What Did the IRS Propose?

On August 11, 2026, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-101355-26) implementing new Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 128, which governs employer contributions to Trump accounts.[1] The proposed regulations provide the first comprehensive regulatory framework for Trump account contribution programs — a key mechanism through which employers can assist employees in funding Trump accounts for their eligible children (or other eligible dependents).[2]

The IRS has extended the public comment period on its Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) information collection through September 25, 2026. The extension provides plan sponsors, benefit administrators, and practitioners additional time to weigh in on an important correction program in the qualified retirement plan space. If you sponsor or administer a retirement plan or advise clients who do, this extension is an opportunity you should review seriously.

In this episode of Hiring to Firing, hosts Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter examine the evolving issue of weight discrimination in the workplace. Joined by Lynne Wakefield, a partner in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation practice group, they draw on the medical drama The Pitt to discuss obesity, workplace bias, and legal protections. The discussion explores whether weight or obesity may be protected under federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws, including the unsettled analysis under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They also address key employee benefits considerations surrounding GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. The episode offers practical guidance for employers navigating this complex intersection of workplace fairness and health benefits.

We have all been there. Whether it involves a birthday or a business meeting, everyone knows the feeling of scrambling to remember an important date. In the world of benefit plan notices, dates matter too. The small date imprinted in black ink on the corner of an envelope may dictate whether a tax return, important filing, or required notice is timely or late. If your organization mails anything related to employee benefits, this quiet but consequential rule change deserves your attention.

  • The DOL has proposed regulations intended to clarify and expand prior regulations addressing ERISA’s fiduciary duty of prudence for the selection of directed investment alternatives (DIAs) in participant-directed defined contribution plans (such as 401(k) plans).
  • The proposed regulations include an optional safe harbor intended to create a presumption
…

On May 19, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed rule amendments that would significantly simplify executive compensation disclosure requirements for many public companies. The proposed rules would split public companies into large accelerated filers and non-accelerated filers. Non-accelerated filers would be subject to scaled executive compensation disclosure rules, similar to those presently applicable to emerging growth companies (EGCs), and they would not be required to conduct Say-on-Pay and related advisory votes. The SEC estimates that approximately 81% of public companies would be non-accelerated filers subject to these scaled disclosure rules. The remaining public companies would be large accelerated filers, representing the majority (about 93.5%) of public float, and they would remain subject to substantially the same executive compensation disclosure rules that currently apply to large accelerated filers.

Key Points

  • The Supreme Court held in M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund that MEPPs may adopt actuarial assumptions after the measurement date when calculating withdrawal liability.  
  • The decision allows MEPP actuaries to set or revise discount rates after the measurement date and apply them retroactively, so long as they are supported by data and actuarial standards.  

Recently, the Sixth Circuit issued a significant ERISA preemption ruling for employers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The court held that Tennessee’s PBM laws, which require “any willing” pharmacy access and limiting incentives that steer members to plan‑favored pharmacies, are preempted as applied to self‑funded ERISA plans. The ruling draws a clear line between permissible PBM cost regulation and impermissible interference with plan design and administration.

In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Ninth Circuit in R.R. v. California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California, affirmed the insurer and administrator’s denial of benefits for a dependent’s residential mental health treatment under an ERISA‑governed plan. The court applied abuse‑of‑discretion review and concluded that the denial was supported by the plan’s medical‑necessity criteria and the administrative record. The dissent, however, argued that the majority failed to meaningfully account for a structural conflict of interest and for the administrator’s handling of treating‑provider evidence and prior failed lower levels of care.