In an opinion issued on May 15, 2025, the State of New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, the highest administrative forum for state tax appeals, upheld the application of the state’s income tax “convenience rule” imposing New York tax on wages earned by a New York City law school professor while he worked from his Connecticut residence before and during the COVID pandemic. The petitions had been filed by taxpayers Edward A. and Doris Zelinksy.  An appeal of this decision to a New York appellate court is expected. 

The opinion affirms the November 30, 2023 determination of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the case. It accepts most of the ALJ’s reasoning while providing its own rationale on the constitutional and state law issues that will serve as guidance to the New York Department of Taxation and Finance and to New York-based employers with remote or hybrid nonresident employees working all or part-time in other states. The Department’s current administrative position on the convenience rule and the strict “home office” exemption can be found here. Please refer to this link for a discussion of the facts of the case and the 2023 ALJ determination.

The following are important takeaways from the Tribunal’s opinion:

  • Most remote work will not be found to be for the employer’s business “necessity.” The Tribunal states that under the convenience rule New York will not tax a nonresident’s income if it derives from a New York employer’s participation in interstate commerce through the creation of a tax nexus in another state because of the business necessity for the employee to work in the other state. Therefore, hiring remotely in other states simply because that is where the best employee candidates reside and prefer to work for their convenience will apparently never provide sufficient nexus or participation in interstate commerce to avoid the imposition of New York income tax and wage withholding on the wages earned by such nonresidents.
  • Constitutional due process was deemed satisfied because the taxpayer both worked in New York for part of the time during each year and availed himself of the economic market in New York through his employment with a New York-based employer. This is essentially the same rationale adopted by the ALJ in the case. In that earlier determination, the judge found that in our “modern economy” a virtual presence in New York through zoom meetings and internet technology was sufficient presence in New York to justify the convenience rule on constitutional grounds.
  • Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether a nonresident employee must work at least one day a year while physically in New York for the convenience rule to apply. The applicable New York income tax regulation adopting the convenience rule is, by its terms, applicable where a nonresident employee performs services for his New York employer both within and without the state. The Tribunal’s opinion makes repeated reference to this convenience rule condition. Apparently, however, Department income and employment tax auditors have taken the position that New York-based employers and their nonresident employees physically working solely outside of New York during a tax year are nevertheless subject to the convenience rule for income tax and wage withholding purposes. Therefore, a central issue remains as to whether the virtual presence in New York of a remote nonresident employee who is linked to his or her New York-based employer through the internet and other electronic means effectively eliminates the need for the employee to have physically worked in New York during a year in order for New York income tax to apply under the convenience rule or even apart from that rule. It seems that an administrative or judicial decision on the taxation of an always remote nonresident employee who never sets foot in New York will be necessary to get some resolution of that issue. In the meantime, employers desiring to support a basis for the non-applicability of the convenience rule should, wherever possible, document terms of employment without mentioning the necessity, or even the possibility, of the employee’s physical presence in New York for work.

Jackson Lewis attorneys advise many clients on how to plan for and deal with the income tax convenience rules of New York and other states. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

A Texas federal court just shook the foundation of HIPAA’s reproductive health privacy protections — but the Supreme Court may have the final word. In a sweeping decision, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk vacated key provisions of the 2024 Reproductive Health Rule, stripping away national safeguards on disclosing reproductive health information. Yet, a recent SCOTUS ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. could rein in the reach of that decision. What does this mean for healthcare providers, insurers, and patients navigating a patchwork of federal and state privacy laws?  More…

Takeaways

  • Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives attempt to deliver on President Trump’s campaign promises in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (BBB or the Act), which passed the House by a razor-thin margin of 215 in favor and 214 opposed on May 22, 2025. 
  • BBB shows favoritism of Health Savings Accounts and Health Reimbursement Account benefits, making changes to broaden their scope, increase utilization, and bolster savings.  
  • The Act also provides a glimpse into legislative or regulatory changes that may be on the horizon for ERISA-governed plans, including standards for Pharmacy Benefit Manager compensation, contractual requirements, and disclosures applicable to government-subsidized plans. 

