ML BeneBits

Companies required to use “box 11” of Form W-2 in 2023 to report either payments of nonqualified deferred compensation (deferred compensation) or FICA taxation of unpaid deferred compensation may soon be challenged by employees angry about potential double taxation of deferred compensation. This double tax is created because the Form 1040 filing instructions for 2023 require deferred compensation payments reported in box 11 of Form W-2 to be reported on an employee’s Form 1040 as “wage” income subject to income tax and again as “additional income,” also subject to income tax.

Recently, we have become aware of what appears to be a new approach in the US Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Form 5500 Annual Report (Form 5500) penalty program, including increased penalties and faster enforcement actions. This development could impact the sponsors and administrators of any Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan that is required to make a Form 5500 filing, particularly when a filing is late or deficient, or has the potential to be late or deficient.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) made several changes to Medicare Part D that may impact whether employer-sponsored coverage will be creditable for the 2025 plan year. With open enrollment season about to begin, plan sponsors that provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare-eligible individuals should double check their plan’s creditable coverage status for 2025.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) issued a press release on September 6, 2024 reminding ERISA plan fiduciaries that it considers cybersecurity to be an area of “great concern” and emphasizing that it continues to investigate potential cybersecurity-related ERISA violations. The press release accompanied guidance updating the DOL’s 2021 cybersecurity subregulatory guidance and, most significantly, clarifying that the 2024 updates apply to all types of ERISA plans, including health and welfare plans. In our view, this clarification now aligns the DOL’s cybersecurity guidance with the position it has taken in investigations and public statements.

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court held that both the United States’ constitutional structure and the Administrative Procedure Act preclude a court from deferring to administrative agencies when they interpret ambiguous statutory text. Instead, the court must assess the “best meaning” of the statute using traditional tools of statutory construction.

A recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a valuable reminder for multiemployer pension funds and contributing employers regarding ERISA’s withdrawal liability notice and demand requirements. Specifically, the case presents a recap of what it means for a notice and demand to be provided “as soon as practicable” under ERISA Section 4219(b)(1) and the interplay of that timing requirement with common defenses raised for withdrawal liability demands that are allegedly less than timely.

Join Morgan Lewis lawyers this summer for programs on employee benefits and executive compensation.

This is the fourth part of a multi-part blog post series discussing the implications and fallout from the Final Rule recently adopted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banning the enforcement of almost all noncompete agreements with workers. In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the general parameters of the rule and several threshold questions that it raises. In Part 2, we discussed the types of arrangements that are prohibited by the Final Rule and the alternatives to noncompete clauses that likely remain available to companies following the effective date of the Final Rule. In Part 3, we discussed the impact of the Final Rule on noncompetition covenants entered into by sellers of a business, as well as the application of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 280G golden parachute rules to noncompete covenants affected by the Final Rule.

This is the second in a multipart series on ML BeneBits discussing the implications and fallout from the Final Rule recently adopted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banning the enforcement of almost all noncompete agreements with workers. In Part 1, we discussed the general parameters of the rule and several threshold questions that it raises. In Part 2, we discuss the types of arrangements that are prohibited by the Final Rule and the alternatives to noncompete clauses that likely remain available to companies following the effective date of the Final Rule.

On April 23, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved by a 3-2 vote a Final Rule that, if it becomes effective, will ban almost all noncompete clauses for nearly all workers. This is the first in a blog series exploring the fallout from the sweeping ban, specifically in terms of executive compensation and employee benefits. In Part 1, we address the first important threshold questions posed by the Final Rule. Future posts in the series will address the wide scope of the Final Rule and the types of executive compensation arrangements it prohibits; the types of arrangements that survive the Final Rule; and specific issues related to equity compensation, corporate transactions, Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), and other compensation-related tax issues.