How do you establish/fund your IRA? Was it via monthly contributons that you makde directly to the party that manages the IRA, or, was is done via a payroll deduction through your employer?
Are you still paying into the IRA, or, if not -- when did you stop?
Also, can you detail for me we what exactly child support services has done with regard to your IRA?
Despite all of the questions that I have asked which may be relevant to the issue you have raised depending on the answers, I will caution you generally that the law is very very unfavorable to folks who do not pay their child support, and, for this reason, you should probably not be very optimistic about protecting your IRA from child support obligations.
I hope this was helpful to you. If it was please remember to click "ACCEPT" on your screen to make sure that I am paid for my efforts. By clicking ACCEPT you are not giving up your right to ask more questions on this issue, and I will be happy to respond to these as well.
You actually didn't give me an answer on my question. I will try and clarify further, I have been making payments for many years now even though there are arrearages. I am fully aware that the courts do not look upon individuals favorably but I do have a unique situation in which the court is fully aware of. My question again lies within the civil codes and revenue codes. How can the department of child support be allowed to levy against my retirement acount when in fact civil codes do not allow it and revenue codes do not allow it? I have stop paying into my IRA but that is all the money I have for my retirement. I believe I have a case in civil court against the department of child support but I would like another opinion as to whether or not they can violate other codes in the process of doing this?
I forgot to mention the civil codes they are using as their basis: family code 17453 & 17522.5, if this helps.
I will try to answer your question, and the information that you provided helps.
However, can you please also advise of the following?
1. What exactly has occurred with regard to your IRA? In other words, has there actually been a levy against it, and, if so how did this levy arise (i.e., court order, action of CS department, etc.)?
2. If there has been a levy against your IRA, has there been any proceedings following the levy? In other words, did you challenge it in any way? Did the administrator/custodian of your IRA consider the levy valid?
3. In what context are the CA statutes that you cite referened?
In other words, it would help considerably to understand exactly how this situation arose -- answering the general question of whether the action is premissible without knowing the circumstances is not advisable.
First, on what basis are you suggesting that DCCS is violating the "civil" code by its actions?
Which civil code are you referring to, and, which provisions of that code do you think are being violated? Keep in mind that the CA Code provisions that you cited previously are part of the CA "civil code", and, that they seem on a quick read to authorize the levy. If you want to argue that the levy violates the CA "civil code", you will have to explain away these provisions, and, find some that support your argument.
Second, with regard to the argument that DCCS is violating the "revenue code", do you have any basis for this argument? The term "revenue code" is probably most often used as a synonym for the US Tax Code, and, I am not sure by any means that the Tax Code has any provision in its volumes and volumes of regulations that "prohibit" the attachment of an IRA for the payment of child support. The Tax Code is designed to address what is and what isn't taxable and to define the regulatory scheme with regard to federal taxation -- and so, while it may state that an IRA contribution is tax deductible up to a certain dollar amount, it does not regulate whether or not an IRA can be attached for child support.
This may not be the answer you want to hear and I urge you to discuss the matter with a knowledgeable CA attorney, however, I cannot envision any scenario wherein the lawsuit you are contemplating has any chance of succeeding.
Finally, a common sense argument: Remember that an IRA is funded by the contribution of one's already-taxed earnings -- or, in other words, it is funded by the contribution of portions of one's paychecks or of one's earnings that are received in some other form. Given this fact, if the DCCS can levy your paychecks, why can't it levy portions of your paychecks that have been deposited in an IRA?
I understand your question perfectly well, I'm just proefessionally skeptical about your contentions, and you have not shown me anything that would cause me to change my opinion.
If you can show me even one of the provisions of the "civil", "revenue" or "family code" that you claim support your contentions, perhaps I might reconsider my take on this.............and, absent this, we can agree to disagree.
My answer is that:
(1) the state code provisions cited seem to authorize the levy against the retirement account, and,furthermore there is no authority to the contrary in the state code that I could identify;
(2) I cannot imagine that either the state or the federal revenue codes provide any authority, or any basis for policy arguments, which support -- or, which even address -- the argument that a levy against a retirement account for child support arrearages is somehow illegal.
(3) there is no practical or even mildly persuasive argument for exempting post-tax money placed into an IRA from child support obligations. Such a rule would actually mean that a child support avoider could take earnings clearly attachable for child support and simply put them in an IRA in order to avoid supporting his children, and, it is impossible to imagine any legislature being so obtuse as to miss this obvious point.
(4) with regard to your question about the "legislative history" --- "legislative history" is something that, if available, a court might look at in order to resolve a tough question of statutory interpretation. I am not sure how this even applies to your situation, although I suppose that if you challenged the CA statutes authorizing the levy, you could argue that the legislative history shows that the legislature intended that IRAs be exempt from attachment, if it actually did show this. However, if the court decided that the statute was clear on its face, you would never even get to convince it to look at the legislative history. Moreover, do you even know if the legislative history is supportive of your argument? Many times a statute does not even have any legislative history.
Hopefully this clarifies my opinion for you.
Good luck with your endeavor.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).