A.I. for affiliated service group and controlled group determinations

[FORMER ESQ.]

After several months of hard work, I have designed A.I. that gives a structured analysis of affiliated service group and controlled group determinations under Section 414. The level of reasoning provided cannot be matched by ERISApedia, Chatgpt, Claude, etc...

The program thoroughly analyzes all aspects, including entity and family attribution to the "judgement" issues such as what constitutes "performance of services", "services organization", "regularly performing services" are analyzed. The program gives a structured layout of the issues involved, the facts pointing in one direction or another, and probability of affiliated service group status. When facts are missing or incomplete, it still provides an analysis with differential outcomes. 

The program has been trained with over 500 real life affiliated service group scenarios that I have analyzed for it. It is currently going through beta testing. Of course, ERISA attorney analysis would be required to confirm the analysis, but it will significantly reduce ERISA attorney time.

Before starting on the project, I should have asked how people in the retirement industry would view such a product. But, it was such a neat experience for me that I decided to create it anyway. At the very least, I could use it myself. What are your opinions?

 

 

 

[Peter Gulia]

This might have the makings of a neat software tool.

I can imagine a few kinds of potential licensees:

A law firm that’s not an employee-benefits boutique and has only a thin employee-benefits practice might use this tool for a first-cut analysis so the firm doesn’t put in too much time (maybe more than the client will pay for), and can focus on the more difficult questions.

A service provider asked for, or seeing a need for, a § 414(b)-(c)-(m)-(n)-(o) analysis in circumstances under which the service provider must pretend not to give tax or other legal advice. A service provider might describe the tool’s report as preliminary information assembled for its customer’s lawyer’s convenience—even if the service provider internally imagines it’s unlikely its customer would ask a lawyer.

A service provider that considers its own liability exposure or a business-reputation “why didn’t you tell me” risk because its customer maintained a plan without advice about which businesses form the § 414(b)-(c)-(m)-(n)-(o) employer.

You’d want to think through all the many sales, operations, and other business challenges.

You’d need to protect your intellectual property.

You’d want conspicuous and clear warnings that the tool doesn’t produce a reliable conclusion (even if you think it does).

You might restrict sales to law firms, accounting firms, TPAs, recordkeepers, and other service providers you vet. A sale directly to an end-user plan sponsor or employer might increase your risks about the unlawful or unauthorized practice of law.

When you’re ready to sell the tool and hire workers for that business, help the Bakers by advertising on BenefitsLink!

This is not advice to anyone.