- 19 -
quarterly financial statements for the pension plan.5
By or on behalf of MIT 80, payroll taxes were withheld from
employees' wages and remitted to the appropriate State and
Federal Government agencies under MIT 80's employer
identification number. The employment tax returns that were
filed showed MIT 80 as the employer. In 1983, the State of New
Jersey made a claim against MIT 80 arising out of an alleged
underpayment of unemployment tax contributions in the amount of
$140.47.
The employee leasing agreement required Machise to pay MIT
80 a "compensation fee" of 115 percent of the payroll costs paid
by MIT 80 with respect to the erstwhile Machise employees and
independent contractors. The 15-percent excess of such costs was
the "override". The override was supposed to compensate MIT 80
for its services in providing and paying the employees and
independent contractors to perform the services Machise required
5The MIT Personnel Co. pension plan was in place for the
Machise employees before and during the years in issue. The MIT
80 partnership and successor partnerships apparently were named
parties to this plan by virtue of a "participation agreement".
The evidence includes a "Valuation Report" of the "MIT 80 Money
Purchase Pension Plan" prepared by an independent pension
administration company. This report indicates that the plan had
accrued assets and vesting schedules attributable to years before
MIT 80 came into existence. Additionally, the report's
terminology speaks of the MIT 80 "Board of Directors" and
"Officers". These terms are consistent with the employer being a
corporation, not a partnership.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011