Leaderboard

Thank you for that explanation. Derrin was going to be my next stop in researching this issue so I can definitely see the merits of your argument. It should be noted that my second post was quoted from the current edition of Sal Tripodi's ERISA Outline Book, so I cannot take credit for the IRC §1563(a)(3) interpretation, the position on the SCOTUS holding in the Vogel Fertilizer case, or the informal positions taken by the IRS at industry conferences. I will say that I am a bit surprised to see Derrin and Sal take come to such opposite positions on the matter. I can certainly see merit in your argument that they should be treated as a single employer. I think reasonable people can agree to disagree on this issue as there is logic to both positions. I did go back and read Derrins thoughts on the issue in Who is the Employer, and I found his short answer very interesting Under Derrin's reading of the Code, §414(b) would cause all members of the overlapping groups to be treated as a single employer because... (http://benefitslink.com/m/qa.cgi?n=31&db=qa_who_is_employer) Derrin also brings up a case from the 1970's where the IRS threatened an adverse letter. Two very different outcomes from two very reliable sources in our industry. To further complicate things, I think I will see if I can get this question submitted for the IRS Q&A at ASPPA Annual. I know it is only the opinion of the presenter, but it would be interesting to see where the IRS are on this in 2016. Cheers! J