Monday, September 12, 2016

Pennsylvania Changes IRA Rules

According to the Investment Company Institute, Americans have $5.68 trillion in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).  In a traditional IRA account, a person can make tax deductible contributions to an account that can grow over the years with no tax impact until distribution.  Importantly, individuals must wait until age 59.5 to make withdrawals without a tax penalty (and individuals generally must begin taking distributions at age 70.5).  In other words, an IRA is a prototypical long term investment.  Depending upon the individual's age when he or she opens the plan, decades can go by before the money is touched, in fact, to avoid tax penalties, it is likely.

The unclaimed property laws account for the fact that long dormancy is expected.  Pursuant to the 1995 Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, the dormancy period for IRAs and similar accounts does not begin to run until (1) the attempted distribution of assets or (2) the date that distribution must begin under the tax laws. 

This position is sensible - the whole purpose of these accounts is to put the money away until retirement.

Pennsylvania, however, has recently amended its unclaimed property laws for IRAs.  Under the new law (House Bill 1605) the dormancy period begins to run when two account statements are returned to the custodian as undeliverable.  In other words, if a person moves, but forgets to tell his or her IRA custodian within the period of two account statements, the IRA account is on its way to being turned over to the Commonwealth. 

It is unclear if there are any positive impacts from this change, but there certainly could be negative impacts.  Under the former law, if a person moved without notifying his/her broker, their funds would not be escheated until the mandatory distribution date (therefore there is no adverse tax consequence).  Now, if the same move happens, and the property is escheated, the account owner may suffer tax implications as a result of the "distribution" of his or her property to the Commonwealth. 

Moreover, it wouldn't seem that delivering the property to the Commonwealth does not make it any more likely that it will be returned to the owner.  If an individual remembers that he or she had a forgotten IRA account, he/she is more likely to remember (and contact) the broker rather than to contact the Commonwealth.  Accordingly, other than simply bringing more money into Pennsylvania's treasury, the reasons for this change are not clear.   

Monday, August 8, 2016

Delware and Temple Inland Settle - Questions to Remain Unanswered

In late June, 2016 a Delaware federal court issued a decision ruling that Delaware's unclaimed property audit and estimation practices "shock[ed] the conscience" of the court and likely violated the due process rights of Temple Inland (a Delaware company being subjected to an unclaimed property audit on Delaware's behalf by a private auditing firm).  While the court's holding was big news in the unclaimed property industry and signaled potentially seismic changes in the way unclaimed property audits are conducted, the real work was left to be done:  the Court expressly left open the issue of how Delaware's violations were to be remedied.

Even with this important step left to be taken, the holder community was understandably excited that -- finally -- there would be some answers concerning (a) the interplay between estimation and availability of records; (b) the proper methods for calculating and sourcing historical unclaimed property liabilities; and (c) the retroactivity of Delaware's estimation authority.

Well, it seems that we will have to wait a little longer.  According to a an Associated Press story in Saturday's Chicago Tribune, the parties in the Temple Inland case reached a settlement resolving the matter in full.  According to a joint-motion to dismiss the case filed by the parties on Friday, Delaware and Temple Inland have "entered into a voluntary settlement agreement that fully and finally resolves all claims, including all claims that were asserted, or that could have been asserted, in the case and therefore the matters in dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants have been resolved."

Accordingly, while the Temple Inland case showed that courts are willing ask the hard questions about Delaware's unclaimed property audit practices, it ultimately left those questions unanswered.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Charging Money For Free Informaton On Both Sides of the World

The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) recently posted an article outlining how various companies in Australia seek to make money by repackaging otherwise public information at increased prices. According to the article, profit-minded Aussies are charging for public information relating to unclaimed property, ancestry records, government reports -- sometimes at a significant profit. 

The experience here in the U.S. is no different, particularly with regard to unclaimed property.  Agreements with so-called "finder firms" are allowed in many states, pursuant to which the finder agrees to assist a claimant with obtaining his or her money from the state in exchange for a percentage fee.

Of course, states generally charge no fees for searching, claiming and receiving unclaimed property that they hold for the benefit of the rightful owner.  Accordingly, finder firms (might) provide you with expertise or time (i.e., the they will deal with the the claim process so you don't have to).  They are NOT, however, providing you with access to the money; the underlying funds belong to the owner and is (or shortly will be) claimable directly from the state without the involvement of a finder firm. 

Everyone is free to spend their time and money how they wish, and everyone has their own individual balance of what is worth doing and what is worth paying someone else to do.  Just know what you are paying for.  In the case of unclaimed funds and finder firms, it is (maybe) time and expertise, not access, that you are buying.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Temple Inland Scores Win in Delaware Estimation Suit - Impact to be Determined

In 2014, Temple Inland filed a lawsuit against the State of Delaware, challenging the results and methodology of an unclaimed property audit performed by that state.  As part of a 2008 audit, the State of Delaware assessed Temple Inland unclaimed property liabilities for a 22 year time period, allegedly because of Temple Inland's failure to maintain records (notwithstanding the fact that no Delaware law requires a holder to keep such records).  After availing itself of the state's administrative appeal process, Temple Inland filed a lawsuit in federal  challenged the state's use of estimation in the audit context, arguing that the technique (1) was preempted by the Supreme Court's Texas v. New Jersey decision; (2) violated Temple Inland's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution; (3) represented an unconstitutional "taking" of Temple Inland's property; and (4) violated the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.

Initially, both parties moved for a quick knockout -- Temple Inland sought a preliminary determination that the use of estimates was completely prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. New Jersey, while Delaware asked the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.  In March 2013, the court denied both those arguments, allowing the case to continue.

