Trouble with "Qualifying" a Hardship Distribution

[Below Ground]

The Plan uses the safe harbor definition of hardship.  Participant submits receipts for repair of flooring to primary residence.  Does this qualify under repair of damage to primary residence for loss qualifies for casualty deduction?  There was no reference to a cause of damage, such as a fire, flood or storm.  I think this is actually a home improvement project.  If that is the case, would it still qualify since the IRS website says that under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 a plan can permit hardship distributions for repair of the participant's primary residence, even though it would not qualify for as a casualty deduction (see "Changes Coming for 2019" https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-hardship-distributions).  Is that reference only provided to remove the need for the damage to be related to a federal disaster zone, or are rules being relax to even allow for home improvement projects on a person's primary residence?  Thanks in advance for any insights!

[C. B. Zeller]

The change made by the new hardship regs was that the safe harbor reason for casualty loss now reads "Expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence that would qualify for the casualty deduction under section 165 (determined without regard to section 165(h)(5) and whether the loss exceeds 10% of adjusted gross income)." 165(h)(5) is the part that limits the deduction to declared disasters. It still has to be a casualty loss, e.g. a flood, fire, etc.

[Below Ground]

Thanks C.B..  That has been my take on it too, but I was getting "push back" about the new changes should allow home improvements.  I looked quite extensively before making this post and could find nothing that would justify home improvements as being allowed.  But, since no one (especially me) is perfect I thought a post on the issue was a good idea.