Site /
California Private Retirement Plans - Introduction
Site.CAPRPMain History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to output
Changed lines 10-11 from:
The California Private Retirement Plan is a planning vehicle that is exempt by statute, more specifically California Code of Civil Procedure § 704.115(a)(1) and (b) which provides:
to:
The California Private Retirement Plan is a planning vehicle that is exempt by statute, more specifically California Code of Civil Procedure § [[CAPRP704115|704.115]](a)(1) and (b) which provides:
Changed line 30 from:
One more thing: The [[CAPRP704115|legislative history]] of CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[Caprp1985InReDaniel|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of decisional law on the subject.
to:
One more thing: The [[CAPRP704115|legislative history]] of [[CAPRP704115|704.115]] shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[Caprp1985InReDaniel|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § [[CAPRP704115|704.115]] is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of decisional law on the subject.
Added lines 27-28:
Private retirement plans are not easy to design because of the [[CaprpERISAAndTaxIssues|tax and ERISA issues]] that can arise from such plans, which usually requires drafting by a skilled tax attorney who also has some ERISA experience.
Changed line 28 from:
One more thing: The [[CAPRP704115|legislative history]] of CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[Caprp1985InReDaniel|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|decisional law]] on the subject.
to:
One more thing: The [[CAPRP704115|legislative history]] of CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[Caprp1985InReDaniel|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of decisional law on the subject.
Changed lines 7-8 from:
to:
Added lines 19-20:
https://creditordebtor.com/images/prt_191202_800x400.jpg
Changed lines 7-8 from:
[[<<]]
to:
https://creditordebtor.com/images/prt_191202_800x400.jpg
Changed lines 23-25 from:
* [[CaprpPlanDefects|'''No Plan Or Failed Plan''']] - The plan was not created or operated as a bona fide "retirement plan", but simply was the debtor's personal piggy-bank; or
* [[CaprpFraudulentTransferIssues|'''Voidable Transaction''']] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
* [[CaprpFraudulentTransferIssues|''
to:
* [[CaprpPlanDefects|''No Plan Or Failed Plan'']] - The plan was not created or operated as a bona fide "retirement plan", but simply was the debtor's personal piggy-bank; or
* [[CaprpFraudulentTransferIssues|''Voidable Transaction'']] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
* [[CaprpFraudulentTransferIssues|''Voidable Transaction'']] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
Changed lines 23-27 from:
* [[CAPRP_Plan_Defects|'''No Plan Or Failed Plan''']] - The plan was not created or operated as a bona fide "retirement plan", but simply was the debtor's personal piggy-bank; or
* [[CAPRP_UVTA|'''Voidable Transaction''']] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
One more thing: The [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|legislative history]] CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[Caprp1985InReDaniel|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|decisional law]] on the subject.
* [[
One more thing: The [[
to:
* [[CaprpPlanDefects|'''No Plan Or Failed Plan''']] - The plan was not created or operated as a bona fide "retirement plan", but simply was the debtor's personal piggy-bank; or
* [[CaprpFraudulentTransferIssues|'''Voidable Transaction''']] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
One more thing: The [[CAPRP704115|legislative history]] of CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[Caprp1985InReDaniel|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|decisional law]] on the subject.
* [[CaprpFraudulentTransferIssues|'''Voidable Transaction''']] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
One more thing: The [[CAPRP704115|legislative history]] of CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[Caprp1985InReDaniel|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|decisional law]] on the subject.
Changed line 27 from:
One more thing: The [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|legislative history]] CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/1985-in-re-daniel-concerning-california-private-retirement-plans.html|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|decisional law]] on the subject.
to:
One more thing: The [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|legislative history]] CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[Caprp1985InReDaniel|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|decisional law]] on the subject.
Changed lines 9-10 from:
California provides an exemption for Private Retirement Plans, including - almost uniquely among states - plans that are not tax-qualified. This creates the potential to use the exemption for asset protection planning, if properly done. However, it is that last phrase "if properly done" which causes considerable angst for technical planners, but unfortunately little for the numerous promoters who hawk them as a cure-all "bulletproof" asset protection device (which they are not).
to:
California provides an exemption for Private Retirement Plans, including - almost uniquely among states - plans that are not tax-qualified. The exemption arises under [[CAPRP704115|CCP § 704.115]]. This creates the potential to use the exemption for asset protection planning, if properly done. However, it is that last phrase "if properly done" which causes considerable angst for technical planners, but unfortunately little for the numerous promoters who hawk them as a cure-all "bulletproof" asset protection device (which they are not).
