Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Blog

Friday, August 9, 2024

Code § 409A Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Rules Revisited

Monday, June 24, 2024

Court Stay on Enforcement of FTC Noncompete Ban and Other Noncompete Developments

CHARLES C. SHULMAN, ESQ.
cshulman@ebeclaw.com
cshulman@yahoo.com
www.ebeclaw.com (blog)
212-380-3834 / 201-357-0577

Court Stay on Enforcement of FTC Noncompete Ban
and Other Noncompete Developments

The Federal Trade Commission on May 7, 2024 published a ban on all noncompete clauses as an unfair method of competition, effective September 4, 2024 (with the exception of grandfathered agreements in effect on Sept. 4, 2024, which can continue to be enforced for senior executives, i.e., earning over $151,164 and in a policy-making position). The Federal Northern District Court in Texas,, in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, imposed a stay and preliminary injunction against enforcement of the FTC ban, pending a final decision. State laws in 14 states have recently banned some or all types of noncompete provisions, and the state laws are not subject to the Federal District Court stay. Also, noncompete provisions, even prior to FTC and state legislation, were subject to restrictions by case-law.

I. FTC Noncompete Clause Ban and Court Stay on Enforcement

A. Final FTC Rules Banning Practically All Noncompete Provisions – Effective Sept. 4, 2024 – On May 7, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a new rule in final form, banning all noncompete clauses as an unfair method of competition, and therefore violating Section 5 of the FTC Act.[1] Prior to the stay on enforcement of the FTC ban from the district court in Texas, the effective date of the new noncompete ban was to be 120 days after publication, i.e., September 4, 2024.

This rule: (i) will prohibit employers from entering into noncompete agreements and other clauses with all employees or service providers ("workers"); and (ii) will prohibit enforcement of existing noncompete clauses against all workers (with the exception of grandfathered agreements in effect on Sept. 4, 2024, which can continue to be enforced for senior executives).

These FTC rules were designed to protect the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs, increase innovation, and foster new business formation.

B. Key Points in Final FTC Rule – The following are the key provisions in the FTC ban:

1. Ban on Noncompete Clauses – Under the FTC rule, it is an unfair method of competition for a person (including an employee or independent contractor): (i) to enter into or attempt to enter into a noncompete clause; (ii) to enforce or attempt to enforce a noncompete clause; or (iii) to represent that the worker is subject to a noncompete clause. [2]

2. Senior Executives Exception for Grandfathered Contracts – For senior executives, there is an exception if the noncompete was entered into prior to the effective date of the FTC regulations (Sept. 4, 2024). "Senior executives" mean workers who (i) are in a policy-making position, and (ii) received annual compensation of at least $151,164 in the preceding year (or annualized if was employed for only part of the year; and "policy-making position" means the president, chief executive officer or equivalent, any other officer of a business entity who has policy-making authority, or any other natural person who has policy-making authority for the business entity similar to an officer with policy-making authority. [3] Thus, with respect to senior executives, any noncompete clauses entered into prior to Sept. 4, 2024 can continue to be enforced. [4] After the effective date, no new noncompete provisions can be entered into.

3. Notice Requirement – The new FTC rule provides that employers must provide notice to workers (other than senior executives) who are bound by an existing noncompete that they will not be enforcing any noncompete provisions against them. [5] The notice may be on paper delivered by hand to the worker, or by mail at the worker's last known personal street address, or by email at an email address belonging to the worker, including the worker's current work email address or last known personal email address, or cell phone text message. [6]

4. Model language – The FTC rules provides a model notice that employers can use for workers, which states how prior noncompetes may not be binding. [7]

5. Sale Exception – The Final Rule does not prohibit enforcement of noncompete clauses that are entered into with respect to the bona fide sale of a business, including a bona fide sale of (i) a business entity, (ii) an individual’s interest in a business entity or (iii) all or substantially all of a business entity’s operating assets.[8]

6. Only for Post-Employment Bans – The FTC ban specifically applies to post-employment noncompetes, so it does not affect restrictions on moonlighting in the same field.

7. Non-Solicitation Clauses – Non-solicitation clauses that do not prohibit or function to prevent a worker from switching jobs or starting a new business are generally not restricted by the FTC rule, as noted in the preamble to the 2024 final rule.

