Solo 401k and QDRO

Not sure if this is the correct forum for this question, but...

Owner only 401(k), assets under $250k, has not filed 5500s.

Owner in the process of divorce, anticipating a QDRO.

If the plan doc allows the ex-spouse to establish an account in the plan and leave the funds in the plan, would I be correct that the plan is no longer a solo 401k and would require a 5500?

What if the ex-spouse does distribute the funds, but it takes 30 or 60 days to do so.  Does that period of time require that a 5500 be filed?

Thanks.

It would still be a solo(k).

Good Luck!

Gilmore posted two questions and ETA give a solitary answer but I'm not sure to which question or mabe intended for both.

In any case, if the ex-spouse has an account in the plan, it seems that you no longer have just an owner and a spouse  and no longer have an exemption from filing.

I would suggest that if a distribution is being made from the owner's account, so long as it is not set up in a separate account first but just paid directly from his account as a distribution in compliance with the QDRO, then you never have a non-owner participant and you maintain your exemption.

Here's the Labor department's interpretive rule:

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=278017dd2eca615ddfbe139bbbfd3fe5&mc=true&node=se29.9.2510_13_63&rgn=div8

Isn't there some provision in ERISA, enacted by REA in 1984 as part of the QDRO rules, that says an alternate payee is to be treated as a "beneficiary" for purposes of ERISA?  If so, then would it not still be a one-participant plan exempt from ERISA and eligible for the IRS filing rules for one-participant plans?  

Thanks everyone.  I probably should have gone to the 5500 instructions first.

The instructions for Line 5:  "Line 5. Enter in element (a) the total number of
participants at the beginning of the plan year.", includes:

For pension benefit plans, “alternate payees” entitled to
benefits under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)
are not to be counted as participants for this line.

3 hours ago, jpod said:

Isn't there some provision in ERISA, enacted by REA in 1984 as part of the QDRO rules, that says an alternate payee is to be treated as a "beneficiary" for purposes of ERISA?  If so, then would it not still be a one-participant plan exempt from ERISA and eligible for the IRS filing rules for one-participant plans?  

Yes. This is my thinking. If it’s the “beneficiary” of that owner, then how does that trump it from still being considered the account of the owner for plan purposes. If the owner is 70-1/2, RMDs must be distributed from the ODRO account based on the owner’s age. I just don’t see how that would invoke ERISA. 

Good Luck!