Related Links

Article

The goal of the U.S. Senate is to pass One Big Beautiful Bill in a form on which Senators can agree, send it back to the U.S. House of Representatives, who then would have it on President Trump’s desk for signature by July 4, 2025.  Time will tell whether this accelerated schedule is practical and what ultimately makes its way into federal law. 

Without getting too far ahead of the legislative process and certainly staying out of the weeds of the 1,038 pages of legislative proposals, the BBB reveals fringe benefit, health and welfare benefit, and executive compensation priorities.  The legislation also tips the hand of the Trump Administration, shining a light on areas in which we may see additional activity. 

HSA, HRA Improvements

It is clear that House Republicans like Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRA).  There are pages of text aimed at expanding eligibility (including permitting Medicare-eligible enrollees to contribute to HSAs), increasing savings opportunities, allowing rollovers from other healthcare accounts, and permitting the reimbursement of qualified sports and fitness expenses.  If the Act becomes law, employers offering HSA or HRA benefits will have some new bells and whistles to add to their programs.  

Fringe Benefits That Make Education and Childcare More Affordable

With a focus on families and paying down student loan debt, BBB makes permanent an employer’s ability to make student loan debt repayments on a tax-favored basis under Section 127 of the tax code.  BBB also enhances the employer-provided childcare tax credit, further incentivizing employers to provide childcare services to their employees.  Whether the employer operates a childcare facility or pays amounts under a contract with a qualified childcare facility, BBB entices employers to add this much-needed employee benefit.   

Executive Compensation Changes

The executive compensation changes baked into BBB are designed to help pay for some of the other changes.  BBB expands the application of the excise tax on certain tax-exempt organizations paying compensation over $1 million (or excess parachute payments) to include former employees (think: severance).  BBB also requires public companies to allocate the Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) $1 million deduction limit among controlled group members relative to compensation when specified covered employees receive pay from those related employers. 

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Extension

A priority of President Trump, who touted extending his tax cuts during the campaign trail, BBB extends and makes permanent the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changes.  For example, BBB permanently makes qualified moving expense reimbursements taxable.

Pharmacy Benefit Manager Regulation   

BBB also includes a few surprise new twists related to Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM).  Although the legislative reforms currently focus on Medicaid and prescription drug programs subsidized by the federal government (e.g., Medicare Part D plans, including Employer Group Waiver Plans for retirees absent a waiver), it is clear that the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress seek transparent and fair pricing of prescription drugs.  These initiatives eventually may spill over to apply to ERISA-governed plans, in furtherance of President Trump’s Executive Orders advancing Most-Favored Nation prescription drug pricing and directing increased transparency over PBM direct and indirect compensation.  So, the changes are worthy of note by all employers that use PBMs. 

For Medicaid, BBB prohibits the “spread pricing” model in favor of “transparent prescription drug pass-through pricing model,” which essentially is cost-plus pricing.  No more than fair market value can be paid for PBM administrative services. 

In the case of Medicare Part D plans, BBB imposes contractual requirements limiting PBM compensation to bona fide service fees.  Rebates, incentives, and other price concessions all would need to be passed on to the plan sponsor.  Further, the PBM would be required to define and apply in a fully transparent and consistent manner against pricing guarantees and performance measures terms such as “generic drug,” “brand name drug,” and “specialty drug.” 

Transparency also is paramount.  BBB requires PBMs not only to disclose their compensation, but also their costs and any contractual arrangements with drug manufacturers for rebates, among other details.   

It certainly is possible these PBM reforms are coming to an ERISA plan near you.  BBB provides a roadmap for the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration to issue ERISA fiduciary standards, best practices, or disclosure requirements.

The Jackson Lewis Employee Benefits Practice Group members can assist if you have questions or need assistance. Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.  Subscribe to the Benefits Law Advisor Blog here.

On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a significant expansion of its compliance assistance tools by launching an Opinion Letter Program across five key enforcement agencies, including the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). This initiative aims to provide employers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with clear, tailored guidance on complex issues related to employee benefit plans.

Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling emphasized the importance of this program, stating,

“Opinion letters are an important tool in ensuring workers and businesses alike have access to clear, practical guidance.”