8. Objective – The FTC's final rule aims to enhance worker mobility, encourage entrepreneurship, and spur innovation by banning noncompete provisions and promoting a more dynamic economy.

C. Stay and Preliminary Injunction on Enforcement of FTC Ban

1. Stay and Preliminary Injunction by Federal Northern District in Texas – Within a day or two of when the FTC announced the final rule banning noncompete clauses, two lawsuits were filed in Texas to challenge the rule, (i) Ryan, LLC v. FTC [9] on Apr. 23, 2024 in the Northern District in Texas, and (ii) U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. FTC [10] the following day in the Eastern District in Texas. The Eastern District Court of Texas dismissed the Chamber of Commerce case because, under the first to file rule, the Ryan LLC case was filed first.[11] The Texas Northern District judge (Asa Brown), in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 2024 WL 3297524, --- F.Supp.3d --- (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024), halted the FTC’s ban on non-compete agreements set to take effect in September 4, and issued a stay and a preliminary injunction against implementation of the FTC ban, originally set to take effect on September 4. The judge stated that she intends to issue a final decision on the merits by August 30, 2024. The judge noted that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the noncompete ban, and that the role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency thinks it should do.

2. Disagreement by Federal District Court in Pennsylvania – In ATS Tree Services, LLC v. FTC, a similar suit was filed on Apr. 25, 2024 in the Eastern District in Pennsylvania. [12] ATS Tree Services filed a motion for preliminary Injunction on May 14 seeking a stay of the effective date. In contrast to the Ryan LLC v. FTC case, discussed above, the Eastern District in Pennsylvania, in ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 2024 WL 3511630 (E.D. Pa., July 23, 2024), denied ATS Tree Services motion to stay and preliminary enjoin enforcement of the FTC ban because it did not find any irreparable harm.

The Fifth Circuit in Texas (where the Ryan case was filed) is more employer friendly than the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania (were the ATS Tree Services case was filed), and a conflict of circuits may lead to an appeal to the Supreme Court to resolve the differences.

3. Arguments for Challenges – Arguments made by the lawsuits include that: (i) the rules implicates the major questions doctrine, which would necessitate additional legal authority from Congress; (ii) the FTC rule is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because the evidence the FTC relies on cannot justify a nationwide ban of noncompetes in all situations; (iii) the FTC rule incorrectly expands what is a prohibited an unfair method of competition; and (iv) the rule unlawfully infringes on state contract laws.

4. Stay in Effect – As noted above, since one of the Federal courts (N.D. Pa.) imposed a stay and preliminary injunction on the FTC ban, the status of the rule is currently in flux.

II. States that Have Banned Noncompete Provisions (all Since 2021)

A. Four States Ban All Noncompete Agreements – In the past three years, California, Minnesota, North Dakota and Oklahoma have passed broad legislation banning post-employment noncompete agreements, regardless of salary. (California has had long-standing legislation banning most noncompete agreements, but this was expanded by 2023 legislation even to out-of-state contracts.)

B. Ten States and D.C. Ban Noncompete Agreements for Non-Highly Paid Employees – Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia have all passed laws in the past three years prohibiting post-employment noncompete agreements unless the employee earned above a certain threshold. There are also non-compete rules from a few states prior to 2020, like Massachusetts in 2018 (and California, as noted above). (Also, in July 2024, Pennsylvania banned noncompete covenants for health care providers if it is for more than one year or the health care provider was dismissed by the employer.)

C. New York – In New York a bill that would ban almost all noncompete agreements was passed but was vetoed by Governor Hochul because it was too broad.

III. Existing State Law Regarding Noncompete Agreements.

A. Existing States' Case-law Would be Applicable if Statutory Ban is Stayed – If the FTC ban on noncompete clauses is stayed or struck down in court, or reversed or limited in future legislation or FTC guidance, preexisting state law and state cases would become operative. In states that have not enacted recent bans on noncompete provisions (or where such state bans have been struck down), the existing case law in those states will again be operative.

B. Enforceability of noncompete agreements – State laws vary regarding enforceability of noncompete provisions. Generally, noncompete provisions will be enforced in most states if the restrictions are reasonable in geographical scope and reasonable in time period, and they are necessary to protect legitimate business interests.

