On February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court decided CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, 574 U.S. ___ (2018), which raised, for the second time in three years, the question of how courts should interpret collective-bargaining agreements (“CBAs”). Reese involved a dispute between retirees and their former employer, CNH, about whether an expired 1998 CBA created a vested right to lifetime health benefits. In a per curiam opinion, the Court found that a straightforward reading of the CBA compelled the conclusion that retiree health benefits expired when the CBA expired in 2004. The Court’s opinion emphasized the significance of CBA expiration dates for retiree health benefits and forcefully reiterated its decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 574 U.S. ___ (2015), that collective-bargaining agreements must be interpreted according to “ordinary principles of contract law.”
Continue Reading Supreme Court Deals Another Blow to Sixth Circuit’s “Yard-Man Inferences”
retiree health
Can You Reduce Your VEBA’s Taxable Income?
By Amy N. Moore on
Recent guidance from the IRS suggests that it will be helpful to segregate funding for retiree health benefits from funding for all other welfare benefits (such as retiree life insurance, disability benefits, and health benefits for active employees) in order to minimize tax liabilities. A proposed regulation issued earlier this year indicates that segregating the retiree health assets in a separate trust might reduce the unrelated business income tax on the trust’s investment income. (As we explain below, this tax issue is limited to benefits that are not collectively-bargained.)
Continue Reading Can You Reduce Your VEBA’s Taxable Income?