Proposed Hardship Withdrawal Regulations Include Relief For Disaster Victims: Retirement Plans Can Now Make Loans, Hardship Distributions To Victims Of Hurricanes Michael And Florence

The IRS recently announced that 401(k) plans and similar employer-sponsored retirement plans can make loans and hardship distributions to victims of Hurricane Michael and Hurricane Florence and to members of their families.

This relief was included in the preamble to proposed regulations, published Nov. 14 in the Federal Register, implementing several recent law changes that affect hardship withdrawals.

As a result, participants in 401(k) plans, employees of public schools and tax-exempt organizations with 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities, as well as state and local government employees with 457(b) deferred-compensation plans may now be eligible to take advantage of these streamlined loan procedures and liberalized hardship distribution rules. Though IRA participants are barred from taking out loans, they may be eligible to receive distributions under liberalized procedures.

Retirement plans can provide this relief to employees and certain members of their families who live or work in disaster areas affected by Hurricane Michael or Florence and designated for individual assistance by FEMA. Currently, parts of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina are eligible. For a complete list of eligible localities, visit https://www.fema.gov/disasters. To qualify for this relief, hardship withdrawals must be made by March 15, 2019.

The IRS is also relaxing procedural and administrative rules that normally apply to retirement plan loans and hardship distributions. As a result, eligible retirement plan participants will be able to access their money more quickly with a minimum of red tape. In addition, the six-month ban on 401(k) and 403(b) contributions that normally affects employees who take hardship distributions will not apply.

This broad-based relief means that a retirement plan can allow a victim of Hurricane Michael or Florence to take a hardship distribution or borrow up to the specified statutory limits from the victim’s retirement plan. It also means that a person who lives outside the disaster area can take out a retirement plan loan or hardship distribution and use it to assist a son, daughter, parent, grandparent or other dependent who lived or worked in the disaster area.

Plans will be allowed to make loans or hardship distributions before the plan is formally amended to provide for such features. In addition, the plan can ignore the reasons that normally apply to hardship distributions, thus allowing them, for example, to be used for food and shelter. If a plan requires certain documentation before a distribution is made, the plan can relax this requirement, as described in the preamble.

The IRS emphasized that the tax treatment of loans and distributions remains unchanged. Ordinarily, retirement plan loan proceeds are tax-free if they are repaid over a period of five years or less. Under current law, hardship distributions are generally taxable and subject to a 10-percent early-withdrawal tax.

More information about other tax relief related to Hurricane Michael and Hurricane Florence can be found on the IRS disaster relief page.

The proposed regulations address a number of other issues related to hardship withdrawals. For details and to find out how to submit comments, see the proposed regulations.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

moran_cathy
June 11, 2023
Hands up everyone who has encountered a claim that a debt is non-dischargeable by reason of § 523(a)(14). That’s what I thought: nada, or next thing to it. Despite watching for it, I hadn’t seen one ‘til this year when AmEx filed an adversary in a case in which I was peripherally involved. My copy of Collier’s code doesn’t comment...
Members
March 8, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Good faith in plan proposal. Plan was proposed in good faith, although petition was filed only 21 days after purchase of vehicle, when plan adequately protected creditor against risk of depreciation. Opinion reviews good faith factors for plan proposal. In re Sharp, 608 B.R. 546 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). Compare In re Broder,...
Members
boltz2
June 25, 2023
Summary: Brittner filed an adversary proceeding against Beach Anesthesia alleging violations of the automatic stay, but the bankruptcy court (affirmed by the district court) held that she had either failed to establish actual damages or to mitigate damages. The Court of Appeals held that that Brittner needed to satisfy a five-part test to establish a violation of the automatic stay:  (1) that a bankruptcy...
ahern_larry_regular
September 18, 2022
Appendix A 1994 Revised Text of 11 U.S.C. § 330(a), with 2005's Minor Changes Highlighted(1994 version highlighted to show additions and deletions in 2005) (a)(1) After notice to the parties in interest and the United States Trustee and a hearing, and subject to sections 326, 328, and 329, the court may award to a trustee, a consumer privacy ombudsman appointed...
Members
rebeccaherr
April 23, 2023
In recent years, a handful of cases have discussed the issue of what happens to the trustee’s percentage fee, collected from debtor plan payments, upon the dismissal or conversion of a case prior to confirmation. This is an emerging area of law, with decisions on both sides.  However, with this new issue, there appears to be at least some confusion...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
A reverse mortgage, having fallen due as a result of the death of the borrower, is not protected from modification by the borrower’s heirs by virtue of § 1322(c)(2). (Halfenger) In re Sandoval, 2022 WL 982182 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Juan Sandoval filed Chapter 13 and proposed a plan which dealt with his principal asset, a...
Members
hayes
March 24, 2024
Bankruptcy Court in Texas awards sanctions of $825,940.55 for bad faith filing and prosecution of a proof of claim. (Yes it’s an 11 but still, $825k!)
Members
November 21, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction Following Part 1's review of the December 1, 2021, changes in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, this Part 2 presents a digest of selected judicial decisions of interest for their procedural import arising under Parts I-III of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Digest of Selected Judicial Decisions
Members
May 12, 2019
By Judge Michael A. Fagone & Career Law Clerk Ciera S. Dye III. Policy Considerations Where the statute does not provide definitive guidance, courts often turn to policy considerations. How do those considerations weigh out here? One answer is that policy considerations cut against imposing any sort of requirement of preapproval for postpetition borrowing by a consumer debtor. Several reasons...
Members
ahern_larry_regular
October 2, 2022
Introduction In In re Village Apothecary, Inc.,1 the Sixth Circuit recently cut an attorney's fee by half, where the services were not successful. The panel held that the results obtained (or, actually, the lack of results) justified the dramatic reduction of the fees of attorneys for a Chapter 7 trustee. In Part 1, we looked at . . . It...
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: