Applying student loan proceeds toward tuition?
Your university should have a finance department which can help with payments. Speak with them and tell them you have interest in paying for at least part of your next semester in cash. From here they should be able to tell you the best method for this, though most likely cash/check will suffice. If there is no finance department, or you are still unsure, check with student services for more information.
"There will be many who will judge your proposal on the idea that subsidized loans should be available to those who need them, and should not be used by others who are simply trying to profit from them. Each school has a pool of money available to offer for subsidized and unsubsidized loans. If they are giving you a subsidized loan, they cannot allocate it to someone else who needs it. Once you weigh the investment risks, I agree that it is analogous to investing rather than repaying your mortgage quickly. If you understand the risks, there's no reason why you shouldn't consider other options about what to do with the money. I am more risk averse, so I happen to prefer paying down the mortgage quickly after all other investment/savings goals have been met. Where you fit on that continuum will answer the question of whether or not it is a ""bad idea""." There is no document that I know of that stipulates otherwise. This can also be corroborated by the fact that RESP withdrawals are considered as income in the name of the student. Thus, so long as the student pays tuition and receives a T2202A slip from the educational institution, they should be able to claim tuition, education, and textbook amounts. It may have been the standard practice for a long time, and indeed it still is the common practice for my credit union to apply all excess payment directly to the principal. At the risk of sounding a little cynical, I will suggest that there is a profit motive in the move to not applying excess payments to principal unless directly instructed to do so. Interest accrued isn't reduced until the principal is reduced, so it benefits the creditor to both have the money in advance and to not apply it to the principal. You should probably move forward with the expectation that all of your creditors are adversarial even if only in a passive-aggressive manner. "I haven't dealt with this kind of thing in any way, but I found some quotes from IRS publications which I think are relevant and hopefully help. Your scenario sounds to me like a Qualified Tuition Reduction as described in Publication 970 Tax Benefits for Education. It appears the rules are different for graduate study as opposed to pre-graduate work, though I don't see anything about any dollar amount limit. There are various requirements and exceptions, so hopefully reading through that section of the publication can help you understand whether the benefit is supposed to be taxable. If taxable, it should show up on your W-2 like any other income: Any tuition reduction that is taxable should be included as wages on your Form W-2, box 1. Report the amount from Form W-2, box 1, on line 7 (Form 1040 or Form 1040A) or line 1 (Form 1040EZ).  It doesn't appear that there is any special designation or box for the tuition reduction as opposed to ""normal"" work, it just is income that's been earned like any other. If you need guidance on how much of the income is for ""normal"" work and how much is for the tuition reduction, you probably need to see if you can figure it out from her pay stubs, or contact the university's HR department. Well, looking through the credits I see in Publication 970, there appear to be two possible credits: The ""American opportunity credit"" section, under ""No double benefit allowed"", says things like (my emphasis added): You can't do any of the following.  ⋮ My understanding from reading through the section is that expenses are only excluded if they were tax-free, so that there can't be a double-dipping of benefits. If they're included as taxable income, I think they would count under your second interpretation, that the employer paid them like any other income, and your wife spent them as educational expenses just like other students, and they would qualify for educational credits. In fact, it explicitly states: Don't reduce qualified education expenses by amounts paid with funds the student receives as: Which sure sounds to me that anything that counts as W-2 Box 1 ""Wages"" would be payments received that then the expenses were logically paid separately from. The other credit, the ""Lifetime Learning Credit"", appears to use identical language (No double benefits; and don't reduce by wages). Obviously this is just from my looking through Publication 970; there may be more nuances here and for ""real"" advice you may want to speak more to the university HR department (who perhaps have dealt with this before) and/or a real tax advisor. You might also see if you can get any sort of a ""receipt"" or even a Form 1098-T from the university of what amount was paid on your wife's behalf, to help document it is truly that she was just paid more wages and spent them on classes as far as tax law is concerned." employed under the table and doesn't have a bank account If I could make that size 10,000,000 font I would.  Your friend likely also isn't paying taxes.  The student loan penalties will be nothing compared to what the IRS does to you.   Avoid taking financial advice from that person. "This election only applies to payments that you make within 120 days of your having received loan money. These wouldn't be required payments, which is why they are called ""early"" payments. For example, let's say that you've just received $10,000 from your lender for a new loan. One month later, you pay $500 back. This election decides how that $500 will be applied.  The first choice, ""Apply as Refund,"" means that you are essentially returning some of the money that you initially borrowed. It's like you never borrowed it. Instead of a $10,000 loan, it is now a $9,500 loan. The accrued interest will be recalculated for the new loan amount.  The second choice, ""Apply as Payment,"" means that your payment will first be applied to any interest that has accrued, then applied to the principal. While you are in school, you don't need to make payments on student loans. However, interest is accruing from the day you get the money. This interest is simple interest, which means that the interest is only based on the loan principal; the interest is not compounding, and you are not paying interest on interest. After you leave school and your grace period expires, you enter repayment, and you have to start making payments. At this point, all the interest that has accrued from the time you first received the money until now is capitalized. This means that the interest is added to your loan principal, and interest will now be calculated on this new, larger amount. To avoid this, you can pay the interest as you go before it is capitalized, which will save you from having to pay even more interest later on.  As to which method is better, just as they told you right on the form, the ""Apply as Refund"" method will save you the most money in the long run.  However, as I said at the beginning, this election only applies if you make a payment within 120 days from receiving loan funds. Since you are already out of school and in repayment, I don't think it matters at all what you select here.  For any students reading this and thinking about loans, I want to issue a warning. Student loans can ruin people later in life. If you truly feel that taking out a loan is the only way you'll be able to get the education you need, minimize these as much as possible. Borrow as little as possible, pay as much as you can as early as you can, and plan on knocking these out ASAP. Great Lakes has a few pages that discuss these topics:" "There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that ""should I call this principal or interest"" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting." It's not a question with a single right answer.  Other answers have addressed some aspects, my case may provide some guidance as to one way of looking at some of the issues. When I had student loans, the interest rate was RPI¹ and I could get more than that as the return on a savings account.  At the time I could get a whole year's worth of loan at the start of the year, save it, and draw from the savings, partly because I had a little working capital saved already.  Importantly in my case, the loans were use-it-or-lose-it: if I didn't take the loan out by about halfway through each academic year, it was no longer available to me. The difference in interest rates was probably similar to what you can get with a careful choice of savings account and 0% on the loan (I did this in the 90s when interest rates were higher). Over a four year degree the interest I earned this way added up to no more than about £100, which went someway towards offsetting the fact I would be paying interest after graduation. If you can clear the loan before you pay any interest it would give you a return, but a small one that could easily be eroded by rate changes or errors on your part (like not keeping on top of the paperwork).  It still may be beneficial to take out the loans depending on your capital needs -- in my case it made buying a house after graduating much easier, as we still had money for the deposit (downpayment) and student loan rates were much lower than mortgage rates (100% mortgages were also available then, but expensive). ¹ RPI stands for retail price index, a measure of inflation. "I was told if I moved my 401k into a Roth IRA that school purposes is one reasons you can withdraw money without having to pay a tax. Incorrect.  You will need to pay tax on the amount converted, since a 401(k) is pre-tax and a Roth IRA is after-tax.  It will be added to your regular income, so you will pay tax at your marginal tax rate. is there any hidden tax or fee at all for withdrawing money from a Roth IRA for educational purposes?  You still will need to pay the tax on the amount converted, but you'll avoid the 10% penalty for early withdrawal. I know that tuition, books and fees are covered for educational purposes. Can I take out of my Roth IRA for living expenses while I'm attending school? Rent, gas, food, etc... Room and board, yes, so long as you are half-time, but not gas/food  Possibly only room and board for staying on-campus, but I'm not certain, although I doubt you could call your normal house payment ""education expense"" with my 401k being smaller, would it just be better to go ahead and cash the whole thing and just pay the tax and use it for whatever I need it for? What is the tax if I just decide to cash the whole thing in?  You pay your marginal tax rate PLUS a 10% penalty for early withdrawal.  So no, this is probably not a wise move financially unless you're on the verge of bankruptcy or foreclosure (where distress costs are much higher then the 10% penalty) I can't answer the other questions regarding grants; I would talk to the financial aid department at your school. Bottom line, transferring your 401(k) is very likely a bad idea unless you can afford to pay the tax in cash (meaning without borrowing).  My advice would be to leave your 401(k) alone (it's meant for retirement not for school or living expenses) Ideally, you should pay for as much as you can out of cash flow, and don't take out more student loans. That may mean taking fewer classes, getting another part time job, finding a different (cheaper) school, applying for more grants and scholarships, etc.  I would not in ANY circumstance cash out your 401(k) to pay for school.  You'll be much worse off in the long run, and there are much cheaper ways to get money." The short answer is that you can use student loans for living expenses.  Joe provides a nice taxonomy of loans.  I would just add that some loans are not only guaranteed, but also subsidized.  Essentially the Government buys down the rate of the loan. The mechanics are that a financial aid package might consist of grants, work study (job), subsidized, and guaranteed loans.  One can turn down one or more of the elements of the package.  All will be limited in some form. The work study will have a maximum number of hours and generally has low pay.  Many find better deals working in the businesses surrounding the college or starting their own services type business.  The grants rarely cover the full cost of tuition and books.  The loans will both be limited in amount.  It mainly depends on what you qualify for, and generally speaking the lower the income the more aid one qualifies for. Now some students use all their grant, all their loan money and buy things that are not necessary.  For example are you going to live in the $450/month dorm, or the new fancy apartments that are running $800/month?  Are you going to use the student loan money to buy a car?  Will it be a new BMW or a 8 year old Camary? I see this first hand as I live near a large university.  The pubs are filled with college students, not working, but drinking and eating every night.  Many of them drive very fancy cars. The most onerous example of this is students at the military academies.  Attendees have their books and tuition completely paid for.  They also receive a stipend, and more money can be earned over the summer.  They also all qualify for a 35K student loan in their junior year.  Just about every kid, takes this loan.  Most of those use the money to buy a car.  I know a young lady who did exactly that, and so did many of her friends. So kids with a starting pay of 45K also start life with a 35K.  Buying a nice car in the military is especially silly as they cannot drive it while deployed and they are very likely to be deployed.  At least, however, they are guaranteed a starting job with a nice starting pay, and upward potential. College kids who behave similarly might not have it as good.  Will they even find work?  Will the job have the ability to move up?  How much security is in the job?  One might say that this does not apply to engineers and such, but I am working with a fellow with a computer science degree who cannot find a job and has not worked in the past 6 months.  This even though the market is super hot right now for computer engineers. So, in a word, be very careful what you borrow. I think increasing funding to public colleges are an -okay- thing to do.  Certainly it is better than the current system which guarantees student loans to benefit the bankers.  So, we're talking about two different kinds of subsidies: one directly for schools and one for bankers.  While ideally, I'd like to see no government involvement whatsoever, I can compromise as long as bankers are bearing the full risk of their student loans.  The student loan system is what is bubbling up tuition prices, very similar to what happened in housing. There are too many qualifying questions like martial status, dependent status, annual income, etc. Your answer is most likely in the Form Pub 970 you referenced: Adjustments to Qualified Education Expenses If you pay qualified education expenses with certain tax-free funds,   you cannot claim a deduction for those amounts If the grant is tax free, you can not claim deductions up to that amount. Even if you were able to expense all the educational expenses you list, I doubt you can exceed the grant disbursement disbursement amount. I'm not a tax professional, so take my advice for what it is worth. I would consult a tax professional for specific help.  On my own research, I believe that you could.  I know that when I made payments when I was in school for my undergraduate, I made payments on the interest.  I believe that I was even told by my financial aid office that I could deduct the interest that I paid.  I made not much money so I wasn't anywhere close to the MAGI >75k, but I believe you still could.   Not only that but one other thing to consider is that if you have an unsubisidized loan, the interest still accrues when you are in school.  In that case, it might be better to make at least some payments.  It would save you from the total loan amount ballooning so much while you are in school. One way to reduce the monthly payment due each month is to do everything to eliminate one of the loans. Make the minimum payment to the others, but put everything into eliminating one of the loans. Of course this assumes that you have separate loans for each year of school.  Make sure that in trying to get aggressive on the loan repayment that you don't neglect the saving for a down payment. Each dollar you can put down will save you money on the mortgage. It might also allow you to reduce the mortgage insurance payments. If you pay one student loan back aggressively but can't eliminate it you might be worse off because you spent your savings but it didn't help you qualify for the mortgage. One way to maximize the impact is to not make the extra payments until you are ready to apply for the mortgage. Ask the lender if you qualify with all the student loans, or if you need to eliminate one. If you don't need to eliminate a loan, then apply the extra funds to a larger down payment or pay points to reduce the interest rate. Means A has a much higher level of interest payments dye to either higher debt or higher cost of debt (or combination of both). MM theory suggests higher debt in a capital structure due to the tax shield but you need to consider if A's debt level is appropriate or too high and what that says about your company.