Changed lines 27-30 from:
One more thing: The [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html |legislative history]] CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective
to:
One more thing: The [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|legislative history]] CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/1985-in-re-daniel-concerning-california-private-retirement-plans.html|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html|decisional law]] on the subject.
Deleted line 29:
Changed lines 23-25 from:
* [[https://privateretirementplans.com/plan-defects-of-california-private-retirement-plans.html|'''No Plan Or Failed Plan''']] - The plan was not created or operated as a bona fide "retirement plan", but simply was the debtor's personal piggy-bank; or
* [[https://privateretirementplans.com/fraudulent-transfer-issues-with-california-private-retirement-plans.html|Voidable Transaction]] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
* [[
to:
* [[CAPRP_Plan_Defects|'''No Plan Or Failed Plan''']] - The plan was not created or operated as a bona fide "retirement plan", but simply was the debtor's personal piggy-bank; or
* [[CAPRP_UVTA|'''Voidable Transaction''']] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
* [[CAPRP_UVTA|'''Voidable Transaction''']] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
Changed line 1 from:
(:title California Private Retirement Plans:)
to:
(:title California Private Retirement Plans - Introduction:)
Changed lines 9-32 from:
to:
California provides an exemption for Private Retirement Plans, including - almost uniquely among states - plans that are not tax-qualified. This creates the potential to use the exemption for asset protection planning, if properly done. However, it is that last phrase "if properly done" which causes considerable angst for technical planners, but unfortunately little for the numerous promoters who hawk them as a cure-all "bulletproof" asset protection device (which they are not).
The California Private Retirement Plan is a planning vehicle that is exempt by statute, more specifically California Code of Civil Procedure § 704.115(a)(1) and (b) which provides:
->(a) As used in this section, “private retirement plan” means:
-->(1) Private retirement plans, including, but not limited to, union retirement plans.
--->* * *
->(b) All amounts held, controlled, or in process of distribution by a private retirement plan, for the payment of benefits as an annuity, pension, retirement allowance, disability payment, or death benefit from a private retirement plan are exempt.
A California Private Retirement Plan ("PRP") typically involves an agreement between an employer and an employee, whereby the employer will set up a Private Retirement Trust ("PRT") for the benefit of the employee (or some or all employees, depending on the type of plan), and will regularly fund the Trust according to some schedule. When the specified retirement event occurs, the Trust will then begin to make distributions to the employee, also according to schedule. There are several ways for creditors to successfully bust these plans, not the least of which being, as amply demonstrated by the case-law:
* [[https://privateretirementplans.com/plan-defects-of-california-private-retirement-plans.html|'''No Plan Or Failed Plan''']] - The plan was not created or operated as a bona fide "retirement plan", but simply was the debtor's personal piggy-bank; or
* [[https://privateretirementplans.com/fraudulent-transfer-issues-with-california-private-retirement-plans.html|Voidable Transaction]] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
The exemption arises under CCP § 704.115, which is reprinted in full below.
One more thing: The [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html |legislative history]] CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/1985-in-re-daniel-concerning-california-private-retirement-plans.html|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html |decisional law]] on the subject.
The more realistic view of private retirement plans is that they can be an important piece of an asset protection plan when conservatively utilized, but should only be that -- a subsidiary piece of the plan, and not the central ''piece de resistance'' of a plan. As the case law demonstrates, overloading a private retirement plan just for creditor protection is an inherently bad idea. Yet, this is exactly what is being widely marketed today. ''Caveat emptor!''
The California Private Retirement Plan is a planning vehicle that is exempt by statute, more specifically California Code of Civil Procedure § 704.115(a)(1) and (b) which provides:
->(a) As used in this section, “private retirement plan” means:
-->(1) Private retirement plans, including, but not limited to, union retirement plans.
--->* * *
->(b) All amounts held, controlled, or in process of distribution by a private retirement plan, for the payment of benefits as an annuity, pension, retirement allowance, disability payment, or death benefit from a private retirement plan are exempt.
