at p. 5 (“If the debtor is allowed to have access to her funds though loans or due to financial hardship, then the debtor’s creditors should also be entitled to those funds.”). There are cases decided under New York law which support the proposition that the kind of access which the Debtor enjoys with respect to the CREF account would render an antialienation provision invalid for § 541(c)(2) purposes. In particular, courts have “struck down” such provisions insofar as they pertained to an Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”), based on the fact that the debtor had the right to withdraw funds from the account at any time (and even though the withdrawal could trigger adverse tax consequences under 26 U.S.C. § 72(t)). See In re Taft, 171 B.R. 497, 503 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1994) (Holland, J.) (<HOLDING>), aff'd in pertinent part and rev’d in part on
holding that an antiassignment clause in a pension plan is valid under  541c2 and that the pension benefits thus do not become property of the estate and may not be made subject to a pay order under section 1325c holding that a simplified employee pension which is a kind of ira see 26 usc  408k was not a valid spendthrift trust and making note of the debtors ability to obtain withdrawals from the pension  for any reason subject merely only sic to a minimal tax penalty holding that the family courts award to exwife of interest in 387 of debtors military pension payable directly from the plan was not subject to discharge because interest in pension plan was not a debt rather it was considered exwifes separate ownership interest holding that the son of a pension plan participant who had not been designated to receive any of his fathers pension benefits stood no closer to beneficiary status than any other person holding that an employees protected interest in a pension vested before he or she became eligible to collect the pension