For example, in New York, which is fairly liberal in allowing noncompete restrictions, the noncompete restrictions will be enforceable if: (i) the time period of restriction is reasonable, (ii) the geographical scope is reasonable, (iii) the burden on the employee is not unreasonable, (iv) public policy is not harmed, and (v) the restrictions are necessary for the employer's protection.[13] In New Jersey noncompete restrictions will be enforced only if reasonable under the circumstances.[14] Texas and Florida statutes restrict noncompete requirements unless they are reasonable restrictions necessary to protect legitimate business interests.[15]

California by statute, even prior to the 2023 ban, would generally void noncompete provisions, providing that "except as provided in this Chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void." [16] The Ninth Circuit allowed "narrow restraint" enforcement of noncompete provisions that are very limited, but the California Supreme Court rejected this exception.[17] The 2023 California legislative ban would, presumably, supersede these prior rules.

D. Blue-penciling Noncompete Agreements – Where noncompete provisions are overbroad and therefore unenforceable on their terms, many states will "blue pencil" the restrictive covenants to a limited scope for which they would be enforceable. For example, in New York restrictive covenants will be blue penciled.[18] Often, employment agreements will add language to specifically provide for blue penciling.

IV. Points to Consider re FTC Final Rule

A. Review Noncompetes – Employers should review noncompete provisions that would violate a statutory ban and see if nonsolicitation and nondisclosure covenants can provide the needed protection.

B. Sept. 4, 2024 Grandfather for Senior Executives and Modifications – As noted above, for executives earning over $151,164 annually and in a policy-making position, there is a grandfather exception from the FTC ban if the agreement was entered into prior to Sept. 4, 2024. It may be beneficial for that reason to separate the noncompete from other terms of the employment agreement so that the noncompete can remain unaltered in its grandfathered form. It is not clear to what extent modifications to, or extensions of the terms of a pre-negotiated non-compete in connection with a separation) would result in loss of grandfathered status for senior executives.

C. Notice – Notices tCo those with non-grandfathered noncompete agreements, do not have to be as discussed above.

D. Garden-Leave – These are generally not covered by the FTC rule, because the employee is still employed for that period.

E. Cease and Desist – The FTC cannot assess civil penalties for using unfair methods of competition, but if an entity is ordered to cease and desist from FTC violations, monetary penalties can sometimes be obtained in court.

F. Modifications – It is unclear whether the negotiated non-compete in connection with a separation (even narrowing an existing scenario) would result in loss of grandfathered status for senior executives.

G. Court Stay – As noted above, the Northern District in Pennsylvania imposed a stay and preliminary injunction on enforcement of the FTC noncompete ban.

[1] Federal Trade Commission (FTC) New Final Noncompete Clause Rule in 26 CFR § 910, announced by the FTC on April 23, 2024, and published in 89 Fed. Reg. 38342 (May 7, 2024). The effective date is Sept. 4, 2024.

[2] 16 CFR § 910.2(a)(1).

[3] 16 CFR § 910.1

[4] 16 CFR § 910.2(a)(2).

[5] 16 CFR § 910.2(b)(1).

[6] 16 CFR § 910.2(b)(2)(b).

[7] 16 CFR § 910.2(b)(4) (figure 1).

[8] See 16 CFR § 910.3.

[9] Ryan LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-cv-00986, (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2024).

[10] Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. FTC, No. 6:24-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex., Apr. 24, 2024).

[11] ATS Tree Services, LLC v. FTC, No. 2:2024cv01743 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2024).

[12] Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Federal Trade Commission, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 1954139 (E.D. Tex., May 3, 2024).

[13] See, e.g., Service Systems Corp. v. Harris, 341 N.Y.S.2d 702 (4th Dep't 1973); Mallory Factor Inc. v. Schwartz, 146 A.D.2d 465, 536 N.Y.S.2d 752 (1st Dep't 1989); International Paper Co. v. Suwyn, 951 F. Supp. 445 (S.D. N.Y. 1997).

[14] E.g., Community Hosp. Group, Inc. v. More, 183 N.J. 36, 869 A.2d 884 (2005).

[15] Texas Business & Commerce Code §15.50; Florida Statutes Annotated §542.335.

[16] California Business & Professional Code §16600.

