Timing of tuition bills - hardship withdrawals

TPA and client agree that withdrawals for tuition under hardship provisions must be for upcoming, unpaid tuition.  Client is worried that if a student begins a semester, let's say, September 1 and starts attending classes, but the tuition bill isn't issued, mailed and due until, say, October 1, then the tuition is "old" business and may not qualify, or at least might need to be somehow pro-rated such that the September expenses are not included.  TPA takes the position that the timing of the billing does not matter; the bill is for the whole semester and the fact that it didn't have to be paid to the penny up front is immaterial.  We can't find a chapter and verse anywhere that addresses the exact timing of the bill.  What say all of you?  Thank you.

Is this an actual situation the client is facing?  It has been a while since I went to school but in my experience you ALWAYS have an opportunity to pay tuition before the semester starts, and most schools will require payment before the add/drop period is over. 

I wouldn't lose any sleep over paying this with a hardship withdrawal. The regulation deems it an immediate and heavy financial need if it is for ..."up to the next 12 months..."

Sure, you can split hairs about the meaning of the word "next" in this set of facts and circumstances, but given the precise example above, in "real life" I'd allow it. I'm sure that RBG is correct, and that it was billed once already anyway, unless there was a screw-up in the billing orifice (yes, the typo is intentional - we had plenty of issues with billing stupidities when our kids were in college).

If you wanted to pro-rate it, I certainly can't argue with the conservative approach. 

Thank you both for your answers.  Yes, this is an actual situation.  It hasn't been an issue in the past with this client, but suddenly, HR Lady is worried about it.  We would have just assumed that the entire semester's tuition could be counted toward the hardship withdrawal, whether or not the semester had begun before the student paid the bill.  We really can't see going through the headache of trying to pro-rate the bill.

I wouldn't have a problem with the current semester or quarter, even if it is somehow billed after it starts.   

Am I the only one who thinks the language is permissive with respect to any and all prior periods and is specifically exclusive only of future periods beyond 12 months?

1 hour ago, Mike Preston said:

Am I the only one who thinks the language is permissive with respect to any and all prior periods and is specifically exclusive only of future periods beyond 12 months?

good point.  I have always looked at it as prospective.  FWIW, both the EOB and study materials for ASPPA credentials use the language  "for the next 12 months" rather than "for up to the next 12 months" that is used in the reg.  

A typical billing system (like Section 430!!!!) will automatically apply receipts to the oldest outstanding amounts.  So, a current invoice will include charges related to unpaid prior invoices. Maybe my liberal bias is oozing.