Roth IRA

[gerard2006]

Jurisdiction

New York

Folks - am I reading this public source accurately? Basically, all contributions Roth IRA are exempt and guarded from any liablity lawsuit I face as long as it's done 90 days before the lawsuit was filed in NYS? Thanks

Additions to IRAs are not exempt from judgments if contributions were made after a date that is 90 days before the interposition of the claim on which the judgment was entered

 

[adjusterjack]

Give us a link to where you read all that and we'll tell you if you are interpreting it correctly.

 

[gerard2006]

stateirachart.pdf (thetaxadviser.com)

 

[adjusterjack]

Read the actual statutes rather than somebody's summary or interpretation.

See Paragraph (c) 1 through 5. Trust Exemption.

New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Law § 5205 (2022) - Personal Property Exempt From Application to the Satisfaction of Money Judgments. :: 2022 New York Laws :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

Paragraph 5 addresses the 90 day thing and is there to avoid fraudulent transfers to avoid creditors.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Paragraph 5 addresses the 90 day thing and is there to avoid fraudulent transfers to avoid creditors.

Not quite correct. The link is good, but you've not given a proper cite to allow someone to find the part that you are referring to. There are multiple parts of that rule that are labeled with a five. The legal citation (how you'd refer to it in court documents and other legal papers) is NY CPLR § 5205(c)(5). If you were to write it in full or speak out loud it would be New York Civil Practice and Rules section 5205, subsection c, subdivision five. I realize that I'm being particularly technical here, but it helps readers find the right part of the statute and is what the creditor would use when trying to collect a judgment against an IRA.

 

[adjusterjack]

you've not given a proper cite to allow someone to find the part that you are referring to

Well, I started by referring to the section title Trust Exemption and then referred to paragraph 5.

I realize that I'm being particularly technical here, but it helps readers find the right part of the statute

You're right. I sometimes forget that readers don't have the experience that I do.

 

[gerard2006]

I read through your posted passage a few times but am doubting myself if I understood it correctly. is it possible to dumb down perhaps 1-2 situations in which it's exempt vs non-exempt. Thank you!