Jump to content

CARES Act - Loan Provisions


Recommended Posts

Two questions:

1. Does the 100k limit increase come with any provisions for extended loan repayments, or do they have to abide by the 5 year rule?

2. Can a qualified individual take a new loan and suspend payments immediately until 1/1/2021, or do the suspension rules only apply to outstanding loans as of 3/27/2020. Just a question of whether these rules only apply to already existing loans or new loans too...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, nerd-party-administrator said:

Two questions:

1. Does the 100k limit increase come with any provisions for extended loan repayments, or do they have to abide by the 5 year rule?

2. Can a qualified individual take a new loan and suspend payments immediately until 1/1/2021, or do the suspension rules only apply to outstanding loans as of 3/27/2020. Just a question of whether these rules only apply to already existing loans or new loans too...

 

nerd-party-administrator:

1. The statute applies the extension to "any loan" outstanding on or after date of enactment, so basically you could take the $100k and have first payment a year later.

2. See answer to 1.

Of course, the participant does need to be COVID-19 affected (as defined in statute) to get the extension.

Luke Bailey

Senior Counsel

Clark Hill PLC

214-651-4572 (O) | LBailey@clarkhill.com

2600 Dallas Parkway Suite 600

Frisco, TX 75034

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the repayment 1-year later - is that still beginning 1/1/2021? Or 1-year from the date of the loan? I am having a very tough time with this 1-year delay but that payments still must begin no later than 1/1/2021. I feel that many plan sponsors and participants are being misled regarding the loan repayment suspension period!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JustMe said:

I feel that many plan sponsors and participants are being misled regarding the loan repayment suspension period!

There is a lot of confusion regarding this part, I don't think anyone is intentionally misleading sponsors and participants.  We will hopefully get IRS guidance soon, but Notice 2005-92 2005-98 does give us some insight.

The one year delay and the suspension period are actually two separate things. 

- The suspension period is March 27, 2020 through December 31,2020

- the one year is how long you get to suspend payments that occur during the suspension period. 

So if the first payment you suspend is your April 15 payment, all payments through December 31 are suspended for one year.  You resume your regular payments after the suspension period is over (January 2021) and you have to start paying on your delayed payments after the one year delay.

The safe harbor in Notice 2005-92 2005-98 was to delay payments during the suspension period, and then re-amortize over the remainder of the loan plus the suspension period.

The suspension period used in notice 2005-92 2005-98 (from KETRA) was actually longer than the one year delay.  Today we have the opposite in CARES, where the suspension period is shorter than the one year delay.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JustMe said:

Regarding the repayment 1-year later - is that still beginning 1/1/2021? Or 1-year from the date of the loan? I am having a very tough time with this 1-year delay but that payments still must begin no later than 1/1/2021. I feel that many plan sponsors and participants are being misled regarding the loan repayment suspension period!

I agree.  Someone, too clever by half, applied the logic from KETRA in IRS Notice 05-92 to this situation and now it is "all over the place."  The difference is, the suspension period for KETRA was actually more than one year (8/25/2005 - 12/31/2006), so the safe harbor language in the notice effectively extended the "one year" to 12/31/2006 no matter what.  Here the suspension period is less than one year and (I think) there is no way they are going to do the same thing - make loan payments due sooner than otherwise required.

Sigh.  RBG (just) beat me to it.  "I agree with RBG."

Ed Snyder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, RatherBeGolfing said:

So if the first payment you suspend is your April 15 payment, all payments through December 31 are suspended for one year.  You resume your regular payments after the suspension period is over (January 2021) and you have to start paying on your delayed payments after the one year delay.

I think I concur, but the specifics still bog me down.  Going back to the detail of the loan that Luke and I have discussed (monthly payments at the end of each month), are you arguing for the following:

Original payment amount per month: $200.

Payments on and after 4/30/2020 through 12/31/2020 are delayed for one year.

Payments from 1/31/2021 through 3/31/2021: $200 per month

Payments from 4/30/2021 through 12/31/2021: $200 * (1 + i) where i is the loan interest rate. If i = 4%, each of those 9 payments is $208.

Payments from 1/31/2022 through a date which is 9 months after the original loan due date which reamortize the loan on a level basis through the date which is 9 months after the original loan due date

That is, the reamortization period ends on the date which is X months after the original loan due date; where X is the number of months where payments are not made AT ALL.

Alternative 1: The reamortization period ends on the date which is 12 months after the original loan due date.  Note that in this case the monthly payments during the reamortization period are likely to be less than the original payment of $200.

