Treasury and IRS Announce 2003-2004 Priority Guidance Plan for Employee Benefits Issues
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.22.03
The Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy and the IRS have announced their 2003-04 priority guidance plan. This is a list of the items that have been identified as the top areas in which guidance will be provided.
In the retirement benefit area, the list includes guidance on phased retirement arrangements; proposed nondiscrimination regulations for cash balance plans (unless Congress enacts a moratorium on the issuance of such regulations-see V, below); minimum required distribution regulations for qualified plans, guidance on Code Section 403(b) tax-deferred annuity plans, final regulations on S corporation ESOPs, guidance on the Code's age discrimination rules for qualified plans, anti-cutback guidance, guidance on use of electronic technologies for various retirement plan transactions. and model provisions for Code Section 457(b) deferred compensation arrangements.
In the areas of executive compensation, health care and other benefits, the list includes guidance on elections between taxable and nontaxable benefits; guidance on "restricted property" under Code Section 83; guidance on disability payments; guidance on health reimbursement accounts (HRAs); guidance on debit cards; guidance on health care provider incentive payments; and a revenue ruling under Code Section 4980B on Medicare entitlement as a second qualifying event under COBRA.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
