- 14 -
permitted by the plan, none was a prohibited transaction. The
first loan was not permitted by the plan. In that it has yet to
be repaid more than 14 years after its making, the first loan
failed the plan’s explicit requirement that participant loans
“provide for level amortization with payments to be made not less
frequently than quarterly over a period not to exceed five (5)
years.” The second and third loans, both of which are different
from the first loan in that they are not participant loans, were
specifically prohibited by the statute upon their making. In
other words, even if the plan did allow the second and third
loans to Inland, we read nothing in section 4975 that would
exempt these loans from that section’s definition of a prohibited
transaction.
As to petitioner’s second assertion, the mere fact that the
bankruptcy court confirmed a plan under which Aspects may repay
each of the three loans is of no consequence to our decision. In
addition to the fact that Aspects has not yet made any payment on
those loans, we read nothing in the confirmed plan, nor has
petitioner pointed us to anything, that persuades us that Aspects
will eventually repay any or all amounts due on the three loans.
In fact, as we read the confirmed plan, the plan’s status is
simply that of an unsecured creditor with rights no greater than
those of any other unsecured creditor. Such an unfulfilled
third-party obligation does not transmute the prohibited
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011