In either case you are arguing for 4 different monthly payment amounts:

1) The initial amortization amount

2) $0 for the period that ends 12/31/2020

3) [1] * 1 + i for the balance of the payments before the end of the 12 month period

4) Reamortization amount

Anybody care to tweak this?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So RBG, you are saying that when 2202(b)(2)(C) says you can lengthen the original repayment period by "the period described in subparagraph (A)" it is referring to the 3/27/2020 - 12/31/2020 suspension period, and not the 1-year period by which each payment may be delayed? I think the statutory language would support either approach, and the latter would sure be much simpler.

Luke Bailey

Senior Counsel

Clark Hill PLC

214-651-4572 (O) | LBailey@clarkhill.com

2600 Dallas Parkway Suite 600

Frisco, TX 75034

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I think I follow your math, but your first example shows up one of the problems with saying that the "period" referred to in 2202(b)(2)(C) is the 3/27/2020-12/31/2020 suspension period. I guess you're right that if that is the way it is to be taken, since the period of the suspension ends 12/31/2020, but the payments skipped during the suspension period don't restart until a year after they were suspended, you would need to return to the original payment amount as of 1/1/2021, then switch to the reamortized amount as of the first payment that was delayed by one year. An extra credit math problem to be sure. Would be much easier if the one-year  period being referred to was the period by which the first payment was postponed, which is what I assumed in my original example. In that case, you would merely reamortize once, to take into account the interest for the delay in payment, when the loan restarted exactly one year after the first missed payment, and adding exactly one year to the period that the loan had left on it at the time of suspension.

Is this not a possible interpretation?

Luke Bailey

Senior Counsel

Clark Hill PLC

214-651-4572 (O) | LBailey@clarkhill.com

2600 Dallas Parkway Suite 600

Frisco, TX 75034

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Luke Bailey said:

So RBG, you are saying that when 2202(b)(2)(C) says you can lengthen the original repayment period by "the period described in subparagraph (A)" it is referring to the 3/27/2020 - 12/31/2020 suspension period, and not the 1-year period by which each payment may be delayed? I think the statutory language would support either approach, and the latter would sure be much simpler.

That is how I interpret it.  My understanding is that this is also how most of the policy folks at the recordkeepers are interpreting it.  The safe harbor under 2005-92 2005-98 uses remaining period of the loan, plus suspension period.  Absent IRS guidance on CARES, I think that is the logical interpretation considering previous guidance in 2005-98.

2005-92 2005-98 says that loan payments must resume at the end of the suspension period.  If we apply that to CARES, regular loan payments must resume in January of 2021.  The suspended payments won't be due until after the one year delay (Most likely no earlier than April), but the maximum period you are disregarding from the 5 year term is 9 months (Apr-Dec).  It doesn't make sense to add 12 months to the term when you had 9 months of non-payment. A more extreme example would be taking a loan in December, start paying in January, re-amortizing in December, and get a full 6 year term to pay it off.

I think it comes down to what @Bird mentioned above.  If the IRS comes out with CARES guidance that says that since the suspension period is less than 12 months, you get to delay all payments up to March 26, 2021, then I agree you would add 12 months to the end of the original term.  The guidance would need to be inconsistent with 2005-92 2005-98 in order to make it work.  Im not so sure they will focus on suspending all payments for 12 months rather than suspending all payments on or before December 31 though.  Either way I think it will be a hard stop at December 31 or March 26.  So the only way you get a full 12 months added on is if you had an existing loan at enactment.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Preston said:

I think I concur, but the specifics still bog me down.  Going back to the detail of the loan that Luke and I have discussed (monthly payments at the end of each month), are you arguing for the following:

Original payment amount per month: $200.

Payments on and after 4/30/2020 through 12/31/2020 are delayed for one year.

Payments from 1/31/2021 through 3/31/2021: $200 per month

I'm with you this far.  Where I go a different way is at the 4/30/21 payment.  I would re-amortize the remainder of the original balance plus accrued interest over the remaining original loan term plus the 9 month suspension period.  Only 2 different payment amounts unless you count $0 as a payment amount.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least now I understand the position and why some are seeing such great complexity. 2202(b)(2)(A) has two time periods in it, and (C) can point back to either. To me the policy weighs in favor of giving a full year, because of the simplicity and the likelihood of a long recovery. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Luke Bailey

Senior Counsel

Clark Hill PLC

214-651-4572 (O) | LBailey@clarkhill.com

2600 Dallas Parkway Suite 600

Frisco, TX 75034

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RatherBeGolfing said:

I'm with you this far.  Where I go a different way is at the 4/30/21 payment.  I would re-amortize the remainder of the original balance plus accrued interest over the remaining original loan term plus the 9 month suspension period.  Only 2 different payment amounts unless you count $0 as a payment amount.

