Leaderboard

The preamble from the 2009 Final 430 regs reads in part: "These regulations clarify that the rules for short plan years apply for the year of termination by specifying that if a plan terminates before the last day of a plan year, then, for purposes of section 430, the plan is treated as having a short plan year that ends on the termination date. As a result, the minimum required contribution for such a plan is determined based on that short plan year. If a plan terminates before the date that would otherwise have been the valuation date for a plan year, then the valuation date for the plan year must be changed so that it falls within the short plan year. " The actual language of the regs essentially repeats the above, as you would expect: 1.430(a)-1(b)(5) Terminated plans (i) Short plan year. If a plan’s termination date occurs during a plan year but before the last day of a plan year, then, for purposes of section 430, the plan is treated as having a short plan year that ends on the termination date.

Um... follow the plan document?

Wow, you really do know people in high places...

I disagree with logroller, though I'm not sure you meant to say what you did. The QDRO rules were written as the sole method of getting at retirement benefits in a domestic situation. Either the ERISA rules are met or they are not. Any order dividing retirement benefits is NOT a QDRO unless it is found to be a QDRO by the plan (and it meets all the requirements). An order from a judge that does not meet the rules is NOT enforceable to divide retirement benefits in a qualified plan. So it really does matter what an order should be called. Having said all that. that was not the original question; we asked for more info and now, a week later, no info is forthcoming so we still can't answer the question any better than the previous responses. Regardless of whether this was a standard, valid QDRO or some court order dealing with federal benefits (a "Federal QDRO" which is not a QDRO at all), returning to court is the only legal solution to make it go away, which is apparently what all parties want.

If the LLC and the PLLC are not a controlled group, then adding an entity to the mix that is 100% owned by the LLC won't create a controlled group between PLLC and either LLC or the entity owned 100% by LLC. Whenever I hear "dentist", though, I get cautious vis-a-vis whether or not an affiliated service group exists.