Subscribe Now!
Free Daily News, Jobs, Webcasts, Discussions
Post and Distribute
Your Jobs
ARPA News
ARPA Webcasts

Featured Jobs

Plan Document Specialist

Jocelyn Pension Consulting
(Telecommute / Boulder CO / San Rafael CA)

Jocelyn Pension Consulting logo

DB Retirement Plan Administrator

The Nolan Company
(Telecommute / Overland Park KS)

The Nolan Company logo

Employee Benefits/Health and Welfare Attorney

Miller Johnson
(Telecommute / Grand Rapids MI / Kalamazoo MI / Detroit MI)

Miller Johnson logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Bates & Company
(Telecommute / Winter Park FL)

Bates & Company logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

RSW & Associates
(CT / NJ / NY)

RSW & Associates logo

Director of 401(k) Implementation, Core

Human Interest
(Telecommute / Mill Valley CA)

Human Interest logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

My Benefits, LLC
(Telecommute / Daphne AL / Atlantic Beach FL)

My Benefits, LLC logo

Product Support Consultant

ftwilliam.com part of Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory
(Telecommute)

ftwilliam.com part of Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory logo

DC or DB Administrator

Farmer & Betts, Inc.
(Telecommute / Tacoma WA / Tualatin OR / Littleton CO)

Farmer & Betts, Inc. logo

Director of Finance

NYCDC of Carpenters Benefit Funds
(New York NY)

DB/DC Administrator

Primark Benefits
(Telecommute / Burlingame CA)

Primark Benefits logo

DC Retirement Plan Administrator

The Nolan Company
(Telecommute / Overland Park KS)

The Nolan Company logo

Retirement Plan Administrator (Account Manager)

Kushner & Company
(Telecommute / Portage MI)

Kushner & Company logo

Retirement Plan Consultant / Relationship Manager

Associated Pension Consultants
(Chico CA / Sacramento CA)

Associated Pension Consultants logo

401(k) Implementation Manager

Human Interest
(Telecommute / San Francisco CA)

Human Interest logo

401(k) Consultant

TPS Group
(Telecommute / North Haven CT)

TPS Group 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

Additional Guidance on Rev. Proc. 2002-21

(Posted April 29, 2002)

Question 166: Have you heard back from the IRS regarding Rev. Proc. 2002-21? Can we expect any additional guidance?

Answer: Yes. I've been out of town a lot lately, but Jeanne Royal Singley, the author of Rev Proc 2002-21, tracked me down Monday afternoon, and I appreciate her doing so. Naturally, any comments she made are unofficial and not binding on the IRS.

She said that I wasn't the only person with questions about the Rev. Proc. She also said discussions have occurred at the IRS to see if they could provide some answers to questions left open by the Rev. Proc. I obviously don't know what answers will be given, or how they will be given, but I appreciate their openness to responding to taxpayer questions and concerns.

She confirmed there is no definition of PEO currently in the Rev. Proc., other than an indirect operational definition. Section 6.05 defines a Client Organization (CO) as "an organization that enters into a service agreement with a PEO under which Worksite Employees provide services to the organization." Hence, a PEO would be an entity that has entered into such an agreement with a CO. That seems to me to be a very broad definition of PEO, which would include many organizations that are not primarily in the business of providing employees to other businesses.

She also pointed out Section 4.03, which provides, "For the purpose of determining whether a PEO Retirement Plan or Spinoff Retirement Plan satisfies the qualification requirements in 401(a) upon plan termination ... Worksite Employees may be treated as if they were employees of the PEO." The purpose of that provision, she said, is to allow a terminating PEO plan that complies with the Rev. Proc. to receive a favorable letter upon termination even though the plan has been (possibly incorrectly) administered as though the Worksite Employees were common law employees of the PEO. This extends beyond the exclusive benefit rule. But as I read the Rev. Proc., I do not find comparable relief for a plan that converts to a Multiple Employer Plan (a serious potential issue).

So, stayed tuned folks! There's probably more to come.


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 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.