IRS written determination 201611007

Private letter rulings and published taxpayer determination letters. Native document type is retained separately; a determination letter is not labeled a private letter ruling. These taxpayer-specific releases cannot be used or cited as precedent under 26 USC 6110(k)(3); applicability and current legal force are not independently certified. Keep repeated UILC subjects attached to one actual numbered document.

Internal Revenue Service
Department of the Treasury
Washington, DC 20224
Number: 201611007
Release Date: 3/11/2016
Index Number: 3121.01-00
--------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
Third Party Communication: None
Date of Communication: Not Applicable
Person To Contact:
--------------------, ID No. ------------
Telephone Number:
--------------------
Refer Reply To:
CC:TEGE:EOEG:ET2
PLR-123185-15
Date:
December 10, 2015
TY: ------
Legend
Parent = ---------------------
--------------------------------------------
Corporation Y = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
-----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Corporation L = ------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Corporation O = -----------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Year One = -------
Function X = ----------------------------
Asset M = ----------------
Dear -----------------:
This is in reply to your request for a ruling concerning whether Corporation Y, a
subsidiary of Parent, will qualify as successor employer for purposes of the annual
wage limitations under sections 3121(a)(1) and 3306(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code with respect to wages paid to certain employees who you represent will become
employees of Corporation Y in a corporate reorganization in which the employees’
employment is intended to be transferred from Corporation L and Corporation O.
FACTS
You indicate that the purpose of the reorganization and transfer of employees is to
enable Parent to satisfy certain federal regulatory requirements. U.S. employees
working for the Parent are currently employed by U.S. subsidiaries of the Parent.
Some employees of subsidiaries of the Parent are “Business Employees” who perform

PLR-123185-15
2
business functions that are considered to be revenue generating. Other employees of
subsidiaries are “Support Employees” who perform activities in support of the Business
Employees and in support of the business operations of the Parent and its subsidiaries.
This transaction involves “Support Employees” of two subsidiaries of the Parent, who
perform the Function X functions (Function X Support Employees). There are other
subsidiaries that haveSupport Employees who perform other functions. Currently some
U.S. subsidiaries employ only Support Employees, some U.S. subsidiaries employ only
Business Employees, and some U.S. subsidiaries employ both types of employees.
The two subsidiaries you characterize as predecessor employers in this transaction for
purposes of the annual wage limitation are comprised of Corporation L and Corporation
O.
The ruling request discusses the assets of the two subsidiaries that are transferring
employees. The request provides that “own” is defined for purposes of the request by
reference to an amount carried on the related subsidiary balance sheet. Both
Corporation L and Corporation O own operating assets used by Support Employees
and Business Employees. Included among the operating assets owned by Corporation
L for use by its Support Employees and Business Employees are such items as
leasehold improvements, computer equipment, telecommunications equipment,
software, furniture, fixtures, contracts, and Asset M. Included among the operating
assets owned by Corporation O for use by its Support Employees and Business
Employees are such items as computer equipment, telecommunications equipment,
software, furniture, fixtures, and contracts. Any operating assets ownedby affiliates of
the Parent other than Corporation L and Corporation O that are used by the Support
Employees and Business Employees of Corporation L and Corporation O are made
available to such employees through leasing, contractual, and similar intercompany
arrangements. Assets owned by such other affiliates of the Parent include commonly
shared items such as real property and corporate vehicles, as well as additional
computer equipment, telecommunications equipment, furniture, fixtures, contracts, and
Asset M.
Proposed Transaction
In the Transaction, on a date to be determined in Year One after January 1, Corporation
L and Corporation O will transfer all their respective Function X Support Employees to
Corporation Y, a shared service entity. On the same date as the transfer of employees,
Corporation L and Corporation O will also transfer to Corporation Y substantially all
those operating assets owned by them that are determined to relate to the Function X
Support Employees being transferred to Corporation Y. Also, on the same date,
Corporation Y will succeed to the leasing, contractual or similar intercompany
arrangements with regard to the assets that are owned by the taxpayer’s other affiliates
and used by the Function X Support Employees.