[17] The Ninth Circuit provided a narrow restraint exception in Campbell v. Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. University, 817 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1987) and General Commercial Packaging v. TPS Package Engineering, Inc., 126 F. 3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1997). The California Supreme court rejected this narrow restraint exception in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937, 81 282 (Cal. S. Ct. 2008).

[18] See, e.g., Deborah Hope Doelker, Inc. v. Kestly, 87 A.D.2d 763, 449 N.Y.S.2d 52 (1st Dep't 1982); Muller v. N.Y. Heart Ctr. Cardiovascular Specialists P.C., 238 A.D.2d 776, 656 N.Y.S.2d 464, 465 (3d Dep't 1997); BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 690 N.Y.S.2d 854, 712 N.E.2d 1220 (1999).

Friday, November 3, 2023

2024 BENEFIT PLAN COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS (with SECURE 2.0 changes)

11/4/2023

Charles C. Shulman, Esq.
212-380-3834 201-357-0577
cshulman@ebeclaw.com

2024 BENEFIT PLAN COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS (with SECURE 2.0 changes)

BENEFIT PLAN COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS	2023	2024
Qualified Plan Adjustments
402(g) Deferral Limit – Annual limit on pre-tax salary deferrals to 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans – IRC §§ 402(g)(1), 402(g)(3) & 457(e)(15)	$22,500	$23,000
Age 50 Additional Catch-Up Deferrals – Age 50 & older “catch-up” deferrals beyond the 402(g) limit above available for 401(k), 403(b), & governmental 457(b) plans – IRC § 414(v)(2)(B)(i). Under the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0) § 603 the catch-up for highly-compensated employees (in the previous year) to a qualified plan (401(k), 403(b) & 457(b)) will need to be Roth contributions beginning in 2026. Also, under SECURE 2.0 § 109 the catch-up for those ages 60-63 will be increased about 50% in 2025.	$7,500	$7,500
DB Benefit Limit – Limit on annual benefits from defined benefit plans – IRC § 415(b)	$265,000	$275,000
DC Contribution Limit – Annual contribution limit for defined contribution plans – IRC § 415(c)	$66,000	$69,000
Compensation Limit – Annual compensation limit for qualified plans and SEPs – IRC §§ 401(a)(17), 404(l) & 408(k)	$330,000	$345,000
Grandfathered § 401(a)(17) annual compensation limit for governmental plans in effect on July 1, 1993 – Treas. Reg. § 1.401(a)(17)-1(d)(4)(ii)	$490,000	$505,000
Highly Compensated Employee - Highly compensated employee threshold for nondiscrimination testing in the following year – IRC § 414(q)(1)(B)	$150,000	$155,000
Key Employee Officers in Top Heavy Plan – Key employee threshold for officers in top heavy plans – IRC § 416(i)(1)(A)(i)	$215,000	$220,000
QLAC Limit – Limit on premiums for qualified longevity annuity contracts (QLACs) under Treas. Reg. § 1.401(a)(9)-6 Q&A 17 increased from $150,000 to $200,000 under SECURE 2.0 § 202 for contracts purchased or received on or after Dec. 29, 2022	$200,000	$200,000
ESOP Distributions – (i) minimum account balance allowing extension of distribution period beyond 5 years; and (ii) dollar amount (or fraction) in excess of minimum account balance allowing extension of distribution period for additional year – IRC § 409(o)(1)(C)(ii)	(i) $1,330,000 (ii) $265,000	(i) $1,380,000 (i) $275,000
SEP & SIMPLE Adjustments
SEP Earnings Level – Minimum earnings level to qualify for Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA – IRC § 408(k)	$750	$750
SIMPLE Salary Deferral Limit – SIMPLE 401(k) or SIMPLE IRA elective deferral limit – IRC § 408(p)(2)(E) (referenced by § 401(k)(11)(B)(i)(I))	$15,500	$16,000
