Overview of ERISA Anti-Alienation Provision

[Riser Adkisson LLP]

Pension and Employee Benefit Plans

29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), commonly known as the "ERISA Anti-Alienation Provision" states that "[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." This means that the assets in an ERISA pension plan are not available to creditors. Thus, pension planning provides a method for business owners to remove moneys from their businesses to an ERISA pension plan -- and to generate a sizeable tax deduction in the process -- and thereafter have those assets protected from most creditors (caution that in some circumstances spouses and the IRS may be able to get at the assets).

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

Raymond B. Yates, M.D. v. Hendon, No. 02-458 (03/02/2004)

Patterson v. Shumate, 112 S. Ct. 2242, 119 L. Ed. 2d 519 (1992)

Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat’l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 110 S. Ct. 680, 107 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1990)

Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, 486 U.S. 825, 108 S. Ct. 2182, 100 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1988)

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Cases

IRS v. Snyder, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Appeal No. 02-15618, September 15, 2003)

U.S. v. Taylor, ___ F.3d ___ ( 8th Cir. No. 01-2874, July 31, 2003)

In re Nelson, 8th Cir. BAP Appeal No. 01-6072MN, March 21, 2002

In re Weinhoeft, 275 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2001)

In re Kim, Appeal No. CC-00-1123 (9th Cir. BAP 2000)

Taunt v. General Retirement System, 233 F.3d 899, 2000 Fed.App. 0389, 36 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 293 (6th Cir. 2000)
State Cases

New Jersey

Gilchinsky v. National Westminster Bank N.J., 732 A.2d 482 (N.J. 06/14/1999)

Hawxzhurst v. Hawxhurst, 723 A.2d 58 (N.J.Super.App.Div. 12/29/1998)
North Dakota

Daniel J. Chapman v. Mary E. Wells and Bradley P. Wells, No. 960108 (N.D. 12/04/1996)