Site Manager / Senior Administrator Nicholas Pension Consultants
|
MGKS
|
United Benefit Pensions Inc.
|
Manager - Defined Contribution Plans M2B Retirement Consulting LLC
|
Jocelyn Pension Consulting
|
Director of Pension Administration Primark Benefits
|
EPIC RPS
|
401(k) Retirement Plan Administrator Midwest TPA with Remote Workforce
|
Compliance Analyst - 401(k) Administration Ubiquity Retirement + Savings
|
CMC Pension Professionals
|
Loren D. Stark Company
|
Hicks Pension Services
|
NFL Player Benefit Office
|
Aimpoint Pension
|
Primark Benefits
|
Retirement Plan Relationship Manager â DB or DC Focus Trinity Pension Consultants
|
Hessel & Associates, LLC
|
Senior Defined Contribution Account Manager Nova 401(k) Associates
|
Loren D. Stark Company
|
Retirement, LLC
|
Nicholas Pension Consultants
|
Junior Implementation Specialist - 401(k) Administration Ubiquity Retirement + Savings
|
“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”
-- An attorney subscriber
|
|
Question 169: If a PEO adopts a multiple employer retirement plan in accordance with Rev. Proc. 2002-21, does that resolve all of the "Who's the Employer" issues in the arrangement? | |
Answer: Not at all. Indeed, this is one of the real challenges of a multiple employer plan situation. In some respects Rev. Proc. 2002-21 compounds the problem! For example, consider a staffing firm that handles both "permatemps" and true temporary employees. In my view, workers permanently assigned to a single company are not likely to be the common law employees of the staffing firm/PEO, but the temps who spend one week here and another week there almost surely are. However, under the Rev. Proc., the PEO cannot cover the temps under a plan unless the CO that happens to be using them this week cosponsors the plan. But those temps are the common law employees of the PEO and hence will have a negative impact on the PEO's coverage testing. This is just one of the issues that the IRS must consider as it moves forward with this important initiative. There are many others. Because of the complexity of the issue, and the comments and questions I have received, I have reorganized and expanded my coverage of Rev. Proc. 2002-21 on my Who's the Employer website. Each section explaining the Rev. Proc. now includes citations to it so you can easily find the original material. The following pages are available: |
Answers are provided as general guidance on the subjects covered in the question and are not provided as legal advice to the questioner or to readers. Any legal issues should be reviewed by your legal counsel to apply the law to the particular facts of this and similar situations.
The law in this area changes frequently. Answers are believed to be correct as of the posting dates shown. The completeness or accuracy of a particular answer may be affected by changes in the law (statutes, regulations, rulings, court decisions, etc.) that occur after the date on which a particular Q&A is posted.
Related links: |