In 2024, we commemorate a significant milestone in the landscape of employee benefits law: the 50th Anniversary of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Enacted on Labor Day in 1974 by President Gerald Ford, ERISA has since served as a cornerstone in safeguarding the retirement and welfare benefits of American workers.
Here at Seyfarth
This article was originally posted to Seyfarth’s Global Privacy Watch blog.
Employers looking to enhance their suite of employee benefit programs, and focused on lessons learned during the pandemic on wellbeing, are interested in providing greater access to wellness tools. And, the vendors who support those tools are more than happy to provide them.
On November 24, 2023, the IRS issued highly anticipated proposed regulations concerning the provisions under SECURE and SECURE 2.0, requiring 401(k) plans to expand deferral eligibility for long-term part-time employees. The proposed rules answer a number of burning questions that have been lingering since 2019 when SECURE was first enacted. In this special episode, Seyfarth
True to form, the IRS released long-awaited proposed regulations during a long holiday weekend. This time they are narrowly focused on the eligibility rules for Long-Term Part-Time employees first introduced under the SECURE Act, and then expanded by SECURE 2.0. But, they did not disappoint, and are chock full of useful and detailed information on
Seyfarth Synopsis: Fresh on the heels of the IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum on wellness and indemnity products, discussed in our prior post here, the agencies have weighed in with more formal and more expansive guidance throwing more cold water on the tax treatment of these types of products, that the Administration has dubbed “junk insurance”.
On July 7th, the Treasury Department, Department of Labor, and Health and Human Services (the “agencies”) issued proposed rules impacting “junk insurance”. The guidance proposes (i) changes to what qualifies as short-term, limited-duration insurance, (ii) amendments to the requirements for independent, non-coordinated coverage, and fixed indemnity insurance to be considered an “excepted benefit”, and (iii) clarifications of the tax treatment of fixed amount benefit payments under employment-based accident and health plans. The IRS also asks for comments on coverage limited to specified diseases or illnesses that qualifies as excepted benefits and on level-funded plan arrangements.Continue Reading My Insurance Doesn’t Cover That? Agency Guidance on “Junk Insurance”
By this point, most people in the employee benefits space have heard about the MOVEit and Retirement Clearing House (RCH) cyber incidents, which could directly impact employers’ benefit plans. The MOVEit file transfer application is used by a number of vendors, including those that locate missing plan participants or find information regarding deceased plan participants
Seyfarth Synopsis: Just like a bad penny, schemes promising employers ways to reduce their FICA tax burden, and maybe their employees’ income tax burden at the same time, keep popping up with a slightly different burnish on the coin. The risks of such an approach have concerned tax practitioners and now the IRS has directly and
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“CAA”) contains a requirement that that group health plans may not have agreements with service providers that would restrict certain information that the plan may make available to another party (the “Gag Clause Prohibition”) and must attest on an annual basis that they are complying (the “Compliance Attestation”).
Seyfarth Synopsis: In an anticipated decision, released late on Friday April 7, 2023 of the Easter weekend, Texas District Court Judge Kacsmaryk has halted the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone. While in Washington State, District Court Judge Thomas Rice granted a motion to enjoin the FDA from altering the status quo related to Mifepristone.
Mifepristone was
Update: On June 13, 2023, the 5th Circuit issued a stay order which freezes the ruling issued by a Texas federal district court that voided the ACA requirement for health plans to cover preventive items and services (without cost-sharing) recommended by the U.S Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). For more information, see our blog post