Month: February 2012
Subscribe to Month: February 2012's Posts

Treasury Department and IRS Release Initial Lifetime Income Guidance; Additional Guidance Expected Shortly

by Joseph S. Adams, Stephen Pavlick and David Diaz

Two years after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) jointly issued a high-profile Request for Information regarding how defined contribution plans can better provide lifetime income, the IRS and Department of the Treasury have issued some initial guidance.  DOL guidance, expected to further underscore the importance of the issue, is anticipated “in the near future.”

To read the full article, please click here.




read more

Proposed IRS Regulations on Partial Lump Sum Pensions Require Comparison With Plans’ Benefit Calculation Methods

by Stephen Pavlick, Daniel Senecoff and Alan Nesburg

Under some defined benefit plans, participants receive a portion of the benefit as an annuity and a portion as a lump sum.  Sponsors of such plans should review the method used for calculating these benefits, particularly annuity benefits, to determine whether the combined value of both portions meets the minimum present value requirements for lump sums.  Recent proposed IRS regulations include an interpretation of current law that may differ from the way some plans have been administered.

To read the full article, click here.




read more

New Service Provider and Participant Fee Disclosure Rules: What Employers Need to Know

Thursday, March 8, 2012
11:00 – 12:00 pm CST 

To register, please click here.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued final regulations relating to service provider fee disclosures to plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which affect the participant fee disclosure regulations finalized by the DOL in October 2010.  Under the new final regulations, service providers must provide initial fee disclosures to plan fiduciaries by July 1, 2012, and plans must provide initial fee disclosures to participants by August 30, 2012.

McDermott Will & Emery is pleased to offer a complimentary webcast that tells employers what they should expect to receive from service providers and the practical steps they should take to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities in light of the new final regulations.

McDermott Speakers
Karen Simonsen, Partner, Chair, Plan Fiduciary and Investment Management Group
Maureen O’Brien, Partner
Elizabeth Savard, Partner

Who should attend?
All human resources executives, in-house counsel, compensation and benefits directors, and others  responsible for overseeing defined contribution and defined benefit pension plans.




read more

Summary of Benefits and Coverage Disclosure Requirements

by Amy M. Gordon, Joanna C. Kerpen and Susan M. Nash

Recently issued final regulations and related guidance clarify the requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that group health plans and health insurance issuers provide a summary of benefits and coverage and a uniform glossary.  The guidance includes final regulations and sample summaries and instructions.

To read the full article, click here.




read more

California Same-Sex Marriage Ban Found Unconstitutional

by Joseph S. Adams, Brett R. Johnson and Todd A. Solomon

On February 7, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found California’s Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, to be unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Supporters of Proposition 8 have vowed to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is unclear whether the entire Ninth Circuit might agree to hear the case en banc.

The lower court had previously held Proposition 8 unconstitutional for two separate reasons: (1) it impermissibly deprived same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and (2) it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it excluded same-sex couples from state-sponsored marriage while allowing opposite-sex couples to marry.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court, but narrowly tailored its decision to facts specific to California.  Because same-sex couples had previously been granted the right to marry and Proposition 8 eliminated that right, the Ninth Circuit limited the question before it to whether California had a legitimate reason to take away same-sex couples’ right to the official status of “marriage,” rather than the substitute label of “domestic partnership.”  The Ninth Circuit found no such legitimate reason, stating “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

Because the Ninth Circuit’s decision was focused on facts specific to California, the ultimate legal effect of the ruling is likely to be limited to California.

For now, same-sex marriage in California continues to be on hold because the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s stay pending further appeal.  By keeping the stay in place, same-sex marriages will not resume in California until the appeal process runs its course (or until a court lifts the stay).  As a result, the immediate effect of the decision on employee benefits is to maintain the status quo.  While additional same-sex marriages cannot yet take place, California does recognize the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in 2008 before Proposition 8 was passed.  Further, couples in California can still enter into spousal-equivalent domestic partnerships, meaning employers may have several different types of same-sex relationships to address in their employee benefit arrangements.  Employers should keep an eye on further developments in California as litigation surrounding Proposition 8 winds its way through the appeal process.  If and when same-sex marriages resume in California, employers will need to carefully review their employee benefit plans and programs to determine what changes are necessary or desirable.




read more

Illinois Reverses Position on Income Tax Treatment of Benefits for Civil Union Partners

by Elizabeth A. Savard, Todd A. Solomon and Brian J. Tiemann

The Illinois Department of Revenue recently issued guidance reversing its position on the state income tax treatment of benefits for non-dependent civil union partners.

Federal law excludes amounts that an employer pays toward medical, dental or vision benefits for an employee and the employee’s spouse or dependents from the employee’s taxable income.  However, because civil union partners are not recognized under federal law, employers that provide these same benefits to employees’ civil union partners must impute the fair market value of the coverage as income to the employee that is subject to federal income tax, unless the civil union partner otherwise qualifies as the employee’s “dependent” pursuant to Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Illinois Department of Revenue previously indicated that Illinois would follow the federal approach in taxing the fair market value of employer-provided coverage for non-dependent civil union partners because state law did not provide an exemption from such taxation.  However, recent guidance issued by the Department of Revenue reverses that position and indicates that employer-provided benefits for a non-dependent civil union partner are now exempt from Illinois state income taxation.  Illinois civil union partners are directed to calculate their state income taxes by completing a mock federal income tax return as if they were married for purposes of federal law.

In addition, for federal tax purposes, employees may not make pre-tax contributions to a Section 125 cafeteria plan on behalf of a non-dependent civil union partner (i.e., contributions for the partner generally must be after-tax) and may not receive reimbursement for expenses of the non-dependent civil union partner from flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health reimbursement accounts (HRAs) or health savings accounts (HSAs).  However, for Illinois state tax purposes, the employee now can be permitted to pay for the non-dependent civil union partner’s coverage on a pre-tax basis.

Employers providing medical, dental or vision benefits to civil union partners residing in Illinois should take action to structure their payroll systems to tax employees on the fair market value of coverage for employees’ non-dependent civil union partners for federal income tax purposes, but not for state purposes.




read more

UK Employment Law Round Up: 2011 Learning Points and How we Can Help in 2012

A lot has happened in the area of UK employment law in 2011, and there are many issues to consider as we plan for 2012.  We are pleased to provide a resource of information following a recent webinar, which reflects on key learning points from 2011, and discusses what to look forward to as an employer in the UK in 2012.  Topics include:

  • "Holiday and sick pay"
  • "Abolition of Default Retirement Age"
  • "Recessionary Times"
  • "Did the Bribery Act Mean the End of the “Jolly” in 2011?"
  • "UK Disability Discrimination"
  • "What Does 2012 Hold in Store?"

Click here to view the slides.

Click here to view the full webinar (in audio).

Click here to view the overview brochure.

 




read more

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Top ranked chambers 2022
US leading firm 2022