SIMPLE Catch-Up for Age 50 – SIMPLE 401(k) or SIMPLE IRA age 50 catch-up – IRC § 414(v)(2)(B)(ii). Under SECURE 2.0 beginning in 2024 the SIMPLE catch-up is supposed to increase by 10%. Also, under SECURE 2.0 § 109 the catch-up for SIMPLE plans for those ages 60-63 will be increased about 50% in 2025.	$3,500	$3,500
Traditional IRA & Roth IRA Adjustments
IRA Limit – Traditional IRA and Roth IRA contribution limit is indexed – IRC §§ 219(b)(5)(A), 408(a)(1) & 408A(c)(2)	$6,500	$7,000
Spousal IRA Contribution Limit – A spousal IRA or spousal Roth IRA where both spouses contribute is double the above.	$13,000	$14,000
IRA Catch-up Contribution - Age 50 & older “catch-up” for IRAs & Roth IRAs (not currently adjusted but under SECURE 2.0 § 108 will adjust beginning in 2025) – IRC § 219(b)(5)	$1,000	$1,000
Phaseout where IRA Owner is also Covered by an Employer Plan – Adjusted gross income (AGI) phase-out of deductible contribution to IRA if individual is also covered by employer-sponsored retirement plan for: (i) married filing jointly, (ii) single or (iii) married filing separately – IRC § 219(g)(1)-(5)	(i) $116,000 - $136,000, (ii) $73,000 - $83,000, (iii) 0 - $10,000	(i) $123,000 - $143,000, (ii) $77,000 - $87,000, (iii) 0 - $10,000
Phaseout where Spouse of IRA Owner is Covered by an Employer Plan – AGI phase-out of deductible contribution to IRA if contributor is not covered by an employer-sponsored plan but spouse is covered by an employer-sponsored plan – IRC § 219(g)(7)	$218,000 - $228,000	$230,000-$240,000
Phaseout of Roth IRA Contributions – AGI phase-out deduction for contributions to the Roth IRA for (i) married filing jointly, (ii) single or (iii) married filing separately – IRC § 408A(c)(3)(B)	(i) $218,00 - $228,000, (ii) $138,000 - $153,000, (iii) 0 - $10,000	(i) $230,000 - $240,000, (ii) $146,000 - $161,000, (iii) 0 - $10,000
Saver’s Credit – A “saver’s credit” under IRC § 25B(b) provides a tax credit for salary deferrals to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan or contributions to an IRA for those with AGI below a certain level, with a credit (for married filing jointly) of (i) 50% of contribution if AGI is not more than a specified dollar amount, (ii) 20% if AGI is in a specified dollar range and (iii) 10% if AGI is in higher specified dollar range. Single and married filing separately have lower limits. (Effective for plan years beginning 2027, SECURE 2.0 § 103 sunsets the § 25B saver’s credit and replaces it with a federal matching contribution under IRC § 6433, which is 50% of the contributions up to $2,000 per individual, but phases out if AGI is between $41,000 and $71,000 for married filing jointly, and $20,500 to $35,500 for single taxpayers and married filing separate returns.)	(i) $43,500, (ii) $43,501- $47,500, (iii) $47,501 - $73,000	(i) $46,000, (ii) $46,001- $50,000, (iii) $50,001 - $76,500
PBGC Premium and Guaranty Adjustments
PBGC Flat-Rate Premium – PBGC flat-rate premium per participant for a single-employer plan (under ERISA § 4006 & PBGC Premium Rates webpage)	$96	$101
PBGC Variable-Rate Premium - PBGC variable-rate premium for single-employer plans (i) per $1,000 of Unfunded Vested Benefits, and (ii) per participant cap. SECURE 2.0 § 349 will increase in 2025 the variable rate $52 per participant x $1000 of UVBs so that the $52 amount is indexed for inflation.	(i) $52 (ii) $652	(i) $52 (ii) $686
Multiemployer Premium - PBGC premium for multiemployer plan per participant	$35	$37
PBGC Guaranteed Benefit - PBGC guaranteed benefits under ERISA § 4022 where PBGC is the trustee (for annual single life annuity beginning at age 65)	$81,000 ($6,750 a month)	$85,295.40 ($7,107.95 a month)
FSA, HRA, HSA, and ACA Adjustments
Health FSA Limit – Health FSA (flexible spending account) limit – IRC § 125(i)	$3,050	$3,200
Heath FSA Carryover – Health FSA carryover amount	$610	$640
