<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Employee Benefits Articles</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/8</link>
<description>Employment law articles discussing employee benefit issues, including those under ERISA.</description>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:08:59 EST</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-us</language>


<item>
<title>WORKER CLASSIFICATION: WILL THE IRS AND OTHERS AGREE WITH YOU? (pdf).</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7183</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7183</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Employers often face a business decision about how to treat a particular worker or group
of workers: Are the individuals independent contractors or employees? Often, the independent
contractor classification is attractive to employers because it affords certain flexibility. However,
there are a number of factors that must be considered when deciding how to classify workers.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>U.S. Supreme Court Rules In Key Benefit Cases.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7176</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7176</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>In the closing days of its most recent term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions relating to the design and administration of employee benefit plans. The first, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, addressed (without giving significant guidance) the question of whether a conflict of interest exists when a plan administrator who decides questions of eligibility for benefits is also the person responsible for paying any benefit claims, and the effect of such a conflict on a reviewing court's analysis. The second, Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, addressed the question of whether a pension plan's failure to increase benefits to disabled retirees once they reach normal retirement age (but continue working) violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Important Deadline for Code Section 409A Compliance (pdf).</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7162</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7162</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements are now subject to a tough new tax
regime under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A. Section 409A became effective on
January 1, 2005, but, because of the complexity of the issues involved in applying the
law, the IRS did not issue final regulations until 2007. As a result, employers have been
given until December 31, 2008, to bring plans and agreements into full documentary
compliance (i.e., to amend written plans and put unwritten plans into writing).</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Labor Department Proposes New Disclosures of Fees and Expenses.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7159</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7159</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>After much discussion, the Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed regulations that would require participant-directed plans, including most 401(k) plans, to provide participants with basic disclosures concerning the fees and expenses charged in connection with available investment alternatives, and in connection with administration of the plan. The DOL’s concern is that plan participants often do not have access to complete information needed to make informed investment decisions. Specifically, the DOL has found that information on fees and expenses charged by fund managers and others is either not readily available or not easy to understand.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>LaRue Part II: Fourth Circuit Rules That Former Employees Can Sue You for Retirement Plan Investments.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7152</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7152</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The Supreme Court's February ruling in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg &amp; Associates, Inc., et al. allows former employees who participated in 401(k) and other defined contribution plans to sue plan fiduciaries for breach of duty claims, if the result of the breach is a reduced account balance which is then used to cash those employees out of the plan. In LaRue, the claim was straightforward - the fiduciary failed to invest plan assets as directed by the participant. The impact of LaRue is already being felt.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hospital to Pay $100,000, Comply with 3-Year Corrective Action Plan for HIPAA Data Breach.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7145</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7145</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The U.S. Department of Health &amp; Human Services (HHS) has announced that it has entered into a Resolution Agreement, for the first time, concerning potential violations of the privacy and security regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).  The Resolution Agreement, entered into on July 16, 2008, requires a Seattle-based health care provider, Providence Health &amp; Services, to pay $100,000 and to implement a detailed, three-year corrective action plan to ensure that it will appropriately safeguard identifiable electronic patient information. By agreeing to this Resolution Agreement, the provider avoided the imposition of potentially significant civil monetary penalties under HIPAA.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>HEART Act Provides Benefits for Employees Serving in the Military.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7133</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7133</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>On June 17, 2008, President Bush signed the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (the “HEART Act”). The HEART Act amends the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) to provide a number of enhanced benefits and incentives to military service members, including reservists and National Guard members who frequently work for civilian employers in addition to their military duties. The employment-related benefits of the Act are described below.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>HEART Act Provides New Benefit Plan Advantages for Military Personnel.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7124</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7124</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>On June 17, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (the “HEART Act”), which provides several employee benefit-related advantages to eligible military personnel, as well as their families.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>HEART Act Impacts Benefits for Military Employees.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7112</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7112</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>President Bush signed the Heroes
Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act
of 2008 (HEART Act) into law on
June 17, 2008. The HEART Act
permits, and in some cases requires,
plans to provide enhanced benefi ts for
military personnel. The HEART Act
also extends parity of mental health
benefi ts in group health plans and
changes rules relating to withholding
requirements for expatriates.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Making Tax Code §409A Corrections Before Time Runs Out.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7098</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7098</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Problem: In less than six months, your company’s executives may become liable for income tax, plus a 20% additional tax, as well as penalties and interest, on income they have earned, even if payment is not due until a later year, or is conditioned on an event, such as a termination without cause that is uncertain to occur. This applies to both public and private companies. December 31, 2008 is the deadline to bring your company’s non-qualified deferred compensation plans and arrangements, including employment and separation agreements into full compliance with §409A of the Internal Revenue Code.</description>
</item>
</channel>

</rss>

