that week ....” 15 U.S.C. § 1673(a)(2). The Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”) defines “earnings” as “compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise” and, of particular relevance here, specifies that the term “includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program.” 15 U.S.C. § 1672(a). The Government argues convincingly that lump sum withdrawals from Sayyed’s two retirement accounts are not “earnings” under the CCPA. Although the value in the accounts can be traced to “compensation paid ... for personal services,” ibid., not “every asset that is traceable in some way to ... compensation” qualifies as “earnings.” Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 651, 94 S.Ct. 2431, 41 L.Ed.2d 374 (1974) (<HOLDING>); see also Usery v. First Nat'l Bank of Ariz.,
holding that an income tax refund check did not qualify as earnings under the ccpa and therefore was not subject to the 25 percent garnishment cap holding that a garnishment proceeding is an action against the consumer holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted holding that the trial court lacked authority to order a refund where the defendants case did not meet the specific statutory requirements authorizing a refund