Employee Benefits Issues in California Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Same-Sex Marriage Decisions
Polsinelli Podcast - Defense of Marriage Act
Supreme Court’s Rulings On Same-Sex Marriage Spark Many Questions On Employee Benefits
Viewer's Guide to Gay Marriage Oral Arguments
Having settled into the new year, we reflect on decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 that are likely to have a significant impact in the world of pension and welfare employee benefits and, in some cases, already have...more
The employee benefits issues to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court continue to be of great significance to plan sponsors and fiduciaries. This month we review the Court's employee benefit decisions from 2013 and also...more
On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court held that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. (For a discussion of the issues and holding in United States v. Windsor, please...more
Employers extending benefit coverage to employees’ same-sex spouses and partners should review their payroll procedures to ensure that such coverages are properly taxed for federal income and FICA tax purposes. Employers...more
Until the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) required employers providing subsidized benefits to same-sex spouses and domestic...more
On September 23, the Internal Revenue Service released Notice 2013-61, which provides special rules for those making claims for refunds or adjustments of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes and federal employment...more
Notice 2013-61 provides alternative administrative procedures for reporting income and FICA tax adjustments in response to the Windsor decision and Revenue Ruling 2013-17. On September 24, the U.S. Department of the...more
As we previously reported, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act provides...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
In part one of this two-part series, “Supreme Court DOMA Decision — Part I: Fringe Benefits and Other Tax Implications,” I reviewed the fringe benefit and tax implications of the United States v. Windsor decision....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
The U. S. Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had established a federal definition of marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman....more
While the U.S. Supreme Court(the “Court”) ruled section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) unconstitutional, that does not mean that the changes for human resources departments and employee benefits plans can be...more