New PowerPoint: Avoiding Fringe Benefit Pitfalls: Tax Traps, De Minimis Rules, Correction Procedures, Fiduciary Risks
(Posted on April 4, 2019 by Carol V. Calhoun)

A recent CLE webinar guided benefits counsel and advisers on recent rules and regulations in providing fringe benefits to employees and avoiding dangerous and costly issues that arise regarding such benefits including personal liability under ERISA. The panel discussed key considerations in structuring fringe benefits, tax traps, de minimis rules, effective correction procedures and methods to minimize fiduciary risks. The PowerPoint presentation for the portion of the webinar dealing with tax aspects is now available at this link.

Sample Subrogation and Reimbursement Clauses for Summary Plan Description Now Available
(Posted on May 25, 2018 by Carol V. Calhoun)

A new article by Carol V. Calhoun, published by Lexis Practice Advisor, provides sample subrogation and reimbursement clauses to be used in a summary plan description. Such clauses are typically used in an instance in which an employer’s health or disability plan wants to avoid a situation in which a participant gets a double recovery for the same illness or injury. For example, an employee covered by both the employer’s health plan and a spouse’s health plan should not have the same medical expenses paid by both plans. Or an individual who is hit by a car, and recovers lost wages from the driver’s insurance company, should not also be able to receive disability benefits for the same period.

You can see a copy of the piece at this link.

What’s Happening with the Affordable Care Act?
(Posted on January 25, 2017 by Carol V. Calhoun)

The recent flurry of activity around the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has many people confused about where it stands, and what the employer’s obligations are. The following summarizes the activity so far:

Legislative Repeal Activity

A popular meme suggests that the Senate voted to eliminate virtually all of the provisions of the ACA, including the ability to obtain insurance in spite of pre-existing conditions, the requirement to cover adult children up to the age of 26, etc. This is not the case.

Webinar – Phased Retirement Programs: Exploring the Issues
(Posted on December 5, 2016 by Carol V. Calhoun)

Phased retirement has become increasingly popular among two groups of employees: those who would like to begin easing away from work at a younger age, and those who need to continue working at older ages but require a less demanding schedule. We recently conducted a webinar to help employers identify the situations in which phased retirement may be beneficial, and structure phased retirement arrangements in such a way as to avoid the practical and legal pitfalls.

The PowerPoint presentation for the webinar is now available at this link.

A Trump Presidency: What Does It Mean for Employee Benefits?
(Posted on November 29, 2016 by Carol V. Calhoun)

Based on both campaign promises and Donald Trump’s plans for his first 100 days, a Trump presidency is likely to make major changes in employee benefits law. The most significant ones are likely to be:

Major changes in the Affordable Care Act (although the timing and extent of such changes are unclear), combined with expansion of health savings accounts.
Postponement or elimination of the recently issued Department of Labor fiduciary regulations.
Loosening of executive compensation rules.
Further cutbacks in IRS guidance and audit activity.
Increased hostility to consideration of noneconomic factors in selecting retirement plan investments.
Diminished enforcement of protections for LGBT employees.
Increased activity at the state level, including establishment of state-sponsored retirement plans for private employers.

These issues, and others of less general concern, are discussed below. Read more.

Domestic Partnership Converted Retroactively to Marriage After Death Provides Basis for Spousal Benefits
(Posted on November 6, 2015 by Carol V. Calhoun)

In a case that has obvious implications for employee benefit plans, the Veterans’ Administration (“VA”) has just provided survivor benefits to the partner of a service member, even though the partners were not married before the service member’s death.

Employee benefits effects of Supreme Court same-sex marriage decision
(Posted on July 14, 2015 by Carol V. Calhoun)

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. For employers, this decision raises the issue of what changes must be made in employee benefits to reflect the decision.

For this purpose, we will look at three categories of employers: those that have already been offering benefits to same-sex spouses, those that have not previously offered benefits to same-sex spouses, and those that have been offering benefits to domestic partners.

Employee benefits effects of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act
(Posted on June 25, 2015 by Carol V. Calhoun)

In King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court today upheld a key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). What is the effect of this decision on employee benefit plans? Read more.

EEOC: Discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status is prohibited sex discrimination
(Posted on May 12, 2015 by Carol V. Calhoun)

Federal law contains provisions forbidding discrimination based on several classifications: race, sex, veteran status, etc. However, no federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. As a result, many employers in states which do not have their own legislation barring discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status have assumed that no laws prohibited such discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has now called this assumption into question, by bringing several lawsuits treating discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status as a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This issue is a focus of the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2013-2016. Read more.

Employee Benefits Effects of Treasury, IRS and Department of Labor Announcements That All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized For Federal Tax Purposes
(Posted on February 23, 2015 by Carol V. Calhoun)

This post was updated on June 26, 2015 to reflect the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage.

The Treasury Department and the IRS announced on August 29, 2013 that all legal same-sex marriages will be recognized for federal tax purposes. On September 18, 2013, the Department of Labor took the same position for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA“). The announcements and corresponding revenue ruling (Rev. Rul. 2013-17) apply only to marriages legal in the jurisdiction in which performed. They do not apply to civil unions or domestic partnerships. (Of course, parties to a civil union or domestic partnership could still obtain the benefits of the announcement and revenue ruling by getting legally married.) The Treasury and IRS position was later reinforced by the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage.

Because employee benefit plans are extensively regulated by federal law, this announcement means that all employers will be required to recognize such marriages for many employee benefits purposes. Conversely, employers in states that treat civil unions or domestic partnerships as if they were marriages will nevertheless be forbidden from treating such arrangements as marriages for certain employee benefits purposes. However, the precise impact will depend on whether the plan is subject to ERISA or whether it is a governmental or church plan exempt from ERISA. The chart below sets forth areas in which the announcement will affect the operation of different types of plans.