Leaderboard

$50K loan, 5% interest, monthly payments starting 7/1/19. 4/1/20 - 12/1/20 payments delayed. 1/1/21-3/1/21 payments per original schedule. Balance remaining after 3/1/21 payment re-amortized over remainder of original term plus 9 months. Monthly payments increase from $943.56 to $982.04 as of 4/1/21. CARES Amt Sch.pdf

Need to be careful if plan is relying on the S/H to satisfy top heavy as well.

No doubt in my mind. The plan doesn't care where the repayments come from, assuming the loan policy doesn't say upon death it is defaulted (which it shouldn't).

Your guess is as good as mine at this point. I'd be tempted to use 100k reduced by the highest outstanding balance in the last 12 months. I recognize that is a pretty conservative route.

If my client asks for my advice, I can explain everything. That might include warning an administrator that its interests, fiduciary and personal, might conflict with the employer’s interests. And it might include inviting my client to evaluate soberly whether it has the resources and the appetite to fight a government agency. Everything is fact-sensitive. Some clients are comfortable with decision-making, including risk decisions. Others ask “what would you decide?” Even with them, I’m mindful that the client enjoys and suffers the consequences.

The hardship rule recognizes “[e]xpenses and losses (including loss of income) incurred by the [participant] on account of a disaster declared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 100-707, provided that the [participant’s] principal residence or principal place of employment at the time of the disaster was located in an area designated by FEMA for individual assistance with respect to the disaster.” [emphasis added] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4c951939412ec008447457c67ea011e8&mc=true&node=se26.6.1_1401_2k_3_61&rgn=div8 The President decided “an emergency determination under section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. [§§] 5121-5207 (the “Stafford Act”).” https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/LetterFromThePresident.pdf Stafford Act § 501 / 42 U.S.C. § 5191 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html/USCODE-2018-title42-chap68-subchapIV-A-sec5191.htm Stafford Act § 502 / 42 U.S.C. § 5192 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html/USCODE-2018-title42-chap68-subchapIV-A-sec5192.htm The President’s next-to-last paragraph: “In addition, after careful consideration, I believe that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude nationwide that requests for a declaration of a major disaster as set forth in section 401(a) of the Stafford Act may be appropriate.” [emphasis added] Today, FEMA’s website shows only two places with disasters declared for individual assistance (neither about coronavirus): https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4476 https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4473. In FEMA’s website, entering “New York, New York” calls up “No disasters declared for Individual Assistance were found for this address.” https://www.disasterassistance.gov/get-assistance/address-lookup?isMap=false&address=New+York%2C+New+York

The correction principle is to put the plan in the same potion had the error not occurred. So if, say, when the $100,000 was liquidated, 25,000 shares were sold. If it only takes $95,000 to repurchase those shares, then so be it. Tougher to calculate though, are investments that pay dividends or capital gains directly to the plan. What happens if those 25,000 shares were sold in September and 250 more shares would have been added to the account as a capital gain on December 28? Should the particiapnt be required to re-purchase 25, 250 shares (regardless if the share value went up or down)? I guess that's why it's acceptable to use the plan's rate of return instead of the exact gain/loss...