@Mike Dorneman Thanks Mike, makes sense!

Hopefully that made some sense!

See which one makes more sense to you and your situation.

(c) Prohibited transaction(1) General ruleFor purposes of this section, the term “prohibited transaction” means any direct or indirect—(A) sale or exchange, or leasing, of any property between a plan and a disqualified person;(B) lending of money or other extension of credit between a plan and a disqualified person;(C) furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between a plan and a disqualified person;(D) transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a disqualified person of the income or assets of a plan;(E) act by a disqualified person who is a fiduciary whereby he deals with the income or assets of a plan in his own interest or for his own account; or(F) receipt of any consideration for his own personal account by any disqualified person who is a fiduciary from any party dealing with the plan in connection with a transaction involving the income or assets of the plan.Purely my opinion here, but the between interpretation would seem to make sense as the proper intent of the code. 

That doesn't make sense.

Thank you @shahriar khan that makes a lot of sense.

Would it make sense to create a separate LLC that I control solely and a joint one for the properties we are splitting?

If my sellers agrees for longer escrow - does it make sense to go for purchase with finance to reduce escrow costs?

@Reece Register - Totally makes sense!

@Brian Bradley the point of this ruling was the criminal and fraud aspect of what he did and you can’t hide from the justice system in that sense.