The Daily Brief for Benefits Professionals
BenefitsWire
Retirement Plans
September 3, 2026
— § —
10 items · ~3 min read
In this issue
Regulatory Action and Guidance (3) · Retirement Plans (4) · Litigation (3)
Regulatory Action and Guidance
3 items“Quick Hits In July 2025, President Donald Trump signed an omnibus spending bill that specified no taxes on tips and overtime pay through December 31, 2028. These provisions are available whether the worker itemizes or takes the standard deduction.” MORE >>
Source: Milliman
“The IRS has issued another round of guidance on Trump Accounts, this time addressing employer contributions to Trump Accounts and eligible investments in which Trump Account funds may be invested.” MORE >>
Source: Seyfarth Shaw LLP
“Under an Executive Order issued by the president announcing the accounts, Treasury will officially launch TrumpIRA.gov on Jan. 1, 2027. The website will provide information on IRAs, with a focus on workers without access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. It also includes a link to sign up for updates.” MORE >>
Source: American Retirement Association
Retirement Plans
4 items“The Department of Labor is reportedly preparing a proposal that would reverse the Biden-era ESG rule and require 401(k) fiduciaries to concentrate exclusively on “pecuniary” considerations. Daniel Aronowitz, head of DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration, has characterized ESG and diversity-oriented investment strategies as potentially “disloyal” to retirement savers. But DOL has already proposed another rule intended to encourage target-date funds and other 401(k) options to invest in private equity, private credit, real estate, infrastructure, cryptocurrency and other alternative assets.” MORE >>
Source: The Commonsense 401(k) Project
“Consumer Policy Center paper argues 401(k)s carry more risk than traditional pensions, with increased emphasis on Social Security While Sept.” MORE >>
Source: 401(k) Specialist
“Fidelity found 401(k), 403(b) balances grew by 10.5% last quarter, the strongest quarterly growth since Q4 2020.” MORE >>
Source: PLANSPONSOR
“Beginning in 2027, the Saver’s Match will replace the federal Saver’s Credit. By way of background, the Saver’s Credit is an income tax credit of up to $1,000 ($2,000 if married filing jointly) that reduces a taxpayer’s federal income tax liability. Instead of providing a tax credit, the Saver’s Match is a contribution to an employer’s qualified retirement plan or an IRA from the federal government of up to 50% of what the taxpayer contributes to the retirement plan or IRA, capped at a match of up to $1,000. The Saver’s Match rate is based on an individual’s tax filing status and modified adjusted gross income.” MORE >>
Source: Seyfarth (Beneficially Yours)
Litigation
3 items“In Andersen, the named plaintiff resided in Council Bluffs, Iowa, next to Omaha, Nebraska, and brought a putative class action alleging breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries in connection with the administration of Medical Solutions’ 401(k) plan. Medical Solutions is headquartered in Omaha, administers the plan there, and its two financial advisors are located there. The company maintained an office in San Diego, which supplied the plaintiff’s basis for filing in the Southern District of California. Judge Huie applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the Ninth Circuit’s Jones v. GNC Franchising factors.” MORE >>
Source: Roberts Disability Law
“In practical terms, the California Supreme Court concluded that a retirement board’s authority to administer its retirement system does not give it the final say over how its employees are classified or compensated. Responsibility for final decisions regarding job classifications and salary levels remains with the sponsoring governmental entity, in this case Los Angeles County. Under the Court’s framework, retirement boards retain significant authority to determine their staffing needs. Boards may identify positions they believe are necessary, recruit specialized professionals, and recommend compensation structures. However, the sponsoring government ultimately retains veto authority over cl” MORE >>
Source: NCPERS
“The plaintiffs in this suit filed in March 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Piercy et al. v. AT&T Inc. et al., case number 1:24-cv-10608) were represented by none other than Schlichter Bogard LLP. They alleged that AT&T “decided to fatten its wallet by placing its retirees’ futures in the hands of a risky new insurance company that is dependent on its Bermuda-based subsidiary and which has an asset base far riskier than AT&T’s” — pocketing “more than $360 million in profit from this scheme.” The suit also names State Street, contending that the firm assisted in the transaction and “profited handsomely as well.” MORE >>
Source: American Retirement Association
Also of Note
- When an ERISA Beneficiary Change by Phone Call Fails: N.D. Alabama Enforces the Plan’s Written-Designation Requirement and Voids a Bigamous Marriage — “66 Franklin Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v.” (Troutman Pepper Locke)
- Performance Review Board Members — “Notice on public inspection, scheduled to publish 2026-09-04.” (Federal Register)