In April 2026, the IRS released updated FAQ (FS-2026-10) that supersedes the prior 2024 FAQ (FS-2024-22) addressing Section 127 educational assistance programs. While the core statutory framework remains largely unchanged, the updated guidance reflects both amendments made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and additional IRS clarifications that may influence how employers evaluate plan design and administration going forward.
From Temporary to Ongoing—and More Flexible: What Actually Changed
Two themes emerge from the 2026 update: statutory changes tied to the OBBBA, most notably the permanent treatment of student loan repayment assistance and future inflation indexing of the exclusion limit, and related IRS clarifications that frame those benefits in a more forward-looking and flexible way.
Under the 2024 guidance, student loan repayment was framed as a temporary benefit, limited to payments made between March 27, 2020, and January 1, 2026. The 2026 FAQ removes that sunset framing and instead presents loan repayment as an ongoing permissible form of educational assistance, reflecting the OBBBA’s permanent extension of that benefit.
At the same time, the updated FAQ introduces a forward-looking change to the $5,250 annual exclusion limit, providing that the limit will be indexed for cost-of-living increases for taxable years beginning after 2026. This change does not require employers to increase reimbursement levels. But flexible plan language can accommodate future statutory changes, if an employer so desires, without requiring frequent amendments.
Clarifying How Benefits Operate in Practice
The 2026 FAQ also provides greater clarity on how certain benefits operate, particularly regarding timing and administration. It confirms that qualified education loans may be incurred before employment and that employer payments may be made in later years. It also reinforces the point that reimbursements can indirectly support debt repayment, provided the underlying expenses are properly substantiated. These aspects of the 2026 FAQ are best understood as clarifying guidance rather than new statutory changes attributable to the OBBBA.
These concepts were generally understood under past guidance, but the more explicit articulation may prompt employers to consider whether existing plan language and administrative practices fully reflect these distinctions.
Where Plans May Benefit from a Closer Look: Timing, Administration, and Flexibility
The updated guidance highlights the importance of aligning timing rules and administrative processes with how benefits are actually delivered. The distinction between expenses incurred during employment and loans incurred before employment—but paid later by the employer—is now more clearly articulated. Plans that apply uniform timing rules across all benefit types, or that are silent on these distinctions, may not accurately reflect how these benefits operate in practice.
Similarly, while substantiation requirements themselves have not changed, the expanded discussion of qualifying expenses and loan-related payments may affect how employers document and verify claims. This may have implications for how administrative practices are implemented and maintained.
More broadly, the 2026 updates reinforce the value of flexibility in plan design. The introduction of inflation indexing and the shift away from temporary benefit framing suggest that Section 127 programs may continue to evolve. Plans that are inflexible may require more frequent updates over time, while those that incorporate broader statutory references may be better positioned to adapt.
State Law Overlay: Repayment Provisions Under Increased Scrutiny
At the same time that the IRS has clarified the federal tax treatment of educational assistance benefits, recent developments at the state level, particularly in New York and California, highlight a related consideration: whether, and under what circumstances, employers may require repayment of those benefits if employment ends.
In New York, the “Trapped at Work Act,” as recently amended, reflects a broader policy trend limiting so-called “stay-or-pay” arrangements. The law restricts agreements that require employees to repay certain costs if they leave employment within a specified period, including, in some cases, education-related expenses. While the amendments provide more clarity and may allow certain tuition-related repayment arrangements when structured carefully, the overall direction of the law suggests a more constrained approach to repayment obligations tied to continued employment.
California has taken a similar approach through recent legislation addressing repayment and “stay-or-pay” provisions. The law places limits on repayment obligations that function as a penalty for leaving employment, particularly where the underlying training is required for the employee’s current role. At the same time, certain tuition reimbursement arrangements may remain subject to repayment obligations when they are voluntary, relate to broadly transferable credentials, and are structured in a way consistent with applicable guidance.
Against this backdrop, employers may find it helpful to consider not only whether their educational assistance programs align with Section 127 for federal tax purposes, but also whether any related repayment provisions are consistent with applicable state law. This may involve distinguishing between general educational assistance and job-specific training, or revisiting how repayment terms are structured and documented.
Bringing It Together
For employers, the 2026 IRS update does not fundamentally change Section 127, but it provides a more settled and forward-looking framework. In some respects, that reflects amendments made by the OBBBA, including the permanent treatment of student loan repayment assistance and future indexing of the exclusion amount. In other respects, the update appears to provide additional IRS clarification on how Section 127 benefits operate in practice. In some cases, existing plan language may already be sufficient. In others, the updates may present an opportunity to revisit plan design and administration to ensure alignment with both current guidance and potential future developments.
As part of that evaluation, employers may find it helpful to consider how their plan documents, administrative procedures, and program design work together, and whether any changes—clarification, refinement, or amendment—would better reflect how these benefits are intended to operate.
Members of the Jackson Lewis Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Practice Group can help if you have questions or need assistance. Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits and executive compensation team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work. Subscribe to the Benefits Law Advisor Blog.