Showing posts with label exemptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exemptions. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Learning to Fly and Bankruptcy Exemptions




I would like to lean to fly. Not in a superman sense – in a “small aircraft” sense. As the first step in achieving that goal, this past weekend, I took a flying lesson and had a great time. When I was done, I was mulling over the legal ramifications of aircraft ownership, and as my legal mind started to wander, I pondered how the ownership of an aircraft would be handled in a bankruptcy. While this may not be where your mind would have wandered, consider it an occupational hazard of being a bankruptcy attorney. I don’t want you to get the wrong impression, but when you are a bankruptcy attorney, you sometimes can’t help but look at the world through a proverbial “bankruptcy filter”.

Since not everyone wants, or owns, an airplane, writing an answer to “how would a small aircraft be treated in bankruptcy” might seem somewhat superfluous. In fact, the rest of the people in my office would no sooner get into a small plane as they would shave their head. But what occurred to me is that nearly everyone has their “learning to fly.”

In good financial times, most of us purchase “toys” or other items that support our hobbies, but what happens when the same folks may be facing bankruptcy? If selling the toys and paying the debt is not an option, how are these items treated in bankruptcy? The “toys” could be anything: aircraft, boats, motorcycles, or classic cars. Maybe motors aren’t your thing, but you have a nice collection of high-end computers and electronics. If you spend your Sundays working in a wood shop, woodworking equipment or other tools might be your “toys”.

How are these hobby items treated in bankruptcy?

Like any other asset, the item you seek to protect must be disclosed to the bankruptcy court (along with all other assets) and are subject to acquisition by the trustee if they are not exempt under the Federal or Massachusetts exemptions. There are a number of exemptions that may be used to establish the exemptability of items. Ultimately, the amount of the allowable exemptions may be affected by the debtor’s desire to exempt other personal property, but generally speaking, the following exemptions are available to protect a debtor’s items which do not fall into a specific exemption category (such as jewelry, certain religious articles or motor vehicles, which are discussed later on):

Federal Exemptions:

11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5): $1,150.00, which is federal catch-all exemption and may be applied to any personal property owned by the debtor;

11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5): Up to $10,825.00 of unused home equity not already exempted under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(1);

11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(6): $2,175.00 for tools and equipment used in business. For this exemption to be applicable to the debtor, the debtor must establish that the items are necessary for the debtor’s trade, employment or business.

Massachusetts Exemptions

A debtor filing for bankruptcy in Massachusetts may elect either the Federal exemptions or the Massachusetts exemptions. Massachusetts exemptions applicable to firearms ownership are as follows:

M.G.L. c. 235 § 34(5): $5,000.00 for tools and equipment used in business. Like the federal exemptions, for this exemption to be applicable to the debtor, the debtor must establish that the items are necessary for the debtor’s trade, employment or business. Therefore, if the items are used in the debtor’s business or money-making efforts, they may be exempt up to $5,000.00, regardless of their less intrinsic value as hobby items to the debtor.

M.G.L. c. 235 § 34(17): Up to $6,000.00, representing the debtor’s aggregate interest in any personal property, not to exceed $1,000 in value, plus up to $5,000 of any unused dollar amount of the aggregate exemptions provided for the exemption of household furnishings, tools of the trade and a motor vehicle.

Special Considerations for Motor Vehicles

In Massachusetts, you can exempt up to $7,500 in equity in one car or other vehicle that you use for personal transportation or to find or maintain employment. If you are 60 years of age or older, or if you are disabled, you can exempt up to $15,000. If you decide to use the federal bankruptcy exemptions, you can exempt up to $3,450 of equity in your motor vehicle. The law does not care if your one primary vehicle is a 2005 Honda Civic, a 2012 Harley-Davidson Dyna Super Glide or a 1969 Yenko Camaro; only the amount of the debtor’s equity in the vehicle matters.

If the item you seek to protect is a registered motor vehicle, but not your primary mode of transportation, some trustees will disallow an exemption claimed under either the federal or Massachusetts “motor vehicle” exemptions. Additionally, although the Massachusetts exemption laws specifically state “automobile”, many trustees will not object to the debtor’s attempt to discharge a motorcycle if it is your primary mode of transpiration.

So, what does this all mean?

It means that the answer to the original question is “it depends”. The ability to exempt hobby items largely turns on the value of the item, and the other expemptions already claimed by the debtor for such necessities as their home, household goods and furnishings, or employment-related tools. In a “perfect storm” of circumstances, you may be able to exempt upwards of $20,000 of equity in your “toys”, but the real value depends on the totality of circumstances in your bankruptcy case.

If you are facing bankruptcy and have personal and other property, such as a home and retirement accounts that you want to ensure is protected through the bankruptcy process, contact Attorney Matthew P. Trask to learn more about how to protect your assets and find your financial freedom.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Fifth Circuit Finds Inherited IRAs Exempt

In a case of first impression for the Fifth Circuit or any other court of appeals, the Fifth Circuit has ruled that inherited IRA accounts may be claimed as exempt under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 522(d)(12). Matter of Chilton, No. 11-40377 (5th Cir. 3/12/12), which can be found here.

In Chilton, one of the debtors inherited an IRA account in the amount of $170,000. The debtors established an IRA account to receive distributions from the inherited account. The trustee objected that the account was not a "retirement account" and was not the type of tax exempt account identified in section 522(d)(12). The bankruptcy court sustained the objection, but was reversed by the district court.

Section 522(d)(12) allows a debtor who elects federal exemptions (an option available only to debtors in about eleven states since most states have opted out of federal exemptions), to exempt "(r)etirement funds to the extent that such 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." Thus, there are two requirements: 1. the funds must be retirement funds and 2. they must be held in an account exempt from taxation under one of the designated sections.

The court rejected the argument that funds set aside for the retirement of another could not be "retirement funds:"

The plain meaning of the statutory language refers to money that was “set apart” for retirement. Thus, the defining characteristic of “retirement funds” is the purpose they are “set apart” for, not what happens after they are “set apart.” Here, there is no question that the funds contained in the debtors’ inherited IRA were “set apart” for retirement at the time Heil deposited them into an IRA. This reasoning finds further support from 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(4)(C), which provides that “a direct transfer of retirement funds from 1 fund or account that is exempt from taxation under section . . . 408 . . . of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, . . . shall not cease to qualify for exemption under . . . subsection (d)(12) by reason of such direct transfer.” In other words, the direct transfer of “retirement funds” does not alter their status as “retirement funds.” As we see no reason to interpret the statutory language differently from its plain meaning, we hold that the $170,000 contained in the inherited IRA constitute “retirement funds” as that phrase is used in section 522(d)(12).
Opinion, p. 5.

The Court also ruled that the account was held under the proper section of the Internal Revenue Code. The Trustee argued that the account was tax exempt pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 402(c)(11)(A), while the Debtor contended that section 408(e) was the relevant section. While this discussion of the Internal Revenue Code would seem arcane and of little interest to bankruptcy lawyers, the Court relied on the expansive language of section 408(e), which stated that "(a)ny individual retirement account is exempt from taxation under this subsection . . . " Because the account was an individual retirement account, it fell within the definition of "any" individual retirement account. Thus, common sense construction carried the day even thought the subject matter was the tax code.

On a final note, the Court of Appeals decided this appeal quite expeditiously. The case was argued on February 22, 2012 and decided on March 12, 2012, just nineteen days later. Judge Carl Stewart should be commended for his prompt work.