.

Tim works with employers to help them comply with the complex regulatory framework that governs employee benefits — from designing executive incentive and deferred compensation plans, to challenging IRS penalties with respect to Forms 1095-C and the ACA and correcting errors under retirement plan, so that a range of employers (including cooperatives, health care entities, and tax-exempt organizations) keep their plans in compliance and their liabilities in check.

Tim Goodman advises employers on the full spectrum of employee benefits and executive compensation, with a particular focus on advising cooperatives, agribusiness companies, hospitals and health care entities, and tax-exempt organizations. Tim goes deep into the tax code and ERISA — helping clients understand not just what the rules require, but what it costs when those rules are missed.

Health plan compliance and risk mitigation is a focus for Tim. Tim advises employers on ever-evolving legal landscape from the No Surprises Act to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including employer shared responsibility obligations under section 4980H, Form 1095-C reporting, wellness plans, telemedicine arrangements, and employee assistance plans. Tim has assisted numerous clients in responding to IRS penalties under section 4980H and delinquent filings of Forms 1095-C and 1095-B. He helps clients work through the practical consequences of ACA penalties and mandates before regulators come knocking. HIPAA health privacy compliance is another area where Tim regularly works with employers — drafting plan amendments, policies and procedures, and privacy notices to keep health plan administration on the right side of federal requirements. Retirement plan work is a core part of Tim's practice. He helps employers review plan documents and operations, identify and correct errors through the IRS Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS), maintain the tax-qualified status of defined benefit plans, 401(k) plans, and 403(b) plans. He also advises on the deferred compensation rules under section 409A — a technically demanding area where documentation errors can trigger significant tax consequences for employees and employers alike. In addition to section 409A, Tim assists tax-exempt employers with section 457, including preparing 457(b) plans, 457(f) plans, and questions on substantial risk of forfeiture.

For health care entities and tax-exempt organizations, Tim structures executive employment agreements, severance arrangements, deferred compensation plans, and incentive programs. He advises on reasonable compensation requirements under section 4958, sign-on bonuses, and section 4960 excise taxes on excess executive compensation introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Tribal entities also turn to Tim for guidance on ERISA applicability and plan qualification questions unique to their circumstances.

Tim is a frequent speaker at national and regional forums on employee benefits, including the National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, Minnesota CLE conferences, and is a past contributor to the ERISA chapter of the Minnesota Practice Series.

Select Experience

  • Counseled employers on ACA employer shared responsibility obligations under section 4980H, including penalty response strategies and Form 1095-C and Form 1094-C reporting.
  • Advised employers on ACA penalties and excise taxes, including response to penalty assessments under section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code.
  • Designed and reviewed wellness programs for compliance with HIPAA nondiscrimination rules, EEOC regulations, and other federal requirements.
  • Advised employers on telemedicine arrangements and employee assistance plans in connection with health benefit plan compliance.

Education

  • University of Minnesota Law School (J.D., 1998)
    • magna cum laude
    • Member, Minnesota Law Review
    • Director, National Moot Court
  • University of Minnesota (B.A., 1993)

Professional Affiliations

  • Past Chair, Employee Benefits Section, Minnesota State Bar Association
  • Past President, Minnesota Retirement Benefits Association (Midwest Pension Conference)
  • Past President, Minneapolis Pension Council
  • Member, Minnesota State Bar Association, Employee Benefits Section and Taxation Section
  • Member, Hennepin County Bar Association
  • Past President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Secretary, and 30-Year Member of Board of Directors, of the Minnesota Justice Foundation (a non-profit corporation that promotes pro bono opportunities for law students and fundraises to support clerkships at public interest agencies serving low-income individuals)
  • Past Adjunct Professor, University of Minnesota Law School

Bar Admissions

  • Minnesota

Accolades

  • Best Lawyers in America©, ERISA Law, Minneapolis, 2025-2027
  • Minnesota Monthly, "Top Lawyers in Minnesota," Employee Benefits Law, 2024-2025
  • Dorsey Pro Bono Champion
  • BTI Client Service All-Star Attorneys, 2020
  • MSBA North Star Lawyer

