Subscribe Now!
Free Daily News, Jobs, Webcasts, Discussions

Featured Jobs

401(k) Implementation Manager

Human Interest
(Telecommute / San Francisco CA)

DC or DB Administrator

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

DC Retirement Plan Administrator

The Nolan Company
(Telecommute / Overland Park KS)

Retirement Plan Administrator

RSW & Associates
(CT / NJ / NY)

Product Support Consultant

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

401(k) Consultant

TPS Group
(Telecommute / North Haven CT)

Plan Document Specialist

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

Employee Benefits/Health and Welfare Attorney

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

Retirement Plan Administrator (Account Manager)

Kushner & Company
(Telecommute / Portage MI)

DB/DC Administrator

Primark Benefits
(Telecommute / Burlingame CA)

Director of 401(k) Implementation, Core

Human Interest
(Telecommute / Mill Valley CA)

Retirement Plan Administrator

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

Director of Finance

NYCDC of Carpenters Benefit Funds
(New York NY)

DB Retirement Plan Administrator

The Nolan Company
(Telecommute / Overland Park KS)

Retirement Plan Administrator

Bates & Company
(Telecommute / Winter Park FL)

Retirement Plan Consultant / Relationship Manager

Associated Pension Consultants
(Chico CA / Sacramento CA)

Free Newsletters

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

-- An attorney subscriber

BenefitsLink > Q&A Columns >

Who's the Employer?

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

Rev. Proc. 2002-21 and the Separate CO Plan

(Posted May 6, 2002)

Question 171: Does Rev. Proc. 2002-21 have any impact on a division of a company if the company has determined that the employees of the division are common law employees of the company and participate in the company's qualified plan, even though the employees are leased from a PEO?

Answer: No. These folks are doing just what they should be doing and can go ahead without change.

Rev. Proc. 2002-21 affects single employer plans adopted by PEOs. Accordingly, it has ramifications for a sponsoring PEO, for the participants in the PEO's plan, and for the COs for whom those participants perform services.

It does not affect:

Existing multiple employer plans cosponsored by a PEO and by all the COs whose workers participate; or
A CO's plan which (almost undoubtledly correctly) treats the workers as the CO's common law employees and disregards any benefits provided under a PEO plan that the CO does not cosponsor.
A PEO that has chosen not to sponsor a plan.

For additional analysis of this Rev. Proc., see my redesigned site. For more on the status of leased employees, see 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.