John Frederick Dixon

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
JOHN FREDERICK DIXON, 	No. 09-11851
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
Memorandum on Objection to Claim of Exemption
_________________
Chapter 11 debtor John Dixon claimed two IRA accounts exempt, in the total amount of
$1,117,375.00. Creditor ORIX Capital Markets, LLC objects, arguing that the maximum exemption is
$1,095,000.00 pursuant to § 522(n) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 522(n) provides:
For assets in individual retirement accounts described in section
408 or 408A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, other than a
simplified employee pension under section 408(k) of such Code or
a simple retirement account under section 408(p) of such Code, the
aggregate value of such assets exempted under this section, without
regard to amounts attributable to rollover contributions under
section 402(c), 402(e)(6), 403(a)(4), 403(a) (5), and 403(b)(8) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and earnings thereon, shall
not exceed $1,095,000 in a case filed by a debtor who is an
individual, except that such amount may be increased if the
interests of justice so require. (Emphasis added.)
ORIX concedes that there are no factual disputes, and that most of the exempt accounts are
attributable to rollover contributions. It argues only that the statute should be interpreted to create a
maximum exemption of $1,095,000.00 in all cases. It argues that the provision in bold, being
Entered on Docket
December 18, 2009
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 09-11851 Doc# 88 Filed: 12/18/09 Entered: 12/18/09 14:54:43 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
ambiguous, should be disregarded.
While many of the provisions of the 2005 amendments to the Code are unclearly drafted, the
court does not find this particular provision to be ambiguous. The court understands “without regard”
to mean “without counting.” As Dixon points out, the burden of persuasion is on the objecting party
and exemption statutes are liberally interpreted in favor of the debtor.
Moreover, it is a basic rule of statutory construction that a statute should be construed so that
effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part is inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.
Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101, 124 S.Ct. 2276, 159 L.Ed.2d 172 (2004) (quoting 2A N. Singer,
Statutes and Statutory Construction § 46.06, pp.181-186 (rev. 6th ed.2000)). Interpreting the statute as
ORIX urges would violate this rule.
For the foregoing reasons, the objection will be overruled. Counsel for Dixon shall submit an
appropriate form of order.
Dated: December 18, 2009
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case: 09-11851 Doc# 88 Filed: 12/18/09 Entered: 12/18/09 14:54:43 Page 2 of 2