Guest Posted November 15, 2000 Share Posted November 15, 2000 Loan was given to owner of an S corp, which of course would be a prohibited transaction. but also, Plan does not allow loans. so, which comes first? Is it an operational defect that can be corrected (perhaps under APRSC) or a prohibited transaction, which is not correctable under any of the programs. owner has been paying back loan with interest. as a side note, plan does not allow in-service withdrawals, so it can't be treated as a distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Maldonado Posted November 15, 2000 Share Posted November 15, 2000 Why couldn't it be both? Kirk Maldonado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 16, 2000 Share Posted November 16, 2000 who knows? but seriously, if plan allowed loans, then I definitely have a prohibited transaction. But plan doesn't allow loans, so I have an operational defect. hence, instead of viewing things as a 'loan' I could consider it a 'distribution'. oops, no valid reason for a distribution since ee is still working. so I have a different operational defect. under APRSC I can self correct by having the $ paid back. The difference being, in one case, there are prohibited transaction penalties, in the other case there doesn't appear to be any. This is a takeover, 'loan' was made in 1998. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanm Posted November 16, 2000 Share Posted November 16, 2000 The original question is interesting. An egg is a potential chicken, whereas the chicken is an actual chicken. Since potentiality precedes actuality, the egg must have come first. Alan Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Maldonado Posted November 16, 2000 Share Posted November 16, 2000 Alan: But where did the egg come from? Kirk Maldonado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Posted November 16, 2000 Share Posted November 16, 2000 Isn't it clear in EPCRS that this program is not effective with respect to prohibited transactions? I know that this means that pts can't be corrected under EPCRS, but doesn't it also mean that the "fiction" of defect/correction/no defect is just ignored for the prohibited transaction rules. By using one of the EPCRS methods, you don't really undo history and erase the transaction, you just prevent the facts from causing disqualification. You still have your prohibited transaction no matter what you do. B.L.: You have a chicken omelette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 16, 2000 Share Posted November 16, 2000 I'm willing to admit I've laid a few in my time, and, come to think of it, I am a bit chicken....hmmm that doesn't help answer my original question, and this isn't the spot for why I hold to creation over evolution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu Posted November 17, 2000 Share Posted November 17, 2000 Really, the way the PT rules are set up, all loans are PTs. The section (4975) then goes on the define exceptions for certain transactions. Most loans qualify as an exception to the PT rules. Since your loan does not, it seems to me that it is a PT regardless of whether the plan in question has a bona fide loan program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Judd Posted November 17, 2000 Share Posted November 17, 2000 Originally posted by Kirk Maldonado Alan: But where did the egg come from? Too easy - a potential chicken (thanks to One Foggy Site). Love how the place has livened up lately...be-gawk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now