So, I’m working on a SF-85P for the agency that I currently am employed by as part of a new position. My wife and I are currently about halfway through a Chapter 13 plan. Since I am a currently an agency employee, they have given me an EOD but I still have to do the Public Trust- Moderate (Tier 2) process.
My question is on the financial section in eQIP. The section on the bankruptcy is straight forward as far as case, trustee, etc. The question I have is the section on the debts. Should I list all the debits included in the Chapter 13 plan that meet the criteria (not everything in the Chapter 13 was past due) in the additional debt section, or just any debts since. We have a special needs child with multiple medical needs, so there are currently medical debts since the filing that we’ve setup payment plans to take care of that meet the criteria. The instructions say “Other than previously listed, have any of the following happened?”, so that is where I’m a bit unsure since aren’t the debits under the Ch13 technically listed by stating the BK? And again, not all the items in the Ch13 were past due, and a large number of claims were never filed.
(Since it will likely be asked, none of the current medical debt is on my credit report- only items included on the Ch13, and then not many)
The guidance I’ve gotten from my eQIP contact is “just put all you can”, but as I’m going through, it’s not as clear cut as that. I have zero problem in adding every single debt that meets the criteria, but I don’t want to add unnecessary information (not to evade anything since it’s all in the plan documents). I am also unsure how to handle those debts included in the Ch13 that were up to date when we filed.
My plan is to add as much as I can, but some thoughts from the investigators on the board would be helpful!
If the debt meets the requirement of the question, it needs to be listed. The bankruptcy is not a catch all.
By not listing them out, you turn a financial concern into a financial and honesty concern.
Thanks for the reply!
Yep, and that is what I’m trying to avoid. Any thoughts on how to include those items that don’t meet the requirements but are in the BK plan? Or do you even include those? Alternatively, as an investigator, would you rather see everything listed in the BK plan (which is what I’m leaning towards).
I have found the agency rep to not be really helpful in this section- so any additional insight is definitely welcome!
Again, thanks for the reply!
The bankruptcy debt goes into the bankruptcy section under the bankruptcy question.
All other debts that aren’t in a bankruptcy case go into the subsequent sections.
Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately, the SF-85P (eQIP or paper) doesn’t have a specific section for debts included in the bankruptcy- it is a summary only of the case, court, trustee, etc. Which is what led to the question. Below is a snippet from eQIP
I think at this point I will just list everything in the other section with notes about each one, including the status (was never late but included in BK, claim not filed, etc). My HR contact has been really helpful on the other sections, but couldn’t provide much guidance on this one.
Again, thanks for the reply!
The Investigator will already know all your past due debt and details of your bankruptcy. Disclose it all and prepare to discuss it all. Forthright, upfront and full disclosure will be better for you then trying to figure out rather to list it or not list it in one section versus the other. Just do it…
You need to answer the questions literally and separately. This will save you headaches later on.
List the bankruptcy in the bankruptcy area.
List any of the debts included in the bankruptcy that meet the reporting requirements in the remaining financial section - such as delinquencies, collections, etc.
Not all debts in a bankruptcy are reportable. All reportable debts are required, even if they were in the bankruptcy. The questionnaire requires additional information for each debt.
You might still discuss the other debts during your interview but they were not required to be reported initially.
Thank you! That was the detailed answer I was looking for from the original post! It’s not an all a matter of “just doing it”- I have zero problem with that part. The devil is in the details with the paperwork and trying to get the nuances correct on the eQIP is where I was looking for guidance. Like you said, I’m trying to save myself headaches down the road by trying to do it right as much as possible the first time through the form.
Thank you again!
As a follow up, yep, going through the debts there are many were either on time (when you file, you hand over everything) or aren’t within the 7 year window (the BK was filed 2017, so some of the medical debts go back before 2013).
I appreciate the feedback from everyone! I searched quite a bit on just how to get this input (like I said, my contact wasn’t much help). Definitely worth a detailed FAQ somewhere!
A quick note. The 7 year clock is not when the debt first went into delinquency but when the debt was resolved. If the debt was not resolved, the reporting is current.
This is the same for all reportable instances such as court cases and relationships.
Thanks for the heads up! That is nowhere in the instructions (at least how I am reading it), so I would have missed a few. Like with most gov’t paperwork, I wonder how much time could be saved on the agencies just by providing more detailed instructions and examples, especially in online forms.
I agree wholeheartedly. Some agencies (DOE for example) do a great job while many don’t even try.
About 10 years ago I made a suggestion that OPM allow a product like Turbo tax be developed by a commercial company and input information into eQip. I even showed the cost savings for OPM in reduced manhours from Subject interviews. The suggestion was shot down because the new 2010 SF 86 was supposed to be “more intuitive for the Subject to correctly complete”.
Yea, it would be no work to get this into eQIP. It is better now than the last time I did an SF-85 about a dozen years ago, but still, some examples wouldn’t hurt. Most of it is pretty straight forward, but in the “we really want to know about it” sections such as this, it would be pretty darned helpful for everyone involved.