tina turner order to seize the entire four along came a retirement account for the defendant appellant was a judgment better and they did this under the mandatory victim's restitution issue just before you is whether you consumer credit protection act limits the government to a twenty five percent cap our contention is that it does in the case united states versus levy makes it clear that the government is limited to twenty five percent of the retirement account now but let me ask you this do the retirement plans allow sayyid to receive periodic payments now or do they simply allow him to elect for such payments when he reaches retirement age they allow him to elect such payments when he when he reaches retirement age and that's the main distinction issue that pulls in council in a district court raised as distinguishing leave from this case the district court said that well first of all there's nothing in the record that says levy could not take the entire account the lump sum money immediately is nothing in the record there the district court says that it seems unlikely that that's the case but we're dealing with a for a want a retirement plan and leapt in with dealing with it here now  of periodic payments correct correct and that the holding only applied to the ability to access carry out payments correct that's correct there are no periodic payments in this case the question here is whether or not your client had access to the funds a media correct and it so well that distinguish the holding in leave from these circumstances no it doesn't explain why there's nothing in the record in lee that says the lead could not immediately access everything and take along some it's just how it happens to be that lee was at the point the retirement age where he received periodic payments in this case that's not that not the issue but however that doesn't distinguish lee i mean that so you're saying that something was not there in the early should be should be helpful to us here because here we have this present access unconditional to a lump sum payment is your argument that because that wasn't mentioned in the only that we still applies that's one argument  consumer credit protection act wasn't just an act that to protect consumers the intent of congress with that act is also to protect taxpayers because let's let's assume the rule against  my client and you know seize the entire four one k plan now in this particular case you have a middle class individual who has typical middle class expenses two kids college ground house car all the payments on top of that he lost all his nonexempt innocence he's got one third taxes he's got to pay for this twenty five percent garnishment even hope one hundred thousand dollars salary will not meet that middle class expenses so in another ten years from now when he retires he will not have a retirement account and he will qualify for public aid like qualifying for you by allowing the private credit the judgment creditor which is the case here it's not it's not the government is collecting the money it's a private individual by allowing the private judgment creditor to put the in acting the consumer credit protection plan and and the case law that opposing counsel cites has already been discussed most of it has been discussed in leap with respect to  and had to cook if lee was to address that then we would then we would get a clearer picture but right now i believe that this panel's bound by lee as well as the district court is bound by the findings elite but keep in mind let's say  the definition of income is defined under the c p a and lead to find a definition of income and they define it defined it as product payments made pursuant to a pension or retirement plan and that's the crux of client you're sitting in precedent and there are going to be other defendants appellants who are not in the same financial circumstances a much as my client making less than the for sure you'll push them into public  in a financial status where they felt qualified well if it but if but if we rule in your favor wouldn't the impact be for a possible impact be that all judgment debtors will set up retirement accounts to immediately all retirement accounts for individuals in this status and and if you and if you proceed further you then you will jeopardize having the taxpayers paying the judgment because if an individual it is not receiving public from his retirement account periodic payments now they're all going to rush and say well to give me periodic payment you know even though they're going to get penalize they going to pay higher taxes but they it makes sense to do that and take advantage of the twenty five percent cap so they will all do it so they'll be the consequence is zero zero of a decision against my client today so i'll see matter how should we factor in the rights of crime victims their right to be compensated for the wrongs perpetrated against them and that is absolutely and that's and as a matter of fact that the statute that counsels using is the mandatory victims restitution statute that allows us to enforce a restitution judgment of propriety allows us to enforce that judgment against all the defendants property and rights property that's a phrase that has a long history this court as interpreted it becomes because it comes from the tax code and basically that phrase property rights or property describes just about everything and anything that senator could oh so when we go to enforce a judgment we basically can enforce such as against all property of the defendant defended then is the predicament of trying to shelter some of that property the statute gives the defendant very few options to shelter property one of those options is earnings that's the that's the earners and you would simply look at the definition of earnings and one big element of that definition of earning kind of the consumer credit protection act is that it's a kind of payment that comes in periods now w goals and one of the goals of the act was to protect the debtor from becoming bankrupt or ward of the state government so in terms of our ruling do you think that with the work congress is intent you know now and what if the debtor was only a couple years away from retirement age with the well congress has protected what in this case you know this money's in this retirement account really were no different than i had mr say put them in a segregated savings account that didn't have a label for one k individual retirement account so the consequence could be in ruling in your favor that defendant subject to restitution judgments will simply restructure their retirement benefits to for close access to the immediate lump sum payments well your hon typically crafted by an employer for more than just a defendant and with individual retirement accounts and for one k s those are structure according to you know the internal revenue code so i'm not that that is such an issue and it would be something that congress would need to address at that point i suppose if we found that criminal defendants in addition to you know engaging fraud fraudulent schemes were also engaging in schemes to hide their assets from from the government one thing came time to pay a fine of restitution but you know that goes back to the original point which is that  when congress devised the enforcement statute that issue here thirty six thirteen in the limited exemptions it was trying to prevent the criminal defendants from any opportunity to shield other assets from the government collector and that is that is really the point right here one is that there's very few opportunities for a defendant to shield their assets certainly they cannot shield that put their money in a fact account and shield it from the united states when it's in forcing your promotion money judgment there's this court's decision to leave really supports that proposition  and leave it was addressed to periodic payments and this court overturned a district court opinion allowing the government to entirely cvs a periodic came in and said no you can't do that that this is a mean most most of people's wealth does come from their earnings and most of it is put into their a savings account or some sort of retirement and if that is if if if that is a debt you know that is the definition of earnings then there's really nothing that could be shelved that couldn't be sheltered by just simply calling it earnings but you know even in the context of a civil judgment that wouldn't work earnings because there's this definition of period to city that goes along this element of period estate it goes along with death earnings it requires these payments to be made over time it doesn't once the payment is made from employer from four point pension plans what have you me tenders and character wouldn't work the problem with your state house is that if this was a civil judgment that was being enforced he could rely on a state statute multiple state statutes that do shelter retirement earnings b