Yes, in retrospect I think it should end up being 2 different payment amounts (ignoring the suspension period where there is a zero payment).  I'm just not willing to invest time in a spreadsheet where there are this many unknowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Luke Bailey said:

Well, at least now I understand the position and why some are seeing such great complexity. 2202(b)(2)(A) has two time periods in it, and (C) can point back to either. To me the policy weighs in favor of giving a full year, because of the simplicity and the likelihood of a long recovery. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Ft Williams just released optional language to their loan documents, and they are limiting suspension to payments due before December 31, 2020, noting that further guidance is needed from IRS/DOL.

I ave not seen anything from other document providers yet. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

                I would take a somewhat different approach than the above thoughtful approaches.  I would also raise the question whether an ERISA plan administrator would be fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities by offering plan participants and beneficiaries the opportunity to suspend the payment of a plan loan if the administrator could not and did not at the same time disclose the consequence of such suspension on the individual’s future plan payment obligations.

                      The CARES Act declares that “subsequent repayments with respect to any such loan shall be appropriately adjusted to reflect the delay in the due date under subparagraph (A) and any interest accruing during such delay.” [CARES Act § 2202(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added)] Thus, the suspended payments are not simply increased to reflect their delay in payment without changing the amount or the frequency of the originally scheduled post-2020 payments.  The Act limits the suspension to the 2020 payments, so the plan may not simply maintain the original payment frequency but postpone all the originally scheduled post-2020 payments for 12 months, but add a one-year interest rate to each of those payments, which would make each post-suspension payment identical.  Instead, the CARES Act appears to provide that the payment frequency be maintained, but the number of post-suspension payments will be the sum of (A) the number of suspended payments and (B) the number of payments not suspended. [This is consistent with disregarding the payment suspension for the purpose of determining the 5-year period and the term of a loan under subparagraph (B) or (C) of Code § 72(p)(2). CARES Act § 2202(b)(2)(C)]. In particular, if three quarterly payments were delayed, three quarterly due dates would be added to the original post-suspension payment quarterly due dates.  [Thus, if three quarterly payments due on June 30, 2020, September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were delayed, but four later payments were not, seven quarterly payments would be due beginning March 31, 2021, and concluding on September 30, 2022 rather than concluding on the original due date of December 31, 2021].  However, those payments must be increased to take into account how the interest accruals resulting from the suspended payments increased the loan balance. [CARES Act § 2202(b)(2)(B) providing for an adjustment for interest accruing during the delay in payment].  Thus, the post-suspension payments will increase, which raises the question how to best comply with the level amortization payment requirement of Code Section 72(p)(2)(C) for such post-suspension period.  The most reasonable answer is to use identical post-suspension payments, rather than varying post-suspension payment amounts, such as one amount for the first 2021 payments that were not delayed, a second amount for the delayed 2020 payments, and a third amount for all other post-suspension payment. This level payment can be generated by computing the December 31, 2020 loan balance to take into account the suspended payments, and then recomputing the level amortization payments to amortize that balance. [For example if the original loan was made on January 1, 2020 for $10,000 with an annual 6% interest rate with 60 monthly payments of $193.33, and the final eight 2020 payments beginning on May 31, 2020 were suspended the balance would increase from $9,422.37 on such date to $9,799.27 on December 31, 2020 as a result of the payment suspension. Therefore, monthly payments would increase to $201.06 beginning on January 31, 2021, and ending not on the original due date of December 31, 2025, but eight months later, on August 30, 2026]   This is the safe harbor approach proposed by the IRS for virtually the same KETRA language. [IRS Notice 2005-92, 2005-2 C.B. 1165, 1171-72 Example.] 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been stated at some point above, I think, 05-92 is incredibly unenlightening because the end of the suspension period coincides with the end of the delay period.  It provides no guidance when the end of the delay period encroaches on a period of time when payments are not suspended.   That is, when the delay period (1 year) is greater than the suspension period (8 months). As an aside, your 6% is 12 times the monthly rate (.5%) [typical banker's approach]. I would call that a loan at 6.16778% per annum.

