Drye v. United States
528 U.S. 49, 120 S. Ct. 474 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual's right to inherit property, even if disclaimed under state law, constitutes a 'right to property' under 26 U.S.C. § 6321 to which a pre-existing federal tax lien can attach. While state law determines the nature of a taxpayer's legal interests, federal law determines whether those interests qualify as 'property' or 'rights to property' for federal tax lien purposes.
Facts:
- Rohn F. Drye, Jr. was insolvent and owed the federal government approximately $325,000 in unpaid tax assessments.
- The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had valid tax liens against all of Drye's 'property and rights to property.'
- On August 3, 1994, Drye's mother, Irma Drye, died intestate, leaving an estate valued at approximately $233,000.
- Under Arkansas law, Drye was his mother's sole heir.
- On February 4, 1995, Drye filed a written disclaimer of all his interests in his mother's estate.
- According to Arkansas law, the disclaimer treated Drye as if he had predeceased his mother, causing the estate to pass to his daughter, Theresa Drye.
- Theresa Drye used the inherited funds to establish the Drye Family 1995 Trust, of which Drye and his wife were beneficiaries.
- The trust was a spendthrift trust, designed to shield its assets from the beneficiaries' creditors.
Procedural Posture:
- The Drye Family 1995 Trust filed a wrongful levy action against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (a federal trial court).
- The Government filed a counterclaim against the Trust, seeking to reduce the tax assessments to judgment and foreclose on its liens.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of the Government.
- The Trust, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (an intermediate federal appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the United States, the appellee.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a taxpayer's state-law right to inherit property, which he subsequently disclaims, constitute 'property' or a 'right to property' under 26 U.S.C. § 6321, thereby subjecting the inheritance to a pre-existing federal tax lien?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. A taxpayer’s state-law right to inherit property, even when disclaimed, constitutes a 'right to property' to which a federal tax lien attaches. The court reasoned that federal tax law is not bound by state law characterizations of property rights when determining the reach of federal tax liens. The Internal Revenue Code's phrase 'property and rights to property' is intentionally broad to ensure the collection of taxes. The court established a two-step inquiry: 1) look to state law to determine the taxpayer's rights in the property, and 2) look to federal law to determine if those state-delineated rights constitute 'property' for federal tax purposes. Here, Arkansas law gave Drye the unqualified right either to receive the entire inheritance or to channel it to a known successor (his daughter). This power to control the disposition of the assets is a 'right to property.' Unlike rejecting an inter vivos gift where the donor can redirect the gift, a disclaiming heir exercises ultimate control because the decedent cannot be revived. Therefore, the federal tax lien attached to Drye's interest in the estate at the moment of his mother's death, and the subsequent disclaimer could not defeat it.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the federal government's ability to collect taxes by establishing the supremacy of federal law in defining 'property' for lien purposes. It prevents taxpayers from using state-law mechanisms, such as disclaimers, as a shield against federal tax liability. The case clarifies the analytical framework for tax lien cases, cementing the principle that while state law creates the 'bundle of sticks' representing a person's rights, federal law determines if that bundle is substantial enough to be considered 'property.' The court's focus on the taxpayer's 'control' over the asset provides a broad standard that will likely be applied to other state-law devices designed to place assets beyond the reach of the IRS.
Unlock the full brief for Drye v. United States