In re Chiz, 142 B.R. 592, 593 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1992) (quoting American Honda Finance Corporation v. Cilek (In re Cilek), 115 B.R. 974, 989 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1990)). See also In re Geise, 992 F.2d 651, 656 (7th Cir. 1993); Wallerstedt v. Sosne (In re Wallerstedt), 930 F.2d 630, 631-32 (8th Cir. 1991); NCNB Texas National Bank v. Volpe (In re Volpe), 943 F.2d 1451, 1453 (5th Cir. 1991); Bartlett v. Giguere (In re Bartlett), 168 B.R. 488, 494 (Bankr.D.N.H. 1994); In re Link, 172 B.R. 707, 708-09 (Bankr. D.Mass. 1994); In re Maylin, 155 B.R. at 615; In re Grindal, 30 B.R. 651, 653 (Bankr.D.Me. 1983).

In re Yee, 147 B.R. 624, 626 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1992); Chiz, 142 B.R. at 593; In re Cilek v. Dairyland Insurance Agency, 115 B.R. 974, 978 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1990). These courts have rejected restrictions on the section 522 exemption based on the debtor's control over the IRA funds or the debtor's inability to withdraw funds without penalty, Yee, 147 B.R. at 626, and hold that an IRA is a "similar plan" to the four specific plans identified in section 522(d)(10)(E) because the IRA's purpose is similar to pensions and annuities in that an IRA is designed to provide substitute wages to the debtor at a future date.

Injury under § 523(a)(6) includes common law conversion, or the "wrongful exercise of dominion or control over chattel." In re Cilek, 115 B.R. 974, 998 (Bankr. W.D.Wis. 1990) ( quoting Production Credit Assn. of Madison v. Nowatzski, 90 Wis.2d 344, 353, 280 N.W.2d 118 (1979)); see also In re Kimzey, 761 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 1985) (willful and malicious conversion is nondischargeable). Although there is disagreement over exactly what a plaintiff must prove, the courts do generally agree that a debtor's conversion or sale of collateral is subject to scrutiny under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Still, as the court stated in In re Long, 774 F.2d 875, 882 (8th Cir. 1985):

1992) to support his claim that his IRA is exempt from the estate as a "similar plan" provided that his IRA is found to be reasonably necessary for his support. In In re Cilek, 115 B.R. 974 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1990), the court addressed four rationales used by courts to deny debtors exemptions in IRAs: 1) the debtor has "no present rights to receive payments," In re Heisey, 88 B.R. 47 (Bankr.D.N.J. 1988); 2) IRAs are not "similar plans" because the debtor has control of the funds, In re Pauquette, 38 B.R. 170 (Bankr.D.Vt. 1984); 3) IRA benefits are not paid "on account of illness disability, death, age, or length of service," In re Fichter, 45 B.R. 534 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1984); and 4) IRA payments are not "reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor," Matter of Kochell, 26 B.R. 86 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1982).

We must first resolve an initial question: which law shall we apply to this question. The debtors ask the panel to reverse the trial court, relying on what they call "the leading case" on the federal exemption, In re Cilek, 115 B.R. 974 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1990). However, Cilek does not address the California statute at issue, which, as mentioned above, is identical to the federal exemption. For this reason, the trustee urges the panel to affirm, principally relying on the concerns raised by In re Innis, 62 B.R. 659 (Bankr.S.D.Cal. 1986), which, at the time the case was argued, was the only case to determine whether a debtor may claim an exemption in an IRA pursuant to Cal.Civ.Pro. § 703.140(b)(10)(E).

Counsel have not cited nor has the Court been able to find an appellate case directly in point. However, the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin has performed an exhaustive review of the case law and has reached a rational conclusion in In re Cilek, 115 B.R. 974 (Bankr. W.D.Wis. 1990). That Court concludes that IRA accounts are exempt under Section 522(d)(10)(E), to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and the debtor's dependents.

, In re Rawlinson, 209 B.R. 501, 508 (9th Cir.BAP 1997); In re Link, 172 B.R. 707, 711 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1994); In re Cilek, 115 B.R. 974, 1000 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1990). The Cilek court explicitly rejected the argument that only a plan or contract established by the debtor's employer is exempt under § 522(d)(10)(E).

1992); In re Chiz, 142 B.R. 592, 593 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1992); American Honda Fin. Corp. v. Cilek (In re Cilek), 115 B.R. 974, 987-88 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1990). Other courts hold individual retirement accounts are not "similar plans," and thus not exempt, because the debtor retains significant control over the investment regardless of tax consequences for early withdrawal.

1984): For a contrary view as to what the majority of courts had then decided, see American Honda Finance Corp. v. Cilek (In re Cilek), 115 B.R. 974, 980, n. 5 (Bankr.W.D.Wis. 1990). (1) an IRA is a savings account with tax benefits and gratuitous contributions by the debtor rather than a plan or policy provided by an employer or other party;

In making this determination, "Congress intended to look to the debtor's future needs as well as the debtor's current needs." In re Cilek, 115 B.R. 974, 978-79 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1990). I. FINANCIAL NEEDS OF DEBTOR'S SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD STEPSON