Jeanne E. Amarasinghe - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          Court of Appeals decided that based on the legislative history of           
          the statute, the Court’s reading of section 414(p) was too narrow           
          and would make it unreasonably difficult for DROs to qualify as             
          QDROs.  Id. at 991.  Dr. Amarasinghe argues that the Court of               
          Appeals’ interpretation of section 414(p)(1)(A)(i) supports his             
          argument that the Order is a QDRO because, like the DRO in                  
          Hawkins, the Order specifies the Plan as the source of the funds            
          that Dr. Amarasinghe must pay to Ms. Amarasinghe.                           
               Ms. Amarasinghe and respondent argue, and we agree, that the           
          case before us is distinguishable from Hawkins v. Commissioner,             
          supra, because in the case before us the Order did not give Ms.             
          Amarasinghe a direct right to receive the distribution, but                 
          instead required Dr. Amarasinghe to “cash out” first.  In                   
          Hawkins, the DRO at issue allowed the former spouse to receive              
          payments directly from the plan.  Hawkins v. Commissioner, 102              
          T.C. at 63.                                                                 
               A DRO fails to meet the requirements of section                        
          414(p)(1)(A)(i) if it does not create or recognize in the                   
          alternate payee the right to receive benefits directly from a               
          qualifying plan.  Dr. Amarasinghe argues that the Order is a QDRO           
          because the “end result” it required was that Ms. Amarasinghe               
          receive funds originating from the Plan.  However, this argument            
          urges us to ignore the statutory requirement that to be                     
          qualified, a DRO must create or recognize in an alternate payee             







Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008