Understanding the EBSA’s Role

The EBSA is responsible for enforcing the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which governs private-sector retirement and health plans. Under the new program, EBSA will issue two types of opinion letters:

  • Advisory Opinions: These apply the law to specific factual situations presented by requesters.  Note that the EBSA will not issue an advisory opinion with respect to a matter that is the subject of investigation or litigation at the time the request is submitted.   
  • Information Letters: These provide general interpretations of the law without applying it to specific facts.

This dual approach allows EBSA to address both specific inquiries and broader issues affecting multiple stakeholders.

Exercise caution. Opinion letters have certain limitations in their application as outlined in ERISA Procedure 76-1. In the case of advisory opinions, the opinion assumes that all material facts and representations set forth in the request are accurate, and the opinion applies only to the situation described therein. Your particular circumstances may be different enough to warrant a different result. Additionally, only the parties described in the request for opinion may rely on the opinion, and they may rely on the opinion only to the extent that the request fully and accurately contains all the material facts and representations necessary to issuance of the opinion. Information letters, on the other hand, are informational only and not binding on the department. So, again, while opinion letters may be helpful, plan sponsors should consult with counsel or other ERISA experts to assess a particular opinion’s application to the circumstances at issue.

Why This Matters for Plan Sponsors?

Navigating the complexities of ERISA compliance can be challenging. The new Opinion Letter Program offers several benefits:

  • Clarity, Consistency, and Transparency: Obtain guidance, at least from the agency’s perspective, on complex issues, reducing uncertainty.
  • Compliance Assistance: Having greater opportunity to seek and access opinion letters will help to ensure that plan administration will align with current interpretations of the law.
  • Risk Mitigation: The ability to address plan design and compliance issues proactively can potentially avoid costly corrective measures and penalties.

Common Issues Addressed

Plan sponsors often face recurring challenges where guidance has been limited or ambiguous. The Opinion Letter Program potentially can provide clarity on issues such as:

  • Locating Missing Participants: Strategies for finding former employees to distribute 401(k) benefits.
  • Cybersecurity Measures: Implementing appropriate safeguards for plan data.
  • Plan Terminations: Proper procedures for winding down plans and distributing assets.
  • Fiduciary Responsibilities: Clarifying the extent of fiduciary duties in various scenarios.

Finding and Applying Opinion Letters

EBSA maintains a database of prior opinion letters.  The EBSA’s Resource Center for Advisory Opinions, provides a tool for searching available opinion letters by year and regulatory reference.  

How to Request an Opinion Letter

Anyone can request an opinion letter, including workers, employers, employment associations, lawyers, human resource professionals, unions and industry leaders. To request an opinion letter, the requesting party or their representatives should submit a detailed inquiry to EBSA, outlining the specific facts and questions for which guidance is sought. The request should be directed to the Office of Regulations and Interpretations. More information, including submission guidelines, is available on the DOL’s website.

The DOL’s expansion of the Opinion Letter Program represents a proactive step toward enhancing compliance assistance for plan sponsors. By providing clear, authoritative guidance on complex issues, the program empowers employers to administer their benefit plans confidently and in accordance with the law.

Takeaway

  • The 2025 CAR does not alter ERISA’s substantive fiduciary standards and considerations but eases the DOL’s previously hostile enforcement stance toward cryptocurrency and similar digital assets in 401(k) plans, restoring a “neutral” DOL enforcement approach. 401(k) plan fiduciaries must still consider all relevant ERISA factors and apply the necessary care, skill, prudence, and diligence required by ERISA in managing their 401(k) plan fund lineup. They can now feel more assured that a decision to include cryptocurrency in their 401(k) plan will not be subjected to increased scrutiny by the DOL; however, they must remain vigilant regarding the risk of potential participant claims and class actions.

Related Links

Article

On May 28, 2025, the DOL released Compliance Assistance Release No. 2025-01. The 2025 CAR rescinds the DOL’s previous Compliance Assistance Release No. 2022-01 (2022 CAR), issued in 2022, which indicated an unfavorable DOL enforcement stance on including cryptocurrency and similar digital assets in 401(k) plan fund lineups.

