make it easier for Congress to eventually do away with stretch IRAs.