Later both parties moved for summary judgment (a ruling providing that there is no need for a trial because one party is right as a matter of law) on the remaining claims that estimation was barred by the Due Process Clause, represented an unconstitutional taking of Temple Inland's property, or violated the ex post facto clause.  The court ruled on those motions yesterday.

The Court Rules Against Delaware on Due Process Claim, Leaves Remedy Open

The court began its substantive opinion with a section titled "Delaware's Dependence on Unclaimed Property Revenue."  While none of the following facts will be particularly startling to unclaimed property professionals, seeing them acknowledged by a federal judge is notable.  In  particular, the court recognized:
  • Unclaimed property represents Delaware's third largest revenue source;
  • In 2007, Delaware transferred over $350 in unclaimed property to the general fund, but only returned $20 million to owners; and
  • It is estimated that 90% of the property collected by Delaware is owner-unknown property (meaning it will likely never be paid out to its rightful owner).
Against this backdrop, the court evaluated whether Delaware's use of estimation was consistent with its obligation to provide Temple Inland with due process of law.  As the court noted, the key protection of the due process clause is to prevent "arbitrary" government action.  Under the relevant caselaw, the court recognized, action by a government agency like the Delaware Department of Finance is deemed to be arbitrary when it "shocks the conscience" of the court.  While noting that no clear precedent existed for the court to determine whether any of Delaware's individual actions met this threshhold, the court concluded that "in combination, defendants' executive actions shock the conscience."

In particular, the court singled out the following actions for criticism:
  • The fact that Delaware attempted to avoid the three or six year statute of limitations (which does not apply where no report has been filed) by not requiring negative reports and by not (apparently) keeping copies of reports filed by holders;
  • That Delaware never gave the holder notice that it must keep records of unclaimed property compliance (Delaware has no unclaimed property records retention statute) then tried to capitalize on the lack of such records to justify its estimation practices;
  • Delaware's attempt to impose the estimation statute retroactively;
  • The mechanics of the estimation process itself.  In particular, the he court intimated that Delaware may not properly take custody of estimated sums where the underlying liabilities upon which those estimates are based relate to amounts owed in other states.  Specifically, the court explained that “[I]f the property in base years shows an address in another state, then the characteristic of that property has to be extrapolated into the reach back years;” and
  •  The potential for double liability if other states estimate the same period.
While the court ruled that this conduct amounted to a violation of Temple Inland's due process rights, it did not decide the appropriate remedy.  Instead, it deferred to Delaware for suggestions, explaining that "[i]t is defendants who are best able to know which remedy will be the most palatable in its anticipated efforts to normalize the enforcement of its unclaimed property laws.  Thus, the court will defer its decision on the subject of an appropriate remedy until another day."

The Court Defers the Takings Clause Claim

The court made no final decision on the "taking" claim.  Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment (made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) a state may not take private property for public use without just compensation.  Temple Inland argued that, by demanding estimated property in the context of an unclaimed property audit, the state was impermissibly taking Temple Inland's property for public use.  The court rejected the absolute nature of this argument.  While the court recognized that an inaccurately performed estimate could result in the taking of a holder's property, the court held "reasonable" estimation, in and of itself, did not represent an unconstitutional taking of a holder's property.  Noting that the parties had not yet presented evidence on whether the estimation at issue was "reasonable," the court deferred a decision on this issue.

The Court Rejects the Ex Post Facto Challenge

The court found in favor of Delaware on the ex post facto cause claim.  The Constitution's ex post facto clause (Art. I, Sec. 10) prevents states from retroactively punishing an act that was not prohibited at the time of the act.  As the court recognized, however, violations of the ex post facto clause have generally only been found in connection with criminal statutes, or civil statutes that operate as criminal punishments.  Because the court found that the estimation provisions of Delaware's unclaimed property law were civil, not criminal, in nature it rejected this claim.

The Temple Inland decision is no doubt a big win for the unclaimed property holder community that, for years, has been complaining about Delaware's overly aggressive and at times seemingly arbitrary estimation practices.  That said, the Court has expressly left open the issue of how Delaware's violation is to be remedied.  Until the court's ruling is given some practical effect, it is unclear just how much of a game changer this ruling will be.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Arizona to Take a Closer Look at Contingent Fee Audits

A few days ago, the Governor of Arizona signed House Bill 2343 into law.  The legislation makes some welcome and well-meaning changes to the way that unclaimed property audits (including, specifically, contingent fee audits) are conducted.  For example, the legislation provides that all holders will receive a "notice of rights" (1) making clear that the Department of Revenue makes all final decisions "that any unclaimed property is reportable;" (2) setting forth appeals procedures; (3) notifying holders where they can file complaints regarding auditor conduct; and (4) contact information for designated employees. 

In addition to these changes, the new legislation also signals that Arizona is taking a fresh look at the use of contingent fee audits, and whether there are any practical alternatives.  The law requires the Department of Revenue to issue a Request for Information by the beginning of next year to "explore the feasibility of contracting for audits . . . that are not directly or indirectly contingent on the auditor recovering unclaimed property."  This is obviously an important issue to the holder community.  Because the audit firm's payment at the end of an unclaimed property audit is generally calculated as a percentage of reportable property "identified" by the auditor, it is in the auditor's financial interest to take aggressive and novel positions intended to increase the amount due.  That is not to suggest that all audit firms do so, but the incentive alone is enough to cause many in the holder community to question the fairness of impartiality of these audits.  Hopefully, this is a first step in Arizona to formulating an audit process designed to locate unclaimed property actually due to the state, no more and no less.