On November 18th, the United States Tax Court issued an opinion, McNulty v Comm’r, 157 TC 10 (2021), which garnered a lot of internet discussion among those interested in bitcoin IRAs. Many existing and prospective Unchained clients have begun to ask what this opinion means, if anything, for Unchained IRAs. To address this, it’s important to understand the concept of a “checkbook” IRA, what the McNulty opinion said, and how Unchained IRAs fall outside of the ruling…
What is a checkbook IRA?
All IRAs are required by law to have a licensed financial institution acting as custodian over the IRA’s assets. This often creates a problem when an IRA account holder wants to invest in an asset which traditional financial institutions do not want to custody, such as real estate or bitcoin.
One solution to this problem which has become popular over the past 15 years is the “checkbook” IRA. With a checkbook IRA, an IRA owns only one asset, which is typically either an LLC or an investment trust entity. The IRA owner is appointed manager or trustee of that entity (called a “checkbook entity”), putting the IRA owner in control of the entity’s investments.
In short, the IRA invests in the checkbook entity, and the checkbook entity, in turn, does the actual investing in the alternative assets. This fulfills the custodial requirements for IRAs since the IRA custodian holds title to the IRA’s only asset, the checkbook entity.
In the early 2000s, the IRS challenged structures involving IRAs wholly owning business and investment entities several times and consistently lost in tax court. These IRS losses increased confidence in the idea of a checkbook IRA and led to its surge in popularity.
The recent McNulty opinion represents a drastic departure from most attorneys’ understanding of the legal principles underlying checkbook IRAs.
What did the McNulty opinion actually say?
The McNulty case involved a taxpayer holding gold in a checkbook IRA where such gold was not in the physical possession of a bank or trust company. This is a clear violation of section 408(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (a special provision which applies only to precious metals, not bitcoin), so the taxpayer ultimately was always going to lose this case. Precious metals in an IRA must always be in the physical possession of a qualified licensed custodian under 408(m).
The opinion in McNulty is very strange in that instead of merely stating that the taxpayer violated section 408(m) and moving on, the court also opined on IRC 408(a)(2), a section which applies to all IRAs, including bitcoin IRAs.
Even stranger, the court applied Treasury Regulation 1.408-2(e) in interpreting IRC 408(a)(2). This is odd because the Treasury Regulation does not apply to IRA holders at all—it’s instead a regulation that lays out licensing standards for certain IRA custodians who are not “banks.” As such, not only was this licensing regulation not applicable to the taxpayer herself, it was also not applicable to the taxpayer’s IRA custodian. This is because the statutory definition of “bank” includes not only banks, but also trust companies regulated by a state department of banking. See IRC 408(n)(3). The IRA custodian in McNulty was a trust company regulated by a state department of banking. It seems very possible that the judge was not aware of how “bank” is defined in this context.
The McNulty court leaned heavily on the (inapplicable) Treasury Regulation to propose that an IRA custodian must be intimately involved not only with the actual assets owned by an IRA (the LLC or investment trust entity in the context of a checkbook IRA) but also in the investments made by any entities owned by the IRA. This is a requirement found nowhere in the statute, and further contradicts earlier court cases involving IRAs wholly owning business or investment entities. These prior cases in fact are what caused the “checkbook style” self-directed IRA industry to take off in the early 2000s.
For the reasons above, the McNulty opinion was poorly reasoned. Further, the taxpayer made lots of mistakes with her IRA, including commingling assets, so it is unclear whether the court would’ve applied these factors at all absent such mistakes. Lastly, because it is a trial court rather than appellate court opinion, it is not precedential (meaning it is not legally binding upon other taxpayers). That said, in the interest of conservatism, it may make sense to attempt to comply with the new requirements laid out by the McNulty court in the event the IRS attempts to extend the McNulty rationale to other taxpayers.
An Unchained IRA is not a checkbook IRA
An Unchained IRA differs very substantially from a checkbook IRA.
In an Unchained IRA, the IRA custodian (Solera National Bank) holds legal title to the bitcoin directly; there is no intermediary trust or LLC entity involved as there would be in a checkbook IRA. Solera executes a special tri-party agreement with Unchained and each Unchained client by which it delegates private key responsibility to both the client himself (two private keys) and also Unchained (one private key). While Solera does not have access to private keys, it does have access to the related public keys and wallet configuration such that it is aware of all transactions.
Both Unchained and the client agree that in holding private keys they act as conduits for Solera as the IRA custodian. In the words of the McNulty court, “an IRA owner may act as an agent or conduit of the underlying custodian…so long as she is not in constructive or actual receipt of the IRA assets.” The concept of “constructive receipt” is key. An Unchained IRA client would not want to have constructive receipt of the bitcoin in his IRA vault until such time he uses his keys to take legal title to the coins by taking an IRA distribution.
When citing constructive receipt, the court’s main concern was that the taxpayer could potentially withdraw assets from the IRA outside of the custodian’s knowledge, evading IRS reporting. The court felt this situation created a deemed IRA distribution because such unfettered powers implied constructive receipt of the IRA’s assets. An Unchained IRA is significantly different on this point, as in an Unchained IRA, all bitcoin remain at all times in a designated multisig vault. That vault is consistently monitored by the IRA custodian (through Unchained) such that no transaction can possibly take place outside of the IRA custodian’s knowledge. Both Unchained and Solera have access to the vault’s master public keys and wallet configuration file, and as a result are able to view all transactions on the public bitcoin blockchain.
An Unchained client can take legal title to the underlying coins at any time by using his private keys to move his bitcoin out of the IRA vault, but any movement of coins outside of the designated vault (absent a prearranged rollover or transfer to a new IRA vault) is deemed be an IRA distribution and is reported to the IRS as such by the IRA custodian. Similarly, someone with a brokerage IRA in the legacy financial system can remove assets from his account at any time by using his account password, and the distribution is similarly reported. In this way, an Unchained IRA creates no more potential for tax abuse than a legacy financial system IRA, and the idea that an Unchained IRA somehow creates “constructive receipt” would necessarily also implicate nearly every legacy IRA currently in existence with the same problem.
Best of both worlds
An Unchained IRA is designed to allow clients private key control over their own bitcoin, while still providing transparency for tax reporting purposes. We believe it is the best solution available to eliminate trusted third parties while still remaining compliant with the tax laws around retirement accounts.
This article is provided for educational purposes only, and cannot be relied upon as tax advice. Unchained makes no representations regarding the tax consequences of any structure described herein, and all such questions should be directed to an attorney or CPA of your choice.