Last week, Senate Republicans unveiled draft legislation to move toward repealing portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The draft health care bill, known as the Better Care Reconciliation Act, was hatched behind closed doors without public committee hearings or debate, in response to concerns raised by the House’s American Health Care Act (AHCA), which passed by the slimmest of margins on May 4, 2017. The bill faces an uphill battle as several Republican senators have already come out in opposition to the draft bill, conservatives have criticized the bill not going far enough to repeal the ACA and moderates are uneasy about the impact severe cutbacks to the Medicaid system will have on their constituents. Senator Mitch McConnell has vowed to bring the draft bill to a vote this week before Congress recesses for the Fourth of July holiday.
Andrew Liazos and Allison Wilkerson wrote this bylined article on Tax Code Section 409A’s deferral and payment requirements for nonqualified deferred compensation plans. Recent IRS Section 409A guidance makes “several helpful changes that employers will want to consider and take advantage of,” the authors wrote, and they warned employers that they ignore final IRS “at their peril…in light of the more limited ability to correct errors.”
Originally published in The Practical Tax Lawyer, Spring 2017
Offering employer stock in a 401(k) plan investment lineup can seem like a win-win situation. It can enable employees to become company owners—real, skin-in-the-game, participants in their employer’s economic future—through a simple deferral election. The U.S. Supreme Court has even recognized the value of employer stock funds, confirming that Congress sought to encourage their creation through provisions and standards contained in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).
However, in the wake of a series of high-profile employee lawsuits seeking recovery against Enron, Lehman Brothers, and other employers for losses from 401(k) investments in employer stock, such funds can—almost as easily—seem a recipe for disaster. This article examines the quandary that employer stock funds pose for plan sponsors, who must navigate ERISA’s careful balance of (1) ensuring fair and prompt enforcement of employee rights under employer-provided retirement plans while (2) encouraging employer creation of these plans.
Originally published in Bloomberg Law, May 25, 2017
A unanimous panel of the NLRB, including Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra, held that ACA mandates do not relieve an employer of its duty to bargain with a union representing its employees regarding certain health insurance benefit plan changes.
A US District Court recently dismissed a claim that an insider’s election to satisfy an income tax obligation by having shares withheld from the delivery of an award constituted a non-exempt sale of shares back to the issuer for purposes of Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act, unless the share withholding was required, rather than merely permitted.
While an encouraging development, this decision is now on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and there are similar unresolved complaints in other jurisdictions. Until this matter is resolved, public companies should continue to consider what steps are appropriate to avoid Section 16 exposure and to review this situation with their executive officers.
Amy Gordon and Susan Nash were recognized as top authors by JD Supra’s 2017 Readers’ Choice Awards for their thought leadership pieces in the Defense & Space Industry and Affordable Care Act (ACA) categories. In addition, Amy’s article, along with Sarah Raaii and Jamie Weyeneth, “Recent Government-Issued FAQs Clarify ACA Employer Mandate, Market Reforms” was in the Top 5 Read Articles in 2016 in the ACA category.
JD Supra’s 2017 Readers’ Choice Awards recognizes firms and authors who achieved top visibility and engagement in the JD Supra platform over the past year. Spanning 25 industries and topics, one firm and 10 authors were recognized in each category for their consistently high readership and engagement for all of 2016.
In a major victory for church-affiliated hospitals, the US Supreme Court overturned three appellate court rulings and decided unanimously that church-affiliated hospitals can maintain their pension plans as “church plans” exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), regardless of whether a church actually established the plan. Impacted health systems, and especially their management, should evaluate how best to document and demonstrate their common religious bonds and convictions with the church.
The 2016 proposed regulations significantly expanded 457(f) plan sponsors’ ability to permit elective deferrals, use noncompetition agreements and make larger severance payments than otherwise permitted under 409A without immediate taxation to participants. In a recent presentation, Ruth Wimer, Mary Samsa and Joseph Urwitz discuss the surprising opportunities with respect to tax-exempt and governmental entities’ “ineligible nonqualified deferred compensation” arrangements in 2016 regulations. They also address the rules and limitations of the short-term deferral exception, the interaction of the 2016 regulations with existing regulations, other types of arrangements potentially affected, as well as best practices for employers.
Shelby Buettner, Marshall Jackson, Jr., Lisa Schmitz Mazur and Dale Van Demark wrote this bylined article on a proposed US Senate bill to expand Medicare’s coverage of telehealth services. The bill would require the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to test the effectiveness of telehealth models, and cover through the Medicare program those models that meet criteria for effectiveness, cost and quality improvement.
Multiple large, class action lawsuits have been filed against prominent higher education institutions claiming fiduciary breaches under their Code Section 403(b) plans as a result of insufficient oversight of plan investments, which allegedly caused excessive fees to be paid by participants. Last week, district courts in Georgia and North Carolina, respectively, ruled on defendants’ motions under Henderson v. Emory University and Clark v. Duke University. Although the defendants in these cases has some success in eliminating certain causes of action, other causes of actions involving the payment of excessive fees and use of multiple record-keepers will continue through litigation.