IRS/Treasury proposed rule would exclude investment management fees from the plan-related expenses counted in a plan's target normal cost. It would also let sponsors adopt benefit-increasing amendments after the plan year ends, up to the tax return deadline, and still have them reduce that prior year's required contribution, potentially lowering minimum funding obligations for single-employer defined benefit plans.

Recent Treasury guidance resolved several tax and compliance issues, but benefits advisers say administration details may shape adoption.

Internal Revenue Code Section 409(p) (Section 409(p)) imposes significant obligations on S corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) with severe penalties for noncompliance.

TD Bank survey finds 75% of Americans have delayed at least one major milestone because of their finances, with Gen Z feeling the greatest impact.

Industries with historically low plan participation rates and hourly employees are seeing particularly large gains in coverage, according to Gusto.

HHS filed a request for information asking how federal vaccine recommendations should be categorized and what role shared clinical decision-making should play. We are tracking it because non-grandfathered group health plans must cover recommended immunizations without cost sharing under the ACA preventive services mandate, and the recommendation categories are the input to that requirement. This is an RFI, not a rule, so nothing changes for plan sponsors now; the question is whether it ripens into rulemaking that touches first-dollar coverage.

Nearly half of people with an ongoing mental health condition who use large language models say they lean on AI for mental health support, per a survey EBN reports, most commonly for anxiety and depression. For benefit leaders weighing AI tools in workforce mental health programs, the vetting question is no longer hypothetical.

A new risk analysis released by leading insurance broker Aon this week projected that employer health costs in the U.S. will rise by roughly 10 percent in 2027.

The first half of 2026 has seen major litigation developments in cases concerning the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), including decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits.

In Mead v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 8:24-cv-2756-TPB-AEP, 2026 WL 2444754 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2026), United States District Judge Tom Barber granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and denied the claimant’s cross-motion.

In Cregan v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 24-CV-340-DES, 2026 WL 2427920 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 19, 2026), United States Magistrate Judge D. Edward Snow addressed whether a voluntary accident policy offered through an employer falls under ERISA.

A federal court in Tennessee denied Cracker Barrel's motion to dismiss in its entirety in a putative class action challenging the tobacco-user premium surcharge in its self-insured health plan, on claims that the plan failed to offer a compliant reasonable alternative standard and failed to give adequate notice of it, both required under the wellness-program nondiscrimination rules. Three days earlier, a Maryland federal judge reached a similar result in a class action over Marriott's $15-per-week tobacco surcharge, letting through a claim that plan communications named a smoking-cessation program without explaining how to enroll or whether enrolling would avoid the fee. Two courts in three days is the pattern worth watching: sponsors running a tobacco surcharge should treat “we offered an alternative” as necessary but not sufficient: notice design, placement, and reimbursement mechanics are now live issues in both cases. (The broader split runs both ways: earlier dismissals went the other way in Williams v. Target and Spencer v. Campbell Soup, so treat this as an emerging, unsettled pattern, not a rule.)

A federal court in Florida dismissed fiduciary-breach and prohibited-transaction claims against Acosta over its use of plan forfeitures to offset the company's own employer contributions rather than pay plan administrative expenses. The dismissal came with leave to amend, so the theory isn't dead for this plaintiff group, but it joins a run of employer-favorable rulings reading plan language that permits either use of forfeitures as foreclosing a violation, echoing an Arizona decision reaching a similar result by a different route in Northcutt v. Gen Digital earlier this month.

An Illinois veterinary clinic agreed to pay $500,000 to settle a proposed class action claiming it invested nearly all of its employees' retirement savings in pharmaceutical and biotech stocks. The theory here is concentration, not fees (an unusual entry in a year dominated by recordkeeping-fee and forfeiture claims), and a reminder that a small plan with an idiosyncratic lineup carries a different risk profile than a large plan with an ordinary one.

New guide addresses a CFP professional’s fiduciary obligations when providing financial advice on whether to roll over assets from an employer plan.

Bringing a procurement partner into the benefits planning process can offer greater insight and negotiation power, helping to reduce overall costs.

Retirement plan providers spend a great deal of time searching for new business. They attend conferences, send marketing emails, make cold calls, and look for referral opportunities.