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

Featured Jobs

Documents and Operations Coordinator

Jordan & Associates Retirement Services
(Remote / Santa Rosa CA)

Jordan & Associates Retirement Services logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Nicholas Pension Consultants
(Remote)

Nicholas Pension Consultants logo

Client Service Specialist

EPIC Retirement Plan Services
(Remote / AL / AZ / CO / CT / FL / GA / IA / IL / IN / MA / MD / ME / MI / MN / MO / NC / NE / NH / NV / NY / PA / SC / TN / TX / UT / VA / VT / WI / WY)

EPIC Retirement Plan Services logo

Compliance Specialist II

EPIC Retirement Plan Services
(Remote / AL / AZ / CO / CT / FL / GA / IA / IL / IN / MA / MD / ME / MI / MN / MO / NC / NE / NH / NV / NY / PA / SC / TN / TX / UT / VA / VT / WI / WY)

EPIC Retirement Plan Services logo

In-house Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Advisor

Cheiron, Inc.
(Mc Lean VA / Charlotte NC / Chicago IL / CA / MD / NJ / NY / PA)

Cheiron, Inc. logo

ESOP Administrator

Blue Ridge ESOP Associates
(Remote)

Blue Ridge ESOP Associates logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

The Nolan Company
(Remote)

The Nolan Company logo

Principal Benefits Expert

Mineral
(Remote / Portland OR)

Retirement Plan Administrative Specialist

Mueller Financial Services
(Elgin IL / Chicago IL / Orland Park IL)

Mueller Financial Services logo

New Business Consultant

Retirement Plan Consultants
(Remote)

Retirement Plan Consultants logo

Experienced Retirement Plan Administrator

Karel-Gordon & Associates
(Remote / Deerfield IL)

Karel-Gordon & Associates logo

View More Employee Benefits Jobs

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

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.


Copyright 1999-2017 S. Derrin Watson
Related links:

(restricted access)

(restricted access)

© 2022 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.