All of your calculations revolve around that interest rate, but I'm still having a hard time matching some of your numbers.  For example, you use 9422.37 as of 5/31, but that is actually the amount outstanding immediately after the 4th payment is made [4/30].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Albert F said:

I would also raise the question whether an ERISA plan administrator would be fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities by offering plan participants and beneficiaries the opportunity to suspend the payment of a plan loan if the administrator could not and did not at the same time disclose the consequence of such suspension on the individual’s future plan payment obligations.

That's just looking for trouble.  No way are they saying "here you can do all this stuff" and then pull a Catch-22 like that.

15 hours ago, Mike Preston said:

As has been stated at some point above, I think, 05-92 is incredibly unenlightening

exactly

15 hours ago, Mike Preston said:

For example, you use 9422.37 as of 5/31, but that is actually the amount outstanding immediately after the 4th payment is made [4/30].

Agree, I can come up with that number but not that date.

BTW, does anyone write loans that are issued on Jan 1 with due dates on the last day of each month (not the first day?).

Ed Snyder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bird said:

BTW, does anyone write loans that are issued on Jan 1 with due dates on the last day of each month (not the first day?).

When theorizing about loans, sure. Loans use end-period amortization, just like a mortgage, so it makes sense to think about it that way. It also helps to pretend that a month is exactly one-twelfth of a year.

In the real world, we write loans with due dates that coincide with payroll dates.

Free advice is worth what you paid for it. Do not rely on the information provided in this post for any purpose, including (but not limited to): tax planning, compliance with ERISA or the IRC, investing or other forms of fortune-telling, bird identification, relationship advice, or spiritual guidance.

Corey B. Zeller, MSEA, CPC, QPA, QKA
Preferred Pension Planning Corp.
corey@pppc.co

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that most (but certainly not all) industry groups and recordkeepers are coalescing around two interpretations for the CARES Act loan provisions:

1) Loan payments from 4/1/2020-12/31/2020 (9 months) are suspended, and payments resume on 1/1/2021 under a reamortized loan amount. 

2) The term of the loan is extended by 9 months (thus interpreting the "period" referred to in 2202(b)(2)(C) to be the 3/27/2020-12/31/2020 suspension period)

Assuming that to be true, then the participant has no "due dates delayed for 1 year" which is part of the statutory text. How do you explain to participants and plan sponsor that even though the statutory text contains a 1 year delay, in operation, nothing is being delayed for 1 year? The two interpretations above act as if the 1 year verbiage is not even  in the statutory text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article by Robert Richter compares a few different interpretations of CARES 2202(b)(2): https://www.asppa.org/news/browse-topics/covid-19-loan-repayments—how-many-licks-does-it-take-get-center-tootsie-roll-pop

Free advice is worth what you paid for it. Do not rely on the information provided in this post for any purpose, including (but not limited to): tax planning, compliance with ERISA or the IRC, investing or other forms of fortune-telling, bird identification, relationship advice, or spiritual guidance.

Corey B. Zeller, MSEA, CPC, QPA, QKA
Preferred Pension Planning Corp.
corey@pppc.co

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Gruegen said:

Assuming that to be true, then the participant has no "due dates delayed for 1 year" which is part of the statutory text.

That is not what the statute says.  The statute says that loan payments with due dates during a certain period shall be delayed for 1 year. 

 

53 minutes ago, Gruegen said:

How do you explain to participants and plan sponsor that even though the statutory text contains a 1 year delay, in operation, nothing is being delayed for 1 year? 

Again, the statute doesn't say "you will have no payments for one year", it says "these payments are delayed for one year".  

Lets look at a loan that has a final payment due date on December 31, 2020.  The first delayed loan payment is March 31.  March 31-December 31 are suspended for 1 year.  There is no regular payment to resume on January 1, so the re-amortized loan starts again on March 31, 2021.  That is a delay of a year.

1 hour ago, Gruegen said:

The two interpretations above act as if the 1 year verbiage is not even  in the statutory text.

See above.

The recycled language in the statute makes it a matter of interpretation. Most interpretations are staying close to the safe harbor in 2005-92.  I know people take issue with that because the suspension period was longer than a year then, and its shorter than a year now, but I see no harm in using the safe harbor until we have further guidance.  The payments will resume well after we have guidance, so there is time to fix it.  Notice 2005-92 also states that the plan can use a shorter period, so it would reason that you wouldnt have to change at all if you go with a more conservative approach.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...