In rescinding the prior guidance, the DOL states that the 2022 CAR articulated a standard of care that was inconsistent with ERISA’s fiduciary principles, and that the 2025 CAR “restores the [DOL’s] historical approach by neither endorsing, nor disapproving of, plan fiduciaries who conclude that the inclusion of cryptocurrency in a plan’s investment menu is appropriate.”

The DOL further reminds plan fiduciaries that, “[w]hen evaluating any particular investment type, a plan fiduciary’s decision should consider all relevant facts and circumstances and will “necessarily be context specific”, and that fiduciaries must “curate a plan’s investment menu ‘with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims’ for the ‘exclusive purpose’ of maximizing risk-adjusted financial returns to the plan’s participants and beneficiaries.”

The Jackson Lewis Employee Benefits Practice Group members can assist if you have questions or need assistance. Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.  Subscribe to the Benefits Law Advisor Blog here.

Takeaway

  • The Third Circuit recently expanded the ability of multiemployer pension plans to collect withdrawal liability from affiliated employers, highlighting the need for employers to engage counsel with specialized expertise in this complex and dynamic area of law.

Related Links

Article

The Third Circuit’s recent ruling enhanced a pension fund’s ability to pursue withdrawal liability collection against affiliated employers. The decision underscores the evolving nature of ERISA, its remedial purpose, and the challenges facing employers with multiemployer pension obligations.

Under ERISA, withdrawal liability assessments that are not timely contested become due and owing, permitting the fund to pursue collection against any affiliated employer. Here, the court held that a settlement agreement resolving the initial withdrawal liability assessment was itself a revised withdrawal liability assessment. When the “revised” assessment was (not surprisingly) not challenged in arbitration, the fund was permitted to pursue collection of the amounts due under the settlement agreement against affiliates not party to the agreement.  This interpretation opens new avenues for pension funds to pursue claims against affiliated employers, emphasizing the broad and protective stance courts often take towards pension plan participants to the detriment of employers.

To delve deeper into the specifics of this ruling and its broader implications, read the full article on our website. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the case, the court’s reasoning, and practical takeaways for employers and practitioners alike. Don’t miss out on this essential update in employee benefits law.

Please contact Robert Perry or David Pixley if you have questions or need assistance in this area. Subscribe to the Benefits Law Advisor Blog here.

Related Links

Article

On May 15, 2025, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services issued their anticipated nonenforcement policy regarding the 2024 Mental Health Parity regulations.  As expected, nonenforcement is applicable “only with respect to those portions of the 2024 Final Rule that are new in relation to the 2013 final rule.”  (Emphasis added.)  The Departments reiterated that “MHPAEA’s statutory obligations, as amended by the CAA, 2021, continue to have effect.”  Thus, the requirement to perform and document comparative analyses of health plans’ nonquantitative treatment limitations remains in effect, but the requirement for a plan fiduciary to certify that it complied with its fiduciary duties in selecting and monitoring a service provider to perform and document the comparative analyses will not be enforced until future notice.  Also, specific content requirements that weren’t already set out in the statute or prior regulations won’t be enforced until future notice. 

Perhaps the most interesting part of the statement for group health plan sponsors (especially those with plans under investigation) relates to the Departments’ intention to “undertake a broader reexamination of each department’s respective enforcement approach under MHPAEA, including those provisions amended by the CAA, 2021.”  The Department of Labor has been accused of overreaching in its enforcement investigations, for example, by citing plans for failing to meet specific comparative analysis content requirements before those requirements were known.  While it remains to be seen how the nonenforcement policy might affect open investigations, the Departments encourage plans to continue to rely on the prior regulations and subregulatory guidance.  Plans should be alert to any updates the Departments make to subregulatory guidance. 

The Jackson Lewis Employee Benefits Practice Group members can assist if you have questions or need assistance. Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.  Subscribe to the Benefits Law Advisor Blog here.

Takeaways

  • Even though we have the promise of a non-enforcement policy applying to the 2025 and 2026 deadlines of at least some provisions of the 2024 Final Regulations, the 2013 Final Regulations, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and other MHPAEA requirements remain enforceable. 

