Subscribe (Free) to
Daily or Weekly Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Director, Business Development

National Benefit Services, LLC
(Remote / West Jordan UT)

National Benefit Services, LLC logo

Retirement Plan Administrator +

Steidle Pension Solutions
(Remote / NJ / PA)

Steidle Pension Solutions logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Premier Plan Consultants
(Remote / San Diego CA)

Premier Plan Consultants logo

DC Plan Administrator

Farmer & Betts, Inc.
(Remote / Tacoma WA / CO / OR)

Farmer & Betts, Inc. logo

Strategic Relationship Manager

401K Generation, Inc.
(Altamonte Springs FL)

401K Generation, Inc. logo

Senior Retirement Account Representative

Ohio Pension Services
(Akron OH)

Ohio Pension Services logo

Pension Plan Administrator

DeMars Pension Consulting Services, Inc.
(Overland Park KS)

DeMars Pension Consulting Services, Inc. logo

Retirement Plan Consultant

DWC - The 401(k) Experts

DWC - The 401(k) Experts logo

Senior Retirement Plan Administrator

TPS Group
(Remote / Buffalo NY)

TPS Group logo

Sr. Benefits Plan Administrator

The Catholic Diocese of Arlington
(Arlington VA)

The Catholic Diocese of Arlington logo

Retirement Plan Consultant

The MandMarblestone Group, llc
(Remote / Philadelphia PA)

The MandMarblestone Group, llc logo

Free Newsletters

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile App image LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
Facebook icon

BenefitsLink > Q&A Columns >

Who's the Employer?

Answers are provided by S. Derrin Watson, JD, APM

Lease to Own and Code Section 414(n)(4)(B)

(Posted December 27, 2001)

Question 135: Under IRC 414(n)(4)(B), who is "a person who is an employee of the recipient (whether by reason of this subsection or otherwise)"? It seems to me that in order to be considered a "recipient", there has to be a leasing agreement in place. Once the person is hired full-time, "recipient" status goes away. I read this section to apply primarily to someone who has met the "leased employee" definition. How else does one become an "employee of the recipient?" If my reading is correct, doesn't the remainder of the section merely say that any service completed before (not just after) the person met the leased employee criteria is counted?

Answer: Let's take a look at the particular section to which the question refers: "In the case of a person who is an employee of the recipient (whether by reason of this subsection or otherwise), for purposes of the requirements listed in paragraph (3), years of service for the recipient shall be determined by taking into account any period for which such employee would have been a leased employee but for the requirements of paragraph (2)(B)."

IRC 414(n)(2)(B) says that a worker is a leased employee only if he or she has been performing services for the recipient on a substantially full-time basis for at least a year. That requirement is disregarded computing service for someone subject to section IRC 414(n)(4)(B). So, this section takes into account service during the period a person meets the other three requirements of leased employee status: (1) they aren't an actual employee of the recipient; (2) they are performing services pursuant to an arrangement between the leasing organization and the recipient; and (3) they are under the recipient's primary direction and control.

To facilitate discussion, let's refer to all persons who meet those three requirements as "leased workers." All leased employees are leased workers. A leased worker becomes a leased employee (and is treated as an employee) once he or she satisfies the substantially full-time test of IRC 414(n)(2)(B). Leased workers who are not leased employees do not have employee status under IRC 414(n)(1).

Section 414(n)(4)(B) says that if a worker is either a common law employee or a leased employee, then you must count all service performed while he or she was a leased worker.

With that definition, consider the following full-time (2,000 hours/year) workers at Recipient, Inc. In each case (unless otherwise specified) the worker is on the payroll of Sam's Staffing Firm, and works under Recipient's primary direction and control. Recipient has a calendar year plan and is determining hours of service as of 12/31/2001.

Ed Employee is a common law employee of Recipient, Inc., notwithstanding the fact that he is on Sam's payroll. IRC 414(n) does not apply to Ed. Ed is an employee of Recipient and Recipient must credit Ed with all hours of service at Recipient.

Lenny Lease is a common law employee of Sam. Lenny started working at Recipient 2/1/1999. Lenny was a leased worker as of 2/1/1999. Lenny becomes a leased employee on 2/1/2000 and hence is deemed to be Recipient's employee on that date. As of 12/31/2001, Lenny has three years of service. All time as a leased worker must be counted, including time prior to the date Lenny became a leased employee.

Sally Switch was Sam's common law employee when she started working for Recipient on 1/1/1999. Recipient hired her as a full-time employee on 9/1/1999. During the period from 1/1/1999 to 8/31/1999, Sally was a leased worker. Sally was never a leased employee because she did not satisfy the substantially full-time standard. She became Recipient's common law employee on 9/1/1999. She is credited with three years of service. Because of 414(n)(4)(B), we count the period she was a leased worker.

The question points out an inexactitude in the language of 414(n)(4)(B) in that 414(n) never technically defines "recipient." However, it is clear from the context that the recipient is simply the business for whom the worker provides services. Viewed in that light, Recipient, Inc. is the recipient of the services of all three workers described above.

The interpretation suggested by your question would have us restrict the definition of "recipient" to the person for whom a leased worker performs services. That position would say that once Recipient, Inc. hires Sally, Recipient, Inc. is no longer a "recipient" under 414(n) because Sally is no longer a leased worker. However, nothing in 414(n) requires that conclusion. Moreover, such an interpretation would effectively change the language in 414(n)(4)(B), applying it to "a person who is an employee of the recipient (whether by reason of this subsection or otherwise)." It would have the effect of changing that clause to "a person who is a leased employee of the recipient." That is not the choice Congress made, and we must interpret the entire passage so that all of it makes sense if we can.

Leased employee issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 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:

(restricted access)

(restricted access)

© 2021, Inc.