Select Presentations

  • “Paid Leave Panel,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2024
  • “Benefits Update,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2024
  • “Benefit Plans:  Developments and Best Practices,” Minneapolis Seminar, August 2024
  • “Best Practices for Benefit Plans and Payroll,” North Dakota Seminar, July 2024
  • “Benefit Plan Developments,” North Dakota Seminar, July 2024
  • “Benefit Developments, Opportunities, and Challenges,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2023
  • “Employee Leaves:  Mastering the ADA and FMLA,” Fargo Seminar, May 2023
  • “Payroll Stories from the Twilight Zone – Intersection of HR, Benefits, and Compensation,” Fargo Seminar, May 2023
  • “COVID’s Legacy – End of Public Health Emergency and Impact on Employment and Benefits,” Fargo Seminar, May 2023
  • “Health and Welfare Plan Update,” Fargo Seminar, May 2023
  •  “Retirement Plan Update – SECURE ACT 2.0, Investment Guidance, and More,” Fargo Seminar, May 2023
  • “Ethical Considerations for Employee Benefits Attorneys,” Advanced Employee Benefits Workshop, Minnesota CLE, February, 2023 
  • “Benefits Update: Trending Topics and Overview of Developments,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2022
  • “The Escalating Challenges of Remote Work,” Minneapolis Seminar, August 2022
  • “Health, Cafeteria, and Fringe Benefit Plan Developments,” Minneapolis seminar, may 2022 
  • “Top 10 List:  Benefit Plans To Dos,” Fargo Seminar, May 2022
  • “Remote Employees:  Tax, Payroll, Licensing, and More,” Fargo Seminar, May 2022
  • “COVID and Reasonable Accommodation,” Fargo Seminar, May 2022
  • “Taxing HR:  Compensation, Constructive Receipt, Section 409A and More,” Fargo Seminar, May 2022
  • "Cybersecurity:  HR and Benefits,” Fargo Seminar, May 2022
  • “Hot Topics,” Fargo Seminar, May 2022
  • “Benefit Plans and State Law Developments,” Minneapolis Seminar, February 2022
  • “Developments in Benefits Law,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2021
  • “FSA Questions and Answers,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2021
  • “What to do with $2.67 Billion Dollars (or Something Less): The Blue Cross Blue Shield Anti-Trust Settlement,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2021
  • “Health, Cafeteria, and Fringe Benefit Plan Developments,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2021
  • “At Work with COVID,” Fargo Seminar, May 2021
  • “Benefit Developments,” Fargo Seminar, May 2021
  • “2021 Legislative & Regulatory developments,” Minneapolis Seminar, April 2021
  • “ERISA 101: General Overview – ERISA and the Code, Benefit Claims, and ERISA Litigation,” MSBA Benefits Section, January 2021
  • “Regulators Knocking on Your (Home) Door: Employment and HR Issues Raised by Remote Work,” Minneapolis Seminar, April 2021
  • “Recent Changes in Benefits Law,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2020
  • “Retirement Plan Developments & Coronavirus Impact on Plans,” Minneapolis Seminar, September 2020
  • “Coronavirus: Fringe Benefits, EAPs, and More,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2020
  • “Health Plan Developments,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2020
  • “Coronavirus: Employment & Benefit Impacts,” Fargo Seminar, May 2020
  • “FFCRA Emergency Leave,” Fargo Seminar, May 2020
  • “Benefits Update,” Fargo Seminar, May 2020
  • “Tax & Benefits Challenges Ahead,” Minneapolis Seminar, April 2020
  • “The SECURE Act,” Minneapolis Seminar, March 2020
  • “Retirement Plan Developments and Updates: New Laws, Regulations, and Guidance, Plus Case Law Developments,” Minneapolis Seminar, November 2019
  • “ERISA, Benefits, and Taxes:  New, Noteworthy, and More,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2019
  • “Health Plan Litigation: More Risks and Employer response Planning Ahead for an Effective Defense,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2019
  • “HR & Benefit development: Mobile Workforce, Marijuana & the Workforce, Parental Leave, DOL & IRS Plan Audits, & More,” Fargo Seminar, May 2019
  • “Cybersecurity: HR & Benefits,” Fargo Seminar, May 2019
  • “Retirement Plans & Benefit Plans Checklist,” Fargo Seminar, May 2019
  • “What’s New and Cutting Edge in the Employee Benefits World,” Minneapolis Seminar, April 2019
  • “Defined Benefit Retirement Plans: Challenges, Changes, and Benefits for Cooperatives,” Farmer Cooperatives Conference, St. Paul Seminar, November 2018
  • “Cybersecurity – It’s Not Only for Protecting Assets,” Midwest Pension Conference, October 2018 
  • “New Tax Law Changes to Affordable Care Act Requirements and Employee Benefits,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2018 
  • “HR Hot Topics:  Mobile Workforce Developments, Law Changes, and Agency Actions,” MN CPA, October 2018
  • “Association Health Plans:  The Good (New Guidance), the Complicated (State Regulation), and the Unchanged (MEWAs),” Minnesota CLE, September 2018
