- 14 -
In this case, Waddell & Reed distributed the Plan funds to
Dr. Amarasinghe, not Ms. Amarasinghe, and the fact that Ms.
Amarasinghe ultimately received the funds from the distribution
is not dispositive. Therefore, we conclude that the distribution
from the Plan was not made pursuant to a QDRO under section
402(e)(1)(A) because the Order failed to give Ms. Amarasinghe the
right to receive the benefits directly from the Plan, the
procedural requirements of section 414(p)(6) were not satisfied,
and Ms. Amarasinghe did not in fact receive the benefits directly
from the Plan.4
II. Alimony
The parties agree that a portion of the distribution should
be alimony. The amount Ms. Amarasinghe reported as alimony on
her 2002 Federal income tax return is $75,318, calculated by
beginning with the $179,368 that Ms. Amarasinghe received from
Dr. Amarasinghe, and subtracting $104,050 as the amount Ms.
Amarasinghe allocated to child support and insurance premiums in
her petition to the Virginia Beach district court.
Ms. Amarasinghe now asks us to consider an alternative
method that she claims to be simpler and more accurate. She
argues that we should begin with $109,200 as the total amount of
4 Ms. Amarasinghe and respondent contend that the Order is
not a QDRO because it also fails to satisfy the fact
specification requirements of sec. 414(p)(1)(A)(ii). However, we
need not address this issue.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008