Guest ANON-MD Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 I am relatively inexperienced in the benefits area and I'm hoping someone here can help educate me on this specific scenario. If Mr. Smith owns 80% of a publicly traded company, owns 100% of a not for profit organization, and owns 100% of a privately held company, does this form a controlled group? The entities are in seperate lines of business and do not transact with one another. It doesnt seem right that they would be in a controlle group, but I can't find the legal provision that would expempt them from the 80% rule. Then again, I am a newb to this area. Another scenario....A holding company with 3 subsidiaries. Holding is a US publicly traded company, the 3 subsidiaries are in US, Japan & UK. No one is on the payroll for the holding company, hence no benefit or retirement/pension plan. Is it technically correct to say that there is controlled group here? Also, do the rules for a controlled group go beyond US borders? Thanks for any help provided.
J Simmons Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 I am relatively inexperienced in the benefits area and I'm hoping someone here can help educate me on this specific scenario.If Mr. Smith owns 80% of a publicly traded company, owns 100% of a not for profit organization, and owns 100% of a privately held company, does this form a controlled group? The entities are in seperate lines of business and do not transact with one another. It doesnt seem right that they would be in a controlle group, but I can't find the legal provision that would expempt them from the 80% rule. Then again, I am a newb to this area. Another scenario....A holding company with 3 subsidiaries. Holding is a US publicly traded company, the 3 subsidiaries are in US, Japan & UK. No one is on the payroll for the holding company, hence no benefit or retirement/pension plan. Is it technically correct to say that there is controlled group here? Also, do the rules for a controlled group go beyond US borders? Thanks for any help provided. You might want to explore the qualified separate lines of business (QSLOB) rules to get around the impact of being a controlled group. John Simmons johnsimmonslaw@gmail.com Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation.
masteff Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Another scenario....A holding company with 3 subsidiaries. Holding is a US publicly traded company, the 3 subsidiaries are in US, Japan & UK. No one is on the payroll for the holding company, hence no benefit or retirement/pension plan. Is it technically correct to say that there is controlled group here? Also, do the rules for a controlled group go beyond US borders? Only matters if those foreign subs have US payroll. Kurt Vonnegut: 'To be is to do'-Socrates 'To do is to be'-Jean-Paul Sartre 'Do be do be do'-Frank Sinatra
Guest ANON-MD Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Another scenario....A holding company with 3 subsidiaries. Holding is a US publicly traded company, the 3 subsidiaries are in US, Japan & UK. No one is on the payroll for the holding company, hence no benefit or retirement/pension plan. Is it technically correct to say that there is controlled group here? Also, do the rules for a controlled group go beyond US borders? Only matters if those foreign subs have US payroll. They subs do not have US payroll.
Guest ANON-MD Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 I am relatively inexperienced in the benefits area and I'm hoping someone here can help educate me on this specific scenario.If Mr. Smith owns 80% of a publicly traded company, owns 100% of a not for profit organization, and owns 100% of a privately held company, does this form a controlled group? The entities are in seperate lines of business and do not transact with one another. It doesnt seem right that they would be in a controlle group, but I can't find the legal provision that would expempt them from the 80% rule. Then again, I am a newb to this area. Another scenario....A holding company with 3 subsidiaries. Holding is a US publicly traded company, the 3 subsidiaries are in US, Japan & UK. No one is on the payroll for the holding company, hence no benefit or retirement/pension plan. Is it technically correct to say that there is controlled group here? Also, do the rules for a controlled group go beyond US borders? Thanks for any help provided. You might want to explore the qualified separate lines of business (QSLOB) rules to get around the impact of being a controlled group. I don't think QSLOB would apply if any of the companies is under 50 people...correct? US sub has over 50, none of the others do.
Bill Presson Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 Not for profits don't generally have owners. But don't they now have a 80% board control test for controlled group purposes? William C. Presson, ERPA, QPA, QKA bill.presson@gmail.com C 205.994.4070
K2retire Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 Not for profits don't generally have owners. But don't they now have a 80% board control test for controlled group purposes? There is a rule, but I don't remember the specifics. But the OP said owner, not board control.
Guest Sieve Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 See Treas. Reg. Section 1.414©-5 for the tax-exempt controlled group rules.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now