A California Private Retirement Plan ("PRP") typically involves an agreement between an employer and an employee, whereby the employer will set up a Private Retirement Trust ("PRT") for the benefit of the employee (or some or all employees, depending on the type of plan), and will regularly fund the Trust according to some schedule. When the specified retirement event occurs, the Trust will then begin to make distributions to the employee, also according to schedule. There are several ways for creditors to successfully bust these plans, not the least of which being, as amply demonstrated by the case-law:
* [[https://privateretirementplans.com/plan-defects-of-california-private-retirement-plans.html|'''No Plan Or Failed Plan''']] - The plan was not created or operated as a bona fide "retirement plan", but simply was the debtor's personal piggy-bank; or
* [[https://privateretirementplans.com/fraudulent-transfer-issues-with-california-private-retirement-plans.html|Voidable Transaction]] - The transfers to the plan violated the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) or California common-law fraudulent transfer.
The exemption arises under CCP § 704.115, which is reprinted in full below.
One more thing: The [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html |legislative history]] CCP § 704.115 shows that this section was adopted in 1982, became effective in 1983, and the first opinion regarding the statute was handed down in 1985 in the federal bankruptcy case of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/1985-in-re-daniel-concerning-california-private-retirement-plans.html|''In re Daniel]]. The point is that CCP § 704.115 is hardly anything like new law, but instead has been around in substantially the same form for over 30 years. It is only in the last few years, however, that private retirement plans have become a hot-button flavor-of-the-day for asset protection planners, which is something attributed far more to ''aggressive marketing by promoters'' than the statute or the wealth of [[https://privateretirementplans.com/leading-court-opinions-and-legislative-history-re-california-private-retirement-plans.html |decisional law]] on the subject.
The more realistic view of private retirement plans is that they can be an important piece of an asset protection plan when conservatively utilized, but should only be that -- a subsidiary piece of the plan, and not the central ''piece de resistance'' of a plan. As the case law demonstrates, overloading a private retirement plan just for creditor protection is an inherently bad idea. Yet, this is exactly what is being widely marketed today. ''Caveat emptor!''
Changed lines 1-4 from:
(:title TOPIC Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:Summary:TOPIC Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:descriptionTOPIC Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:keywords creditor, debtor, judgment, enforcement, collection,TOPIC:)
(:Summary:
(:description
(:keywords creditor, debtor, judgment, enforcement, collection,
to:
(:title California Private Retirement Plans:)
(:Summary: California Private Retirement Plans Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:description California Private Retirement Plans Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:keywords creditor, debtor, judgment, enforcement, collection, California Private Retirement Plans:)
(:Summary: California Private Retirement Plans Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:description California Private Retirement Plans Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:keywords creditor, debtor, judgment, enforcement, collection, California Private Retirement Plans:)
Changed line 6 from:
to:
!CAPRP [--PCAPRPMain--]
Changed lines 14-18 from:
!!!TOPIC Opinions
(:pagelist link=Category.TOPIC list=normal fmt=title:)
----
(:pagelist link=Category.TOPIC
----
to:
!!!California Private Retirement Plan Topics And Opinions
(:pagelist link=Category.CAPRP list=normal fmt=title:)
----
(:pagelist link=Category.CAPRP list=normal fmt=title:)
----
Added lines 1-18:
(:title TOPIC Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:Summary: TOPIC Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:description TOPIC Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:keywords creditor, debtor, judgment, enforcement, collection, TOPIC:)
(:linebreaks:)
TOPIC [--PAGENAME--]
[[<<]]
[[<<]]
TEXT
[[<<]]
[[<<]]
----
!!!TOPIC Opinions
(:pagelist link=Category.TOPIC list=normal fmt=title:)
----
(:Summary: TOPIC Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:description TOPIC Creditor Debtor Judgment Enforcement Collection:)
(:keywords creditor, debtor, judgment, enforcement, collection, TOPIC:)
(:linebreaks:)
TOPIC [--PAGENAME--]
[[<<]]
[[<<]]
TEXT
[[<<]]
[[<<]]
----
!!!TOPIC Opinions
(:pagelist link=Category.TOPIC list=normal fmt=title:)
----