BenefitsLink logo
EmployeeBenefitsJobs logo

Subscribe to Newsletters



Search the News


Featured Jobs
Senior Plan Administrator
Pension Administrative Consultant
Defined Contribution Pension Administrator
Senior Compliance Consultant
401k Administrator
401k Service Administrator
Search all jobs
 
Get the BenefitsLink app for iPhone and iPadLinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook

BenefitsLink > Q&A Columns >

Who's the Employer?

Answers are provided by S. Derrin Watson

Are Sole Proprietorship and 60%-Owned Corporation Subject to 415(h)?

(Posted June 19, 2002)

Question 202: Sherman owns a sole proprietorship. He also owns 60% of a C corporation; the remaining 40% is owned by an unrelated party. Are these businesses under common control for purposes of the Code section 415 limits?

Answer: Perhaps, depending on how IRC 415(h) applies to the sole proprietorship.

415(h) says that, for purposes of 415, the parent-subsidiary controlled group rules are based on ownership of more than 50%, instead of ownership of at least 80%. 415(h) does not change the brother-sister rules, just the parent-subsidiary rules.

To illustrate the difference, suppose Corporation A owns 60% of Corporation B. The two would be a controlled group for 415 purposes, but not for purposes of any other Code provision. Contrast that with a situation in which someone owns 60% of Corporation A and 60% of Corporation B. The two are not a controlled group for any purpose, because 415(h) does not change the brother-sister rules.

Now, let's look at your situation. If you view it as a brother-sister arrangement, with Sherman owning two businesses, then 415(h) does not apply and the two are not under common control for any purpose. However, suppose the C Corporation stock is viewed as being held by Sherman's sole proprietorship. In that case, you have a parent-subsidiary arrangement; 415(h) would apply, and the two businesses would be under common control for purposes of 415.

Although not directly on point, Treas. Reg. 1.415-7(h)(5) implies your situation is to be viewed as a parent-subsidiary arrangement. Moreover, given that under the IRS entity regulations the sole proprietorship is disregarded as a separate entity, there is no difference between ownership by the sole proprietorship and ownership by the sole proprietor. This reasoning also leads to the conclusion that the arrangement should be viewed as a parent-subsidiary arrangement and hence subject to 415(h).

Given the uncertainty over the issue, sole proprietors concerned about 415(h) should seriously considering incorporating their sole proprietorships. Then the ambiguity is eliminated. We are simply dealing with brother-sister arrangements and 415(h) cannot apply.

I discuss these issues, with further examples, in Chapter 12 of my book, Who's the Employer.


Important notice:

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.


Copyright 1999-2017 S. Derrin Watson
Related links:
 
Webmaster:
© 2017 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.
Privacy Policy