nbsign

Hello! Given the following set of facts and circumstances, I would appreciate feedback concerning whether in this scenario D seems to be a member of a ASG: A Dental, P.C. ("A") 100% owned by Dr G sponsors a 401k plan, B Dental, P.C. ("B") 100% owned by Dr L sponsors a 401k plan that also covers employees of C (C Dental being a partnership in which the same Dr L owns 50%; other 50% owned by unrelated dentist). Now the wrinkle: Drs G and L purchase the stock of an existing, well-established dental practice from a terminally-ill dentist in which they are 50/50 owners in this D Dental, P.C. ("D"). D is not geographically located anywhere near their other offices. Since there is no sharing of employees (except that Drs G and L are the dentists in D), or any referral of patients between A and D, or B and D, I feel D can stand alone as the employer. However, what is tripping me up in the proposed regs under 414(m) is the interpretation of the phrase "'regularly associated' WITH the FSO in performing services FOR 'third parties'," i.e., patients. 1) Does this mean any/all patients, or intended to mean only the same, or a significant portion of the same, patients? 2) Do you believe the rule's intent was to preclude anyone from practicing their profession outside the scope of a ASG, meaning you can't separate the dentist in the service organization from the service organization itself (as without the dentist there would be no service organization!), hence the FSO/A-org relationship? Naturally, if Drs G and L weren't acting as dentists in D there would be no ASG. Thank you, in advance, for your thoughts on this. VTY, Nancy