Drye v. United States
The Supreme Court ruled that a man's decision to disclaim his inheritance under state law did not stop the IRS from seizing it, because federal law -- not state law -- decides what counts as "property" that federal tax liens can reach.
The decision closes off a strategy some insolvent taxpayers used to shield inherited assets from the IRS by disclaiming an inheritance so it passed directly to a relative, often into a trust the taxpayer could still benefit from.
“state law is inoperative to prevent the attachment of liens created by federal statutes in favor of the United States.”
Explains that once state law defines a taxpayer's interest, state law cannot block a federal tax lien from attaching to it.
How it got here: A trust the daughter created sued the government over a tax levy; the district court and the Eighth Circuit both ruled for the government, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve a circuit split.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Rohn Drye owed the IRS about $325,000 in unpaid taxes when his mother died, leaving him as sole heir to her roughly $233,000 estate. Months later, Drye disclaimed his inheritance under Arkansas law, causing it to pass to his daughter, who then funded a trust that could still support Drye and his wife during their lifetimes.
The question before the Court
If someone facing huge tax debt disclaims an inheritance so it passes to their child instead, can the IRS still seize that inheritance to pay the debt?
Why it matters
People who owe back taxes and later inherit money or property cannot avoid IRS collection simply by disclaiming the inheritance under state law, even if state law would treat the disclaimer as retroactive and shield the assets from ordinary creditors. The ruling closes a tax-avoidance route that combined disclaimers with spendthrift trusts benefiting the debtor.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision, not a temporary order. The judgment of the Eighth Circuit is affirmed, meaning the government's tax liens attach to the trust assets that were funded with the disclaimed inheritance. The ruling settles a split among the circuits and forecloses the disclaimer-and-trust strategy as a way for insolvent taxpayers to place inherited assets beyond the IRS's reach.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether an interest in a spendthrift trust that cannot be transferred to third parties automatically counts as "property" under the tax lien statute, nor whether an inheritance expectancy becomes property before it actually vests in the heir.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that federal tax lien law follows a two-step approach: state law determines what rights a person actually has in an asset, but federal law alone decides whether those state-created rights count as "property" or "rights to property" that a federal tax lien can attach to.
- The Court noted that the tax code's list of property exempt from IRS levy is exclusive and does not mention disclaimed inheritances, signaling that Congress did not intend disclaimers to create a loophole around collection.
- Applying the two-step approach, the Court found that under Arkansas law, Drye held a valuable and transferable right to inherit or to redirect the inheritance to his daughter -- a meaningful form of control over the property, even though the specific act of disclaiming was itself personal and non-transferable.
- The Court distinguished a disclaimed inheritance from a rejected gift: when someone declines a gift, the property simply reverts to the giver, but when an heir disclaims an inheritance, the deceased person cannot take it back, so the heir is actually choosing who receives it next.
- Because Drye could choose to keep the inheritance or channel it to his daughter, the Court held that this degree of control made the inheritance "property" or a "right to property" under the federal tax lien statute, regardless of how Arkansas law characterized the disclaimer.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms United States v. Bess (357 U.S. 51)
Relied on as establishing that federal law, not state exemptions, controls whether an interest counts as taxable property.
Reaffirms United States v. Mitchell (403 U.S. 190)
Cited to show a state-law retroactive disclaimer does not block federal tax consequences.
Reaffirms United States v. National Bank of Commerce (472 U.S. 713)
Relied on for the rule that federal law decides whether a state-created right is 'property' under tax lien law.