Subscribe Now!
Free Daily News, Jobs, Webcasts, Discussions
Display and Distribute
Your Job Openings
COVID-19 News
COVID-19 Webcasts

Featured Jobs

Director, Retirement Benefits

Wespath Benefits and Investments
(Telecommute / Glenview IL)

Wespath Benefits and Investments logo

Senior Retirement Plan Administrator

Goldberg, Swedelson & Associates
(Telecommute / Encino CA)

Goldberg, Swedelson & Associates logo

Defined Contribution Plan Administrator

401k America
(Telecommute / Chino CA)

Defined Contribution Administrator

(Telecommute / Clovis CA / Las Vegas NV)


Trust Funds Accountant

RFK Medical Plan/JDLC Pension Plan
(Keene CA)

Manager, Defined Contributions Administration

(Telecommute / The Woodlands TX / University Place WA / Dallas TX / Erie PA / Canonsburg PA / West Palm Beach FL)

5500 Specialist

401K Generation
(Altamonte Springs FL)

401K Generation logo

Defined Benefits Combo Cash Balance Consultant

Loren D. Stark Company (LDSCO)

Loren D. Stark Company (LDSCO) logo

Client Service Manager

July Business Services
(Telecommute / Waco TX)

July Business Services logo

Free Daily News and Jobs

“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

Adopting a Single Employer PEO Plan After May 13, 2002

(Posted May 13, 2002)

Question 182: I've been approached by a PEO that wants to set up a single employer retirement plan. In light of Rev. Proc. 2002-21, should I do so?

Answer: Absolutely not. Stay as far away from that as you can.

Rev. Proc. 2002-21 is effective for plans in existence May 13, 2002. That means that if a plan was not in existence May 13, 2002, that plan cannot take advantage of its provisions. Thus, it is impossible for such a plan to comply with the Rev. Proc. Even if such a plan were to be terminated or converted to a multiple employer plan before 2004, it would be unable to claim the relief offered by the Rev. Proc.

Even though such a plan would be unable to claim the relief, it would be subject to the consequences of noncompliance-- consequences it will be unable to avoid. It would be subject to disqualification for violating the exclusive benefit rule unless it could prove that it is the common law employer of its Worksite Employees. Moreover, if it were still a single employer plan in 2004, it would be unable to rely on a favorable determination letter, regardless of when that letter was issued.

At this point, the only way a PEO should be considering setting up a retirement plan is to set up a multiple employer plan that is cosponsored by the COs of participating employees. Any other course is fraught with peril.

For further discussion of why these are dangerous waters, see Chapter 4 of my book Who's the Employer. For more on the Rev. Proc., see my expanded coverage, published on the Web.

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)

© 2020, Inc.