PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - New IRS Guidance on SECURE 2.0 Act Student Loan Employer Contributions
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - ERISA Forfeiture Litigation
La Reforma Pensional en Colombia
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Understanding Lifetime Income Products
Multiemployer Pension Plans in Mergers and Acquisitions — Troutman Pepper Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Trends in Recordkeeper Consolidation and Due Diligence
Long-Term Part-Time Employee Eligibility Rules Now in Effect — Troutman Pepper Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - What the J&J Case Means for Plan Administrators
#WorkforceWednesday: SECURE 2.0 Act - Navigating New Retirement Plan Provisions in 2024 - Employment Law This Week®
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - SECURE 2.0: Leveraging Opportunities Employees Want Most
What Can A Tax Attorney Do For You? A Podcast With Janathan Allen
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Understanding Fees in Retirement Planning
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - ESG Investing by Retirement Plans
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - New Federal Rule Aims to Hold Investment Advisors to a Higher Standard
Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation: Getting Ready for 2024 - Health and Welfare Plan Developments — Special Edition Podcast
Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation: Getting Ready for 2024 - Qualified Plans — Special Edition Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Auto-Portability: A New Way to Keep Retirement Savings Growing
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - IRS 2024 Health Plan Affordability Threshold May Put Some at Risk
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Partial Plan Terminations
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Virginia Launches New Retirement Savings Program
A major reason that employee benefits, such as employer- provided healthcare and retirement plans, exist is that they provide a tax-advantaged way for an employer to provide additional compensation to an employee, her spouse,...more
The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) have issued Notice 2014-9 (the “Notice”) and related Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) providing much anticipated guidance on the application of the Supreme...more
On June 26, 2013, when the Supreme Court determined that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, the tax and benefit plan implications were unclear. Later, in Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the...more
In the summer of 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision in U.S. v. Windsor, striking down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and eliminating the requirement that federal law recognize only marriages...more
The following are the most significant employee benefits-related legal developments that occurred in December of 2013. At the beginning of 2013, after considering feedback from our clients and contacts who work in the...more
Recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides some initial...more
With this summer’s Supreme Court rulings on DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and Prop. 8 allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized in states that allow them, private sector and public agency employers in California...more
Earlier this summer, following the Supreme Court's issuance of the landmark case, United States v. Windsor, which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional, we published an Executive Alert...more
For many years, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined marriage under federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. In June 2013, however, in the case of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court of the...more
After a year-long battle, Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which denied federal recognition of all state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, and California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage are both...more
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") was unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA provided that, for the purpose of any federal law, "marriage"...more
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) that defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. This decision will...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which required the federal government to deny married same-sex couples the rights and benefits provided to...more
With the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013, same–sex couples legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, and who reside in such a state, are now governed by...more
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages. ...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Windsor, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) was “unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Windsor v. United States, No. 12-307. The Court ruled (in a 5-4 decision) that the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that required federal...more
The United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision on June 26, 2013 in United States v. Windsor that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional has far reaching implications for employee...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in U.S. v. Windsor concerning same-sex marriage. This WSGR Alert covers the impact of the ruling on employee benefit plans and provides action items for employers....more
The United States Supreme Court ruled on June 26 in United States v. Windsor, U.S., No 12-307, that the definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) excluding same-sex partners are a...more
On June 26, 2013, a majority of the Supreme Court held in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman, is...more
Two controversial cases involving same-sex marriage were decided on June 26, 2013 by the United States Supreme Court. ...more
Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down as unconstitutional a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined “marriage” for purposes of over 1,100 federal laws as a legal union between...more
The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman is unconstitutional requires employers to treat same-sex couples who are legally married...more
Although the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor invalidating much of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) affects at most approximately 20% of the population of the United States, it has...more