In Re Seeling

471 B.R. 320, 2012 WL 1899177, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 2337, 109 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2407
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedMay 24, 2012
Docket11-30957
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 471 B.R. 320 (In Re Seeling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Seeling, 471 B.R. 320, 2012 WL 1899177, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 2337, 109 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2407 (Mass. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

HENRY J. BOROFF, Bankruptcy Judge.

Before the Court is the “Trustee’s Objection to Debtor’s Exemption in an Inherited IRA” (the “Trustee’s Objection”). The Court must here decide whether a debtor may employ 11 U.S.C. *321 § 522(d)(12) 1 to exempt an individual retirement account whose proceeds have been inherited — a question that appears to be one of first impression in this Circuit.

I. FACTS AND TRAVEL OF THE CASE

The parties have stipulated to all of the relevant facts.

Holly Anne Seeling (the “Debtor”) was the named beneficiary of 50% of a Tax Deferred Annuity Account (the “Annuity”) maintained by Fidelity Investments on behalf of Charles Carroll (“Carroll”), pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 403(b). On May 21, 2007, Carroll passed away, leaving the Debtor the designated funds. 2 In light of Carroll’s death, the proceeds of the Annuity were required to be distributed, and, in 2007, the Debtor requested that the portion she had inherited be rolled over into an IRA to be maintained by [¶] Financial Services, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company, in the name of Carroll for her benefit (the “IRA”). 3

On May 20, 2011, the Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition with this Court. On her Schedule B — Personal Property, the Debtor listed the IRA and its then current balance of $52,975.08. On her Schedule C — Property Claimed as Exempt, the Debtor claimed an exemption for the full value of the IRA, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(12). The Chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) timely objected to the Debtor’s claim of exemption to the IRA and the Debtor timely responded.

After a hearing on the Trustee’s Objection, and upon the parties’ assurance that no material facts were in dispute, the Court took the matter under advisement, ordered the filing of a stipulation of relevant facts and afforded the parties a further opportunity for briefing.

II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Trustee contends that the IRA does not meet the two requirements necessary to claim an exemption under § 522(d)(12). First, the Trustee argues that the funds held in the Debtor’s IRA are not “retirement funds” as contemplated by the statute because the Debtor did not herself contribute the funds for purposes of her own retirement. Second, the Trustee disputes that the inherited IRA is exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 408(e), one of the qualifying sections under § 522(d)(12). Instead, the Trustee asserts that the inherited IRA is exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 402(c)(ll) — a section of the Internal Revenue Code (the “IRC”) not included in § 522(d)(12)’s exhaustive list of applicable IRC sections.

The Debtor disagrees. Citing to the language of § 522(b)(4)(C), the Debtor explains that the direct transfer of funds from the Annuity to the IRA does not disqualify the IRA from exempt status under § 522(d)(12). To further support this contention, the Debtor cites to other courts who have examined this type of transfer and looked to the character of the account from which the funds were transferred and not the other way around. The Debt- *322 or concludes that the IRA met the two requirements for exemption under § 522(d)(12), and does not cease to qualify for the exemption just because the proceeds were inherited rather than earned by the Debtor.

III. DISCUSSION

The moment a bankruptcy petition is filed, the debtor’s bankruptcy estate is created. A bankruptcy estate is comprised of “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). The debtor is, however, entitled to exempt certain property from the bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 522. The Debtor here seeks to exempt the full value of the IRA pursuant to § 522(d)(12). Section 522(d)(12) permits a debtor to exempt from her bankruptcy estate

[retirement funds to the extent that those funds are in a fund or account that is exempt from taxation under section 401, 403, 408, 408A, 414, 457, or 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(12). Thus, to qualify for this exemption, the relevant property (1) must constitute retirement funds; and (2) be held in an account exempt from taxation under section 401, 403, 408, 408A, 414, 457, or 501(a) of the IRC. The validity of a claimed exemption is presumed. See § 522(i). Therefore, as the objecting party, it is the Trustee’s burden to prove otherwise. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 4003(c).

A. Retirement Funds

“Retirement funds,” as that phrase is used in § 522(d)(12), is not defined in that subsection or anywhere else in the Code. In such instances, courts look to a term’s “ordinary meaning.” Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320, 321, 125 S.Ct. 1561, 161 L.Ed.2d 563 (2005). Merriam-Web-ster’s Tenth New Collegiate Dictionary, defines retirement as “withdrawal from one’s position or occupation or from active working life” and funds as “a sum of money or other resources whose principal or interest is set apart for a specific objective” 1000, 472 (10th ed. 1993). Together, the statutory language simply amounts to a description of money set apart for retirement. That the Annuity was a retirement fund is not in dispute. However, the statutory language does not specify for whose retirement the money must be set apart to qualify for the exemption. The Trustee maintains that the funds comprising the Annuity lost their character as “retirement funds” when they were rolled over into the IRA and no longer “set apart” for Carroll’s retirement. The Debtor disagrees, noting that § 522(d)(12) does not require that the retirement funds originally have been set apart by the Debtor in contemplation of the Debtor’s retirement, and pointing out that § 522(b)(4)(C) specifically provides that transfers of this very type do not disqualify IRAs from eligibility for exemption under § 522(d)(12). 4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sharon S. Brainard
D. Connecticut, 2023
In re Soori-Arachi
600 B.R. 153 (D. Rhode Island, 2019)
In re Remia
503 B.R. 6 (D. Massachusetts, 2013)
Diamond v. Trawick (In re Trawick)
497 B.R. 572 (C.D. California, 2013)
In re Bertone
486 B.R. 5 (D. Massachusetts, 2013)
In re Gordon
479 B.R. 9 (D. Massachusetts, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
471 B.R. 320, 2012 WL 1899177, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 2337, 109 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-seeling-mab-2012.