January 24, 2022

Volume XII, Number 24

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 21, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Defense of Marriage Act Ruling Has Multiple Effects on Benefit Plans

On June 26, the US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that DOMA’s federal exclusion of state-recognized same-sex marriages was unconstitutional under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, many questions remain unanswered. 

One of the items that is clear after the ruling is that in states that recognize same-sex marriages, qualified joint and survivor annuity and qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity rights under traditional defined benefit plans will be extended to same-sex spouses. In addition, under all qualified retirement plans, spousal notification and consent requirements, qualified domestic relations orders and minimum required distributions will apply to same-sex spouses in the same way that such rules previously applied to opposite sex spouses. 

Among the many questions that remain unanswered by the Court’s ruling is what happens to an individual who was married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but moves to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage? Also unanswered is whether the decision has any retroactive effect and how related tax issues will be resolved. 

In light of the decision, it is imperative for employers and plan administrators to review the terms of their plan documents and policies to make sure that the plan or policy is properly administered post Windsor. Plans that provide benefits to a participant’s “spouse” will now automatically provide such benefits to a participant’s same-sex spouse in states where same-sex marriage is recognized. For employers in states that recognize same-sex marriage that already provide health benefits to same-sex spouses, the additional income tax that the employers were previously required to impute to the employee no longer must be imputed—the benefit can be provided in the same manner as it is provided to employees with opposite-sex spouses. 

Over the coming weeks and months, further guidance may be issued with respect to the issues highlighted above, as well as the many issues that are bound to arise as a result of the decision. 

A copy of the decision is available here.

©2022 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLPNational Law Review, Volume III, Number 179
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Russell E. Greenblatt, Labor law Attorney, Katten Muchin Law firm
Partner

Russell E. Greenblatt concentrates his practice in employee welfare benefit plans and vehicles used for the funding of such benefits, such as voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations (VEBAs) and Internal Revenue Code §115 trusts. Before joining the firm in 1980, Russell served as an attorney-advisor with the Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations Division of the Office of Chief Counsel to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Washington, DC. He was the principal author of the IRS regulations on VEBAs.

Because of Russell’s particular experience...

312.902.5222
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement