5438 South Prairie View Drive West Des Moines, IA 50266
No, I’m not referring to the prognostication of an early spring we received from Punxsutawney Phil earlier this month. Nor am I referring to the 1993 Harold Ramis classic starring Bill Murray. Unfortunately, I’m referring to yet another interpretive rule issued by our friends at the Department of Defense (DOD) regarding the Military Lending Act (MLA).
First, some background. In July 2015, the DOD issued a final rule amending its MLA regulation to greatly expand the scope of credit products to which it applies. The regulation provides that a covered Servicemember and his/her dependent may not be charged a military annual percentage rate in excess of 36%, must receive additional disclosures in connection with covered transactions and are entitled to several other substantive protections.
In August 2016, the DOD issued interpretive rule #1 in an attempt to clarify what cash-out transactions might be eligible for the purchase money exemption under the MLA. In December 2017, the DOD issued interpretive rule #2 which stated that whether or not a cash-out loan is eligible for the purchase money exemption under the MLA will depend upon what the additional cash out is used for. In particular, it provided that a credit transaction that included financing for guaranteed asset protection (GAP) insurance would NOT qualify for the exemption.
On February 28th, the DOD issued interpretive rule #3 which withdraws its December 2017 guidance regarding purchase money loans with additional cash out. So where does that leave us? Right back where we started. DOD’s official interpretation as of today regarding purchase money loans with additional cash out is as follows:
A hybrid purchase money and cash advance loan is not expressly intended to finance the purchase of property, because the loan provides additional financing that is unrelated to the purchase
(emphasis added). To qualify for the purchase money exception, a loan must finance only the acquisition of property
(emphasis added).
As a result of this change in DOD’s position, I would vehemently argue that auto loans with GAP coverage ARE eligible for the purchase money exception. GAP coverage is certainly related to the purchase and more often than not the cost of such coverage is baked into the acquisition price of the automobile.
While this seemingly represents a favorable shift in DOD policy, all I can say is don’t get too comfortable. While we’ve all seen this movie before, the ending never seems to be the same. Or is it? On that note, enjoy your weekend.
The post Groundhog Day! appeared first on Michael Christians Consulting, LLC.
Michael Christians Consulting, LLC