Search the News Archive

Miller & Chevalier Focus on Employee Benefits, March 25, 2013

Articles in this issue include: Next Steps for Employers Regarding the FICA Tax Treatment of Severance Pay Following the Sixth Circuit's Affirmance of Quality Stores; HIPAA Omnibus Rule Impacts Group Health Plans; and San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance Enforcement Initiative.

Miller & Chevalier Focus on Employee Benefits, November 20, 2012

This issue includes: SIIA Appeals Decision Upholding Michigan Tax on Claims Paid under Employer-Sponsored Plans; IRS Announces Qualified Plan Relief for Hurricane Sandy Victims; IRS Invites Public Comments on Furnishing Form 1099-C upon Expiration of Non-Payment Testing Period; Agencies Issue Additional Guidance on PPACA's Pay-or-Play and Waiting Period Provision.

Miller & Chevalier Focus on Employee Benefits, October 24, 2012

This issue includes: Health and Welfare: Upcoming Healthcare Reform Deadlines and Effective Dates; Qualified Plans: Upcoming Amendment and Disclosure Deadlines; Executive Compensation: Section 409A: Relief Period for Release-Contingent Payments Coming to a Close.

Miller & Chevalier Focus on Employee Benefits, June 27, 2012

This issue includes: ERISA and tax rules on medical loss rebates; New tax guidance on tips and service charges; Impending limits on health FSAs; Deductibility of local lodging expenses

Miller & Chevalier/American Benefits Council 2009 Corporate Health Care Policy Forecast (PDF)

Excerpt: While there are many parallels to last year's survey, the conclusions of the 2009 survey are dramatic. Regardless of their company's size, geography, industry or even the respondent's political affiliation, corporate benefits executives say they are concerned about several crucial health care policy matters. Industry professionals: Support an individual mandate; Overwhelmingly want improving quality to be a priority feature of health care reform; Do not support the establishment of a public health care plan; Do not want their employees taxed on the value their of employer-provided health benefits[.]

Miller & Chevalier's Focus on Employee Benefits, June 5, 2008

The newsletter offers articles on: Health FSA and Mental Health Parity; Qualified Plan Queries: Differential Pay Now Compensation Under Code Section 415 and New Distribution Feature; Qualified Plan Queries: Military Survivor and Disability Benefits Under Tax-Qualified Plans; Exec Comp Corner: New Code Section 887A Impacting Withholding on Certain Expatriates' Deferred Compensation.

Overview of Health Savings Accounts With Chart Comparison to Archer MSAs, HRAs and FSAs (PDF)

24 pages; copyright 2003 Miller & Chevalier Chartered (see http://www.millerchevalier.com/library/detail.asp?id=10).

Government Charts New Course in ERISA Retirement Space

"[T]he government asserted that the Sixth Circuit's ruling is incorrect and identifies two principal errors. The first error is the Sixth Circuit's conclusion that a plaintiff need not allege a meaningful benchmark to state a plausible claim of imprudence based on relative underperformance.... The second error asserted is the Sixth Circuit's acceptance that the plaintiffs below had pled a meaningful benchmark when asserting that the S&P Target Date Fund (TDF) was an appropriate comparator to the challenged funds." [Johnson v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., No. 24-3014 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2024; cert. pet filed Mar. 26, 2025, No. 24-1030; DOL amicus brief filed Dec. 9, 2025)\]

J&J Health Plan Excessive Fee Suit Dismissed on Standing Grounds

"[T]he court found that the connection between what plan participants were required to pay in contributions and out-of-pocket costs and the fees the plans were required to pay the PBM was too tenuous. The court cited to J&J's discretion in setting participant contribution rates, which it stated can be influenced by multiple factors unrelated to amounts paid in connection with the prescription drug benefits." [Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 24-0671 (D.N.J. Nov. 26, 2025)]

Courts Continue Dismissal Trend in Forfeitures Cases

"[A Texas district court found] that the plaintiffs' forfeitures theory could not stand where the forfeitures were used to reduce the employer's voluntary contributions consistent with the terms of the plan. The court noted that the use of forfeitures to reduce an employer's contribution instead of to defray administrative costs does not violate the duty of loyalty.... [In Mississippi, the district court] reasoned that because it is a 'fair and reasonable interpretation' of the plan document that Peco could either pay administrative expenses or offset employer contributions, Peco's 'use of the forfeitures to offset employer contributions did not violate the terms of the Plan.' " [Del Bosque v. Coca-Cola Southwest Beverages LLC, No. 25-1270 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2025); Brown v. Peco Foods, Inc., No. 25-0491 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 14, 2025)]