Mike Preston

It is, but is rare. It is almost but not quite blood diamond rare. Take the case of the drunken party where the employee blurts out they committed fraud when submitting the application. That might give me pause. [Edited to express original intent.]

If you aren't a labor lawyer I would suggest that telling a client the use of loa is viable is a mistake.

Certainly

Part of the information that goes into the determination as to whether or not to provide for such from the plan.

Agreed.

I'm still waiting for any reference that comes close to agreeing with you. I suppose we could agree to disagree but this is such a fundamental misunderstanding I just can't.

As iI have stated before 2005-92 is remarkably unenlightening in this regard.

Not a chance.

The suspension not only *can* but it *must*, unless the plan sponsor adopts (informally will do until the end of 2022) policies that allows reamortization with the participant's agreement, which is *can*.

Something is definitely rotten in Denmark, here. I repeat my request for a citation saying that anything contibuted before an allocation date (typically the last day of the plan year) yields a violation of any kind, whether balance forward or individually directed. Heck, I'll even lower the bar from citation to plan document provision. This has all the makings of a good Twilight Zone episode, though.

So, we have come full circle, yes? If a loan provides for 4 repayment periods (see below) then it satisfies the rules? 1) Loan origination through date of suspension 2) Suspension period 3) Return to original loan payment for balance of one year after suspension period ends 4) Reamortization after one year after suspension period ends Not the only way to comply, but one way.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Good thing I'm right and you are wrong. :-) There is no way that any of what MoJo is saying is correct. But on the off chance that there is no such thing as a balance forward plan that is qualified, I suppose this is about the right time to ask for a citation. Betcha one can't be found.

Have to say that I'm with Bird on this topic. Some of the confusion is brought about by loose use of the phrase "suspense account". Yes, the IRS doesn't like them. But a deposit in or for year X that is allocated at the end of year X is NOT a "suspense account". It just isn't. Call it "money awaiting allocation" if you will

Use different testing methods on each plan (or group of plans) that satisfies 410(b).

In addition, just to add some complexity, if a pre-COVID loan would have termed out sooner than New Year's day 2021 *OR*, even if it wouldn't have, coupled with a desire of the part of the participant to skip less than the maximum number of payments, can a plan sponsor limit the COVID program to force skipping all payments that are skippable?

Not quite. I think there is a presumption that some part of the income a business generates will be reduced. If the income doesn't go down, then economically it comes out the same as if it were taxed as loan forgiveness.

You can go just ever so slightly further by optionally including an otherwise excludable HCE in the non-otherwise excludable category. And if you have separate plans that satisfy 410(b) you can play pickup sticks, but not on a retrospective basis like you might with restructuring.

Doesn't it pyramid? Not unless they refuse to pay the first tier tax.

Let me rephrase.... what would you do if a participant owed fees to the recordkeeper but the participant never deferred (although eligible to do so) but had, for one reason or another didn't have an employer contribution account balance? Whatever you would do in that case is your guiding light with respect to the fee issue posed.

Sounds like a programming limitation, not one required by the code or regs.

Then that plan will pay an amount in 2020 consistent with the plan sponsor's intention, which if it matches the participant's needs, nothing else has to be done right now.

1. Required, in some form that complies with 401a9 2. At some point. End of 2022 as of now. 3. See #1. Why do you think you are late?

Nor have I.

We still don't know whether it is an EZ or SF, do we?

Use your telephone.