PLR-123185-15
3
Immediately after the Transaction, the Function X Support Employees who have
transferred will continue to perform their functions supporting Business Employees and
business activities of the subsidiary from which they have transferred and other affiliates
of the Parent in the same capacity and manner as prior to the transfer. The transferred
employees will have the same use of all the assets used in the Function X Support
Operations, either through ownership transfer of the assets or through transfer of
leasing, contractual or similar intercompany arrangements which the employees were
using prior to the transfer.

The taxpayer represents that 100% of the Function X Support employees of Corporation
L and Corporation O are common law employees of Corporation L and Corporation O
before the transfer and that the employees will be transferred to Corporation Y and
immediately become the common law employees of Corporation Y. This transfer
includes all supervisors and managers within the Function X Support functions at
Corporation L and Corporation O, including Function X Support executives (i.e., the
Chief Information Officers). Therefore, according to your representations, at the
conclusion of the Transaction, 100 percent of the Function X Support employees
formerly employed by Corporation L and Corporation O will be employed by Corporation
Y and will be under the supervision and direction of supervisors and managers
employed by Corporation Y.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
FICA taxes are imposed on wages, as defined in section 3121(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code (Code). FICA taxes are composed of Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability
Insurance Tax (social security taxes) and hospital insurance taxes (Medicare taxes).
Social security taxes are imposed by sections 3101(a) (employee’s portion) and 3111(a)
(employer’s portion).
Section 3121(a)(1) provides an exception from the social security tax portion of the
FICA for remuneration paid by an employer to an employee with respect to employment
during the calendar year after the employer has paid wages to the employee equal to
the contribution and benefit base for the year. There is generally no exception from
wages for an employer because another employer has already paid wages to the
employee equal to the contribution and benefits base during the calendar year.
Remuneration paid by the second employer is generally subject to social security taxes
on remuneration that is not otherwise excepted up to the amount of a new contribution
and benefit base applicable to that employer with respect to the employee. Although
the employee can obtain a refund of the employee portion of social security taxes on his
or her income tax return to the extent the employee portion of social security taxes have
been paid on wages in excess of the contribution benefit base as a result of the
employee having two or more employers, the employer is not entitled to a refund of the
employer portion of social security tax on such wages.

PLR-123185-15
4
The predecessor-successor rule in section 3121(a)(1) provides an exception to the
general rule that a new contribution and benefit base applies in the case of a second
employer. Section 3121(a)(1) provides that, if an employer (referred to as a successor
employer) during any calendar year “acquires substantially all the property used in a
trade or business of another employer (hereinafter referred to as a predecessor), or
used in a separate unit of a trade or business of a predecessor, and immediately after
the acquisition employs in his trade or business an individual who immediately prior to
the acquisition was employed in the trade or business of such predecessor, then, for the
purpose of determining whether the successor employer has paid remuneration ... with
respect to employment equal to the contribution and benefit base ..., to such individual
during such calendar year, any remuneration ...paid with respect to employment paid ...
to such individual by such predecessor during such calendar year and prior to the
acquisition shall be considered as having been paid by such successor employer.”
Section 31.3121(a)(1)-1(b)(2) of the regulations provides that three tests must be met
for thewages paid, by a predecessor to an employee to be, for purposes of the annual
wage limitation, treated as having been paid to such employee by a successor:
(i) The successor during a calendar year acquired substantially all the property
used in a trade or business, or used in a separate unit of a trade or business, of the
predecessor;
(ii) Such employee was employed in the trade or business of the predecessor
immediately prior to the acquisition and is employed by the successor in the successor’s
trade or business immediately after the acquisition; and
(iii) Such wages were paid during the calendar year in which the acquisition
occurred and prior to such acquisition.
Section 31.3121(a)(1)-1(b)(3) of the regulations provides that the method of acquisition
by an employer of the property of another employer is immaterial. The acquisition may
occur as a consequence of the incorporation of a business by a sole proprietor or a
partnership, the continuance without interruption of the business of a previously existing
partnership by a new partnership or by a sole proprietor, or a purchase or any other
transaction whereby substantially all the property used in a trade or business, or used in
a separate unit of a trade or business, of one employer is acquired by another
employer.
Section 31.3121(a)(1)-1(b)(4) of the regulations provides that substantially all the
property used in a separate unit of a trade or business may consist of substantially all
the property used in the performance of an essential operation of the trade or business,
or it may consist of substantially all the property used in a relatively self-sustaining entity
which forms a part of the trade or business.

PLR-123185-15
5
Section 31.3121(a)(1)-1(b)(4) of the regulations provides two examples of the
requirement that the successor acquired substantially all the property used in a
separate unit of a trade or business. In Example 1, the M Corporation, which is
engaged in themanufacture of automobiles, including the manufacture of automobile
engines, discontinues the manufacture of the engines and transfers all the property
used in such manufacturing operation to the N Company. Under the regulations, the N
Company is considered to have acquired a separate unit of the trade or business of the
M Corporation, namely, its engine manufacturing unit. In Example 2, the R Corporation
which is engaged in the operation of a chain of grocery stores transfers one of such
stores to the SCompany. The regulations provide that the S Company is considered to
have acquired a separate unit of the trade or business of the R Corporation.
Section 31.3121(a)(1)-1(b)(5) of the regulations provides that a successor may receive
credit for wages paid to an employee by a predecessor only if immediately prior to the
acquisition the employee was employed by the predecessor in his trade or business
which was acquired by the successor and if immediately after the acquisition such
employee is employed by the successor in his trade or business (whether or not in the
same trade or business in which the acquired property is used). If the acquisition
involves only a separate unit of a trade or business of the predecessor, the employee
need not have been employed by the predecessor in that unit provided he was
employed in the trade or business of which the acquired unit was a part.
Rev. Rul. 68-105, 1968-1 C.B. 418, considered the issue of whether an employer who is
a successful bidder for a United States Air Force (USAF) maintenance contract may
qualify as a successor employer to the prior contractor under a similar contract for
purposes of applying the annual wage limitations provided by section 3121(a)(1). The
maintenance contract required the contractor to maintain, repair, and overhaul USAF
airplanes. For the work on the contract, the contractor used Government-owned
equipment and tooling of substantial value. The equipment was provided to the
contractor through an inventory accounting arrangement.
Under the facts of Rev. Rul. 68-105, on July 1 of the calendar year, a new employer
assumed responsibility under a similar contract, obtained on a competitive bid. All
Government-owned property formerly used by the first employer was turned over to the
second employer for use in a continuous, unbroken performance of the maintenance job
the first employer had been doing. Thus, the second employer acquired the possession
and use of all the Government-owned property used in the maintenance operation
through an inventory accounting arrangement similar to that made with the first
employer.
Rev. Rul. 68-105 concludes that, under the facts of the ruling, because the second
employer obtained the possession and use of all the Government-owned property used
by the first employer it satisfies the requirement of acquiring substantially all of the
property used in the separate unit of the trade or business. The ruling states that it is

PLR-123185-15
6
immaterial that the second employer did not acquire an interest in the property used in
performing the contract from the first employer. Because the other requirements for
being a successor employer under section 3121(a)(1) were also met, the ruling
concludes that the second employer is a successor employer of the first employer for
purposes of the annual wage limitation under section 3121(a)(1).
Rev. Rul. 72-269, 1972-1 C.B. 313, considered whether a subcontractor performing an
essential operation under a government contract may treat wages paid by a
predecessor employer, formerly the prime contractor, as paid by the subcontractor for
purposes of the annual wage limitation provisions of the FICA and the FUTA. Under the
facts of the ruling, for some years one employer was the operating contractor for the
United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in the operation of one of its facilities.
Upon expiration of the first employer’s contract on June 30, the operation of that facility
was transferred under an AEC contract to a second employer. The second employer
had entered into a contract with a third employer for the performance of an essential
operation of the facility then under contract by the AEC to the first employer. The
subcontract was effective July 1, simultaneously with the second employer’s
government contract. Under the subcontract, the third employer gained operating
control of, and was responsible and held accountable for, substantial Government-
owned property and equipment related to the essential operation of the facility.
Rev. Rul. 72-269 concludes that the third employer meets the requirement to acquire
substantially all the assets in a separate unit of a trade or business, and states that
inasmuch as the third employer acquired the use of the Government-owned property
used by the first employer in an essential operation of the facility, it is immaterial that the
third employer did not acquire an interest in the property used in performing the
subcontract. Because the other requirements necessary to qualify to take the wages of
the predecessor into account for purposes of section 3121(a)(1) and 3306(b)(1) were
also met, the ruling concluded that the third employer qualified as a successor employer
to take into account the wages of the predecessor first employer in determining whether
the annual wage limitation for FICA and FUTA were met.
As noted above, section 31.3121(a)(1)-1(b)(2) of the regulations provides that three
requirements must be met for the wages paid, by a predecessor to an employee to be,
for purposes of the annual wage limitation, treated as having been paid to such
employee by a successor. The first requirement is that the successor during a calendar
year acquired substantially all the property used in a trade or business, or used in a
separate unit of a trade or business, of the predecessor. Section 31.3121(a)(1)-1(b)(4)
provides that substantially all of the property used in a separate unit of a trade or
business may consist of substantially all the property used in the performance of an
essential operation of a trade or business, or it may consist of substantially all the
property used in a relatively self-sustaining entity which forms a part of the trade or
business.

PLR-123185-15
7
The first test is met because Corporation Y has acquired substantially all the assets of
an essential operation of Corporation L and an essential operation of Corporation O
because it meets this test as interpreted by Rev. Rul. 72-269. Rev. Rul. 72-269
concludes that a successor employer meets the requirement to acquire substantially all
the assets in a separate unit of a trade or business (or essential operation), if the
successor employer acquires the use of the property used by the predecessor in the
essential operation. It is represented for purposes of the ruling request that Corporation
L and Corporation O will transfer to Corporation Y all those operating assets owned by
Corporation L and Corporation O that are determined to relate to their respective
Function X Support Employees transferring to Corporation Y. Corporation Y will also
succeed to the leasing, contractual, orsimilar intercompany arrangements with regard
to the assets that are owned by the taxpayer’s other affiliates and used by the Function
X Support Employees. Based on the specific facts presented, the Function X Support
operations constitute an essential operation of Corporation L and Corporation O
because the operations are necessary to complete or support a process executed by
Business Employees or other Support Employees in the conduct of their activities and
to enable Parent to meet all of its management, administration, reporting, compliance,
legal, financial, risk, technological, and operational obligations that are germane to
Parent’s business. The Function X Support operations are distinct and substantial
operations that provide activities that are essential for the operations of Corporation L
and Corporation O. Accordingly, because Corporation Y is acquiring substantially all
the assets of essential operations of Corporation L and Corporation O, the first test is
met.
The second requirement is that employees to whom the predecessor paid wages must
have been employed in the trade or business of the predecessor immediately prior to
the acquisition and must be employed by the successor in the successor’s trade or
business immediately after the acquisition. Parent has represented that the Function X
Employees being transferred are the common law employees of Corporation L and
Corporation Oin the Function X Support operations trade or business of Corporation L
and Corporation O immediately prior to the acquisition and will be common law
employees of Corporation Y in Corporation Y’s trade or business immediately after the
acquisition. Basedon that representation, the second requirement is also met.
The third requirement is that such wages were paid during the calendar year in which
the acquisition occurred and prior to such acquisition. According to the taxpayer,
because of the date of the acquisition, wages will be paid by the predecessor during the
calendar year in which the acquisition will occur and prior to such acquisition.

Therefore, we conclude that, with regard to the Transaction, Corporation Y is a
successor employer of Corporation L and Corporation O for purposes of the annual
wage limitations contained in sections 3121(a)(1) and 3306(b)(1).

PLR-123185-15
8
Except as expressly provided herein, no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the
tax consequences of any aspect of any transaction or item discussed or referenced in
this letter. In particular, the ruling is based on the representation that, after the
Transaction, the Function X Support Employees will be common law employees of
Corporation Y rather than Corporation L or Corporation O and is not a separate ruling
on the identification of the common law employer based on all the facts and
circumstances. Furthermore, the ruling only applies with respect to wages paid to a
particular Function X Support employee if the employee becomes an employee of
Corporation Y after the Transaction.
This ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it. Section 6110(k)(3) of the Code
provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent.
In accordance with the Power of Attorney on file with this office, a copy of this letter is
being sent to your authorized representative.
Sincerely,
Lynne Camillo
Branch Chief, Employment Tax Branch 2 (Exempt
Organizations/Employment Tax/Government
Entities)
(Tax Exempt & Government Entities)