  • “Regulators Never Rest:  New Benefit developments and Old Risks to Review,” ISCEBS, August 2018
  • “The New Federal Tax Law: Changes to Benefits, Compensation and Employment Settlements (and Payroll Matters Too),” Minnesota CLE, July 2018
  • “Disability Claims, Leaves and Accommodations Update,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2018
  • “Fiduciary Liability Concerns,” Fargo Seminar, May 2018
  • “Retirement Plan Operation,” Fargo Seminar, May 2018
  • “Payroll Problems You Do Not Want (But May Have),” Fargo Seminar, May 2018
  • “Benefits Update,” Fargo Seminar, May 2018
  • “Payroll Problems You Do Not Want (But May Have),” Minneapolis Seminar, May 2018 
  • “Benefits Update,” Minnesota Rural Electric Association HR Network, April 2018
  • “Defined Benefit Retirement Plans:  Challenges, Changes, and Benefits for Cooperatives,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives Annual Meeting, February 2018
  • “The New Federal Tax Law:  Business Provisions,” Minnesota CLE, February 2018
  • “Health Care Reform Roundtable:  2017 Developments and Looking Ahead,” Minneapolis Seminar, February 2018
  • “Payroll Tax Risks:  Benefits, Bonuses, and Settlements,” Tax Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, November 2017
  • “The Mobile Workforce:  Is Your Company on the Road to Compliance?” Annual Not-For-Profit Conference, MN CPA, October 2017 
  • “What to Know Before Offering Employee Incentives,” Iowa Hospital Association, October 2017
  • “Employee Benefits – Limiting Risks and Exposure,” Agribusiness Interactive Dialogue, August 2017
  • “Health Care, the ACA, and the New Administration:  Changes So Far and Looking Ahead,” National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives Annual Meeting, August 2017
  • “ACA Repeal and Replace:  2017 So Far and Looking Ahead,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2017
  • “ACA Developments: 2017 So Far and What to Expect,” 2017 Employee Benefits Seminar, Twin Cities Chapter of International Society of Certified Employee Benefit Specialists, May 2017
  • “Affordable Care Act Update,” Employment Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, May 2017
  • “The ACA and the New Administration:  Changes So Far and What to Expect,” Iowa Hospital Association Webinar, May 2017
  • “Employee Agreements:  Offer Letters to Severance Agreements,” Fargo Seminar, May 2017
  • “ACA: Repeal & Replace Developments to Date,” Fargo Seminar, May 2017
  • “Benefits:  Background & Developments,” Fargo Seminar, May 2017
  • “The ACA and the New Administration:  Changes So Far and What to Expect,” National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives Webinar, May 2017
  • “The Times (or Benefits Laws and Regulations) They Are a Changin’,” Minneapolis Seminar, April 2017
  • “Affordable Care Act Update,” Workers Compensation Institute, Minnesota CLE, April 2017
  • “ACA and Benefit Developments:  2017 So Far and What to Expect,” Cooperative Business Issues Conference, Cooperative Network, March 2017 
  • “Practical Guidance to Enhance Human Resource Compliance and Minimize Financial Risk,” Annual Not-For-Profit Conference, MN CPA, October 2016
  • “Giving the Tax Man His Due:  Taxing Employee Benefits, Perks & Awards,”  National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2016
  • “New EEOC Regulations and More:  Is Your Wellness Program Ready for 2017?” Lorman Seminar, September 2016 
  • “Tribal Health Benefits – Sources of and Contracting on Benefits,” Health Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, June 2016
  • “The Gig is Up: Taxes, ACA Penalties, and Employment Law Risks of Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employer Status for Leased Employees,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2016
  • “Penalties, Liabilities, and Risks: Misclassification of Employees and Joint Employment Consequences,” Employment Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, May 2016 
  • “The Affordable Care Act: Are We There Yet? (Answer: No),” Fargo Seminar, May 2016
  • “Taxing Benefits: Taxing Prizes, Awards, Gifts, Expenses, PTO, and More,” Fargo Seminar, May 2016
  • “Benefits Law Update,” Fargo Seminar, May 2016
  • “Penalties, Liabilities, and Risks: Misclassification of Employees and Joint Employment Consequences,” Fargo Seminar, May 2016
  • “Taxing Benefits: Properly Taxing Fringe Benefits, Gifts, and Paid Leave Plans,” Minnesota Rural Electric Association, April 2016 
  • “The Gig is Up:  Taxes, ACA Penalties, and Employment Law Risks of Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employer Status for Leased Employees,” Minnesota Rural Electric Association, April 2016 
  • “Benefits Check-Up – Preventing Unhealthy Reviews by the IRS, DOL, and EEOC,” Minneapolis Seminar, March 2016
  • “Wellness Program Update and Design,” Advanced Employee Benefits Workshop, Minnesota CLE, February, 2016 
