Skip to content

HR Blog

Empowering HR leaders with insightful content.

Posted on September 27, 2017October 10, 2017 Eric Gregory

IRS Scrutiny of Plan Loans Increases, but IRS Provides Helpful Guidance

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has increased its level of scrutiny on the limitations imposed on participant loans from defined contribution retirement plans.

Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 72(p) generally limits a participant’s plan loans to the lesser of:

  • $50,000, or
  • 50% of the participants vested account balance.

Additionally, if the participant already took out a loan within the past 12 months or has an outstanding loan, the highest outstanding loan balance from the past 12 months must be subtracted from the dollar amount that the participant would otherwise be eligible to withdraw for a loan (i.e., subtracted from the lesser of $50,000 or 50% of the vested account balance). This means that even if the loans are fully repaid, the highest outstanding loan balance in the 12-month period still limits the amount the participant can borrow.

These rules are a mouthful. That is why the IRS has attempted to clarify how they work by providing an example in two recent memoranda from April and July, as well as a podcast in September:

Assume Bob, a plan participant, has a vested account balance in his employer’s 401(k) plan of $120,000. Bob borrowed $30,000 in February of 2017, and fully repaid this loan in April of 2017. Bob borrowed another $20,000 in May of 2017 and repaid this in full in July of 2017. Bob wishes to take out a third loan in December.

How does a plan administrator evaluate this third loan request? According to the memoranda, a plan administrator has two options to determine how to view the third loan request:

  1. The plan administrator could either determine that no further loan could be provided because $30,000 + $20,000 (the total of Bob’s first and second loans) = $50,000, which is the highest outstanding loan balance within a 12-month period; or
  2. The plan administrator could determine that the largest balance during the 12-month period is $30,000 and permit the third loan in the amount of $20,000.

The guidelines explain how the IRS would view the approval or denial of Bob’s third loan request during an audit. Using these guidelines, if a plan is audited by the IRS, the memoranda indicate that the agent would accept either the plan administrator’s denial of the third loan request or the allowance of the $20,000 loan if the plan administrator applied the rule consistently. Of course, the IRS adds the proviso that the memoranda are not a pronouncement of law and are not subject to use, citation, or reliance as a pronouncement of law.

In the podcast, the IRS indicated that it will be examining other loan requirements, including the requirements for level amortization and loan repayment over five years.

How can a plan administrator fix an error? If a plan administrator discovers that the maximum loan amount has been exceeded, the sponsor can correct this error using the IRS’ Voluntary Compliance Program (“VCP”). The correction is that the participant must repay the excess loan amount and, if needed, amortize the remaining principal balance as of the repayment date of the original loans’ remaining period. The corrective payment for the excess loan amount depends on the:

  • excess amount as of the date of the loan;
  • payments made on the loan; and
  • portion of the previously made payments that were allocated to the excess loan amount.

If this is not corrected, it will be treated as a “deemed distribution.” A deemed distribution is treated as an actual distribution for purposes of determining the tax on the distribution, including any early distribution tax. A deemed distribution is not treated as an actual distribution for purposes of determining whether a plan satisfies the restrictions on in-service distributions applicable to certain plans. In addition, a deemed distribution is not eligible to be rolled over into an eligible retirement plan.

Loan payments can still be made even after a deemed distribution has occurred. In that case, the participant’s tax basis under the plan is increased by the amount of the late repayments.

About the Author: Eric W. Gregory is an associate in Dickinson Wright’s Troy office where he assists clients in the areas of ERISA, employee benefits, and compensation. He advises clients on all aspects of employee benefits including qualified retirement plans, welfare plans, and nonqualified compensation programs. Eric can be reached at 248-433-7669 or egregory@dickinsonwright.com and you can visit his bio here.

CategoriesHuman Resources Tags401k, Dickinson Wright, Eric Gregory, IRC, IRS, Plan Loans Increases, Section 72p, third loan, vested account balance, Voluntary Compliance Program

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious Why Do I Need a Plan Document for my Welfare Benefit Plan?
Next PostNext SURVIVAL IN THE IMMIGRATION CULTURE OF DELAY AND SOCIAL MEDIA MINING: ADJUSTMENT INTERVIEWS

Newsletter Subscription

Categories

  • COVID-19
  • Department of Labor
  • Employee Benefits Law
  • Human Resources
  • Immigration
  • Labor and Employment
  • Litigation

Archives

  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017

Categories

  • COVID-19
  • Department of Labor
  • Employee Benefits Law
  • Human Resources
  • Immigration
  • Labor and Employment
  • Litigation

Disclaimer
This blog provides key updates from the firm and our practice areas for informational purposes only and does not offer legal or professional advice. For specific questions or concerns, please contact a Dickinson Wright attorney.

Proudly powered by WordPress