HRA Contribution Limit – Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) maximum employer contribution – Treas. Reg. § 54.9831-1(c)(3)(viii)(B)	$1,950	$2,100
HSA Limit – Health Savings Account (HSA) deduction limit for (i) single & (ii) family – IRC § 223(b)(2)	(i) $3,850 (ii) $7,750	(i) $4,150 (ii) $8,300
HDHP Deductible – HDHP (with HSA) minimum deductibles for (i) self-only or (ii) family coverage – IRC § 223(c)	(i) $1,500 (ii) $3,000	(i) $1,600 (ii) $3,200
HDHP Out of Pocket – HDHP (with HSA) maximum out-of-pocket amounts for (i) self-only & (ii) family coverage – IRC § 223(c)	(i) $7,500 (ii) $15,000	(i) $8,050 (ii) $16,100
QSEHRA Limit – Qualified small employer HRA (QSEHRA) for small business (less than 50 employees) and the maximum payments and reimbursements (i) single coverage and (ii) family coverage – IRC § 9831(d)	(i) $5,850 (ii) $11,800	(i) $6,150 (ii) $12,450
MSAs – Existing Archer Medical Savings Accounts have annual deductible range (i) for single coverage & (ii) for family coverage, and out-of-pocket maximum (iii) for single coverage and (iv) for family coverage – IRC § 220(c)(2)(A)	(i) $2,650 - $3,950, (ii) $5,300 - $7,900, (iii) $5,300, (iv) $9,650	(i) $2,800 - $4,150, (ii) $5,550 - $8,350, (iii) $5,550, (iv) $10,200
ACA Out of Pocket Maximum – Affordable Care Act (ACA) out-of-pocket maximum (cost-sharing) for non-grandfathered group health plans for (i) self & (ii) family – 42 USC § 18022(c); 45 CFR § 156.130(a)	(i) $9,100 (ii) $18,200	(i) $9,450 (ii) $18,900
ACA Affordability Rate – ACA health plan “affordability” rate of pay (percentage of household income) for premium tax credit – IRC § 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II)	9.12%	8.50%
ACA Pay or Play Penalties – ACA employer shared responsibility assessments (i) if do not offer coverage to 95% of full-time employee, penalty for each FTE; and (ii) if do offer coverage to 95% of FTEs but is not “affordable” penalized only for employees who buy Marketplace coverage and receive premium tax credit – IRC § 4980H	(i) $2,880 (ii) $4,320	(i) $2,970 (ii) $4,460
Fringe Benefit Adjustments
Transportation Fringe – Qualified transportation & parking benefit – IRC § 132(f)(2)	$300	$315
Adoption – Adoption credit or exclusion from income (i) amount and (ii) AGI phaseout – IRC §§ 23(a)(3) & 137(a)(2)	(i) $15,950, (ii) $239,230 - $279,230	(i) $16,810, (ii) $252,150 - $292,150
LTC Deduction Limit – Long-term care premium deduction limits for individuals (i) age 40 or less, (ii) age 41-50, (iii) age 51-60, (iv) age 61-70 and (v) over age 70 – IRC § 213(d)(10)	(i) $480, (ii) $890, (iii) $1,790, (iv) $4,770 & (v) $5,960	(i) $470, (ii) $880, (iii) $1,760, (iv) $4,700 & (v) $5,880
Social Security Adjustments
Taxable Wage Base – the taxable wage base subject to FICA (OASDI) tax (SSA Oct. 2023 COLA Fact Sheet)	$160,200	$168,600
SS Tax up to Taxable Wage Base – Social Security (OASDI) tax up to taxable wage base (double for self-employed)	6.2%	6.2%
Medicare Tax – Medicare tax and no cap on wages (plus 0.9% Medicare tax for wages in excess of $250,000 (joint filers) / $200,000 (single))	1.45%	1.45%
SS COLA – Social Security cost of living increase	8.7%	3.2%
Sample Penalty Adjustments
DOL Penalties – Sample DOL penalties per day for (i) failure to file annual report (Form 5500) - ERISA § 502(c)(2) (originally $1,000 per day), or (ii) failure to provide blackout or diversification notice – ERISA § 502(c)(7) (originally $100 per day)	(i) $2,586 (i) $164	TBA

Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Blog - ebeclaw.blogspot.com

Friday, August 9, 2024

Monday, June 24, 2024

Court Stay on Enforcement of FTC Noncompete Ban and Other Noncompete Developments

Friday, November 3, 2023

2024 BENEFIT PLAN COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS (with SECURE 2.0 changes)

Search This Blog