Gladwell v. Reinhart, 267 P.3d 895

Utah Code 78B-5-505(1)(a)(xiv) exempts a retirement plan 'described in Section 401(a)' of the IRC from the bankruptcy estate.
Dr. Douglas Reinhart established a Keogh plan in 1992 through Schwab, with a money purchase pension component and a profit-sharing component.
In 1996 Reinhart incorporated as Douglas Reinhart, M.D., P.C.; he ceased self-employment and became an employee, but continued plan contributions; his wife Janet Reinhart was not made a participant.
In January 2000 Reinhart filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; the Trustee objected to the exemption, contending the plan was not tax qualified under IRC 401(a) due to defects.
Bankruptcy court found four defects preventing tax qualification but concluded the plan was 'described in Section 401(a)' and could rely on EPCRS to cure defects; the exemption was granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 'described in Section 401(a)' requires tax qualification	Reinhart argues the statute's 'described in' language does not require tax qualification.	Trustee argues only tax-qualified plans are described in 401(a).	A retirement plan is 'described in' 401(a) if it substantially complies with 401(a).
Impact of EPCRS and policy on description	Described in 401(a) allows curing defects via EPCRS without losing exemption.	If defects are uncorrected, plan is not described in 401(a) and not exempt.	EPCRS corrections support treating substantially compliant plans as exempt; defects curable under EPCRS do not bar exemption.

In re Kunz, 99 P.3d 793 (Utah 2004) (trustee standards for statutory interpretation in certified questions)
Aaron and Morey Bonds and Bail v. Third Dist. Court, 156 P.3d 801 (Utah 2007) (substantial compliance considerations in statutory interpretation)
Copulos, 210 B.R. 61 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1997) (bankruptcy exemptions and corrective mechanisms for plan defects)
Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City, 248 P.3d 465 (Utah 2011) (statutory interpretation and language sufficiency in ambiguity-free cases)