Asset Protection

My understanding is that assets under a qualified ERISA plan are protected from creditors. I also understand that benefits transferred to an IRA from an ERISA plan retain their asset protection

Is there a question?

1 hour ago, Dougsbpc said:

My understanding is that assets under a qualified ERISA plan are protected from creditors. I also understand that benefits transferred to an IRA from an ERISA plan retain their asset protection

I thought this wasn't necessarily true, and any assets in an IRA don't have protection from creditors, no matter where they come from.

15 hours ago, chc93 said:

any assets in an IRA don't have protection from creditors

I don't that is accurate - I think it is based on applicable state bankruptcy laws which I know over the years that many have become more sympathetic to IRAs and rollovers from qualified plans. However, ERISA protections are national/federal so there is no question. If creditor protection is important to an individual they should research their particular state laws before executing a rollover (if remaining in qualified plan is an option).

The 2005 Bankruptcy Act changes provide that funds rolled over to an IRA from an ERISA plan retain their ERISA creditor protection, and that IRA funds resulting from individual contributions to the IRA are protected up to $1 million. That's the basic rule. Of course, there are details.

“Of course, there are details.”

An all-purpose caveat and rejoinder.  And appropriate.

I've often thought that we should come up with a well-rounded caveat, and then people could put it in their sigs, or maybe have a link to a page or a message thread that contains its text, etc.

"Of course, there are details, some of which might be important to your particular factual situation, which I certainly don't know, and as to which I haven't asked all the questions that one would need to ask in order to ferret out other potentially relevant issues (meaning my comments here and elsewhere on thesde message boards are intended to be helpful information, but you should not and cannot rely upon them as my legal or other professional advice)."

(First draft)

40 minutes ago, Dave Baker said:

I've often thought that we should come up with a well-rounded caveat, and then people could put it in their sigs, or maybe have a link to a page or a message thread that contains its text, etc.

"Of course, there are details, some of which might be important to your particular factual situation, which I certainly don't know, and as to which I haven't asked all the questions that one would need to ask in order to ferret out other potentially relevant issues (meaning my comments here and elsewhere on thesde message boards are intended to be helpful information, but you should not and cannot rely upon them as my legal or other professional advice)."

(First draft)

I prefer "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing - therefore -caveat emptor."

But then again...What Do I Know?