in an IRA were exempt. The court determined that the Wisconsin statute continued to exempt pension-plan proceeds after receipt by the beneficiary. Because the exemption statute in Woods differs substantially from § 522(d)(10), the holding in that case is inap-posite to the present matter. Notwithstanding the specific language of § 522(d)(10), the debtor argues that whenever a debtor rolls over funds from an exempt pension plan to an IRA, “equity dictates that the exemption should remain.” Debtor’s Brief at 2. ‘Whatever the ‘equitable’ considerations to which [the debtor] refers, ... his right to an exemption is governed by statute, and ... none of the statutory exemption provisions applies....” In re Clark, 711 F.2d at 23. But cf. In re Donaghy, 11 B.R. 677, 678-80 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1981) (<HOLDING>). The debtor has presented no evidence
holding in a ease where debtor elected for reasons of ill health and in order to meet present needs to take pension benefits in one lumpsum payment three weeks before filing bankruptcy petition that the proceeds would retain the exempt status provided by  522d10e because they were a tangible reflection of the debtors right to receive  a payment under a  pension  plan  holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan 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 the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan holding that a debtors obligation to repay a pension plan loan is a debt because the plans right to offset the obligation against future benefits constitutes a method of enforcement sufficient to create a right to payment