Related Links

Article

The Department of Labor (DOL), together with the Departments of Treasury and Health and Human Services) have decided to suspend enforcement of certain provisions of the nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTL) final regulations issued in September 2024.  Those regulations had been challenged in federal court by the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) last year, and the Departments’ answer to ERIC’s complaint was due May 12, 2025.  In a motion filed May 9, 2025, the Departments instead asked the court to suspend the legal proceedings while they “reconsider the 2024 Rule at issue … including whether to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking rescinding or modifying the regulation.”  The court granted the Department’s motion, to which ERIC had consented. 

The Departments also said that they intend to issue a non-enforcement policy for the 2024 final regulations and to “reexamine” their current MHPAEA enforcement programs “more broadly.”  The Departments conferred with ERIC regarding their draft non-enforcement policy and finalized it the same day that the motion was filed.  While it was not part of the filing, the nonenforcement policy is expected to be issued by the Departments to the public soon.  We will not know, until it is issued, what portions of the rule (with some provisions effective for 2025 and other provisions effective for 2026) still will be enforced, if any.  

Regardless, it is important to note that the requirement to prepare a nonquantitative treatment limitation comparative analysis for each NQTL, as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and other MHPAEA requirements (including those under the 2013 final regulations) remain in effect.

The Jackson Lewis Employee Benefits Practice Group members can assist if you have questions or need assistance. Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.  Subscribe to the Benefits Law Advisor Blog here.

Takeaway

  • Plan administrators should review their plan’s 2024 annual funding notice against the model notice and determine whether their plan’s 2024 annual funding notice is compliant.  If not, plan administrators are expected to take corrective action.

Related Links

Article

On April 3, 2025, the Department of Labor (the DOL) issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2025-02 (the FAB) and updated model annual funding notices for single-employer and multiemployer plans.  The FAB addresses conflicts between section 101(f) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as amended by Secure 2.0, and DOL regulations at 29 CFR 2520.101-5, which predate the Secure 2.0 changes.  The FAB is intended to clarify the conflicts until additional guidance or revisions can be made to 29 CFR 2520.101-5.

Section 101(f) of ERISA requires plan administrators of defined benefit plans to furnish an annual funding notice to participants, beneficiaries, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, if applicable, the union(s) representing participants or beneficiaries, and each employer required to contribute to a multiemployer plan.  The changes made under Secure 2.0 are effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023.  For plans with a calendar year plan year, the changes are required for the 2024 plan year annual funding notice.

Generally, annual funding notices must be provided no later than 120 days after the plan year end.  For plans with a calendar year plan year, the 2024 annual funding notice must be provided no later than April 30, 2025.  There is an exception for small plans, however: the annual funding notice must be provided by the earlier of the date the plan administrator files the annual Form 5500 or the date by which the Form 5500 must be filed (including any extension).

While many plan administrators lean on their actuarial consultant to prepare the annual funding notice, plan administrators should be familiar with the Secure 2.0 changes.  For example, the annual funding notice for single-employer plans should no longer disclose the plan’s “funding target attainment percentage” and should instead disclose the plan’s “percentage of plan liabilities funded.”

The DOL acknowledges that the FAB was released just 27 days before the April 30, 2025, due date, and that some plan administrators may have already prepared or distributed the 2024 annual funding notice.  Despite the eleventh-hour guidance, plan administrators are expected to take corrective action if the 2024 annual funding notice prepared and/or provided before the FAB was issued is not compliant with the guidance in the FAB. 

Plan administrators should review their 2024 annual funding notice against the model notice and determine whether their plan’s 2024 annual funding notice is compliant.  Use of the model notice is optional.  However, using the model notice will ensure “a reasonable, good faith interpretation” of the requirements under Section 101(f), as amended by Secure 2.0.

The Jackson Lewis Employee Benefits Practice Group members can assist if you have questions or need assistance. Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.  Subscribe to the Benefits Law Advisor Blog here.

Each year, National Employee Benefits Day offers a chance to reflect on the ever-changing landscape of employer-sponsored benefits. This year may be the most pivotal since the COVID-19 relief guidance of 2020. The landscape of employee benefits has seen significant changes, particularly in areas such as health and welfare plan administration, compliance with mental health parity, and transparency in coverage. For a comprehensive understanding, read the full article.