  • “Designing Your Wellness Plan to Avoid Enforcement Action and Litigation Risks,” Lorman Seminar, February 2016
  • “ACA Reporting: Tackling Complex Form 1095-C Situations and Preparing for Form 1094-C,” National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives, February 2016
  • “ACA Reporting:  Are You Ready for Form 1095-C Reporting in January 2016?,” National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives – North Central Chapter, November 2015
  • “ACA Reporting:  Are You Ready for January 2016?,” National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives, November 2015 
  • “ACA Cadillac Tax,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2015
  • “ACA Reporting:  Form 1095-C and Employer Shared Responsibility,” National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives HR Conference, October 2015
  • “ACA Reporting:  Preparing for January 2016, Form 1095-C, Form 1094-C, and More,” National Cooperative Business Association, October 2015
  • “Joint Employers, Leased Employees, and Independent Contractors:  Worker Classification Stakes Heat Up,”  Minnesota Society of Human Resource Professionals, October 2015
  • “ACA Cadillac Tax,” Fargo Seminar, September 2015
  • “ACA Reporting:  Form 1095-C and Employer Shared Responsibility,” Fargo Seminar, September 2015
  • “HIPAA Compliance,” North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives Office Managers and Accountants Association, September 2015
  • “ACA Cadillac Tax,” North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives Office Managers and Accountants Association, September 2015
  • “ACA Points Not to Miss,” North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives Office Managers and Accountants Association, September 2015
  • “ACA Reporting:  Form 1095-C,” North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives Office Managers and Accountants Association, September 2015
  • “Affordable Care Act:  What is Next?  Deadlines and Developments,” National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Annual Meeting, August 2015
  • “ACA Employer Shared Responsibility Payment and Tax Reporting,” National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Annual Meeting, August 2015
  • “Paid Time Off, Awards, Prizes, Gifts, and Turkeys – The Taxing World of Fringe Benefits,” LeadingAge Iowa, June 2015
  • “The ACA: Counting Hours, Court Cases, and Cadillac Taxes (and That is Just the Cs),” Employment Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, May 2015 
  • “Responding to the ACA: Fees, Forms, and Risks,” Business Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, May 2015 
  • “The Affordable Care Act: Checklist of Points Not to Miss,” Fargo Seminar, May 2015 
  • “Retirement Plans: Avoiding Costly Mistakes,” Fargo Seminar, May 2015 
  • “Handbooks: Best Practices,” Fargo Seminar, May 2015 
  • “HIPAA Compliance,” Fargo Seminar, May 2015 
  • “EEOC and DOL Challenges to Wellness Plans,” Fargo Seminar, May 2015 
  • “Responding to the ACA: Fees, Forms, and Risks,” Business Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, May 2015 
  • “Wellness Programs: EEOC Enforcement Actions and Complying with Federal and State Laws,” Lorman Seminar, April 2015 
  • “Challenging Times: NLRB Decisions on Joint Employers, EEOC Action on Wellness Plans, and ACA Risks,” Human Resources Executive Council, March 2015 
  • “Affordable Care Act: Implementation and Challenges (Fees, Forms, and Mandates),” National Council of Farmer Cooperatives Annual Conference, February 2015 
  • “Benefits – Penalties, Costs, and More: 2014 Recap and Looking Ahead to 2015,” Minneapolis Seminar, February 2015 
  • “Wellness Programs: Impact of the New HIPAA Nondiscrimination Regulations and Other Federal Laws and Guidance,” Lorman Seminar, October 2014
  • “Affordable Care Act: Implementation and Challenges,” National Council of Farmer Cooperatives Human Resources Conference, October 2014 
  • “Timeline, Key Dates, and Mandates: ACA Business Application,” Cooperative Network, September 2014 
  • “Affordable Care Act Basics for the Non-Health Law Attorney,” Minnesota CLE, June 2014 
  • “The Affordable Care Act – What You Need to Know,” Employment Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, May 2014 
  • “The Affordable Care Act – What You Need to Know,” Business Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, May 2014 
  • “The Affordable Care Act – Countdown to Employer Taxes and Reporting,” Fargo Seminar, May 2014 
  • “Paid Time Off, Awards, Prizes, Gifts, and Turkeys – The Taxing World of Fringe Benefits,” Fargo Seminar, May 2014 
  • “Wellness Programs: Impact of the New HIPAA Nondiscrimination Regulations and Other Federal Laws and Guidance,” Lorman Seminar, April 2014 
  • “The Affordable Care Act: Tax, Reporting, and Other Provisions Affecting Employer Health Plans,” MSBA Tax Section, April 2014 
  • “The Affordable Care Act – Employer Shared Responsibility (4980H), 90-Day Waiting Period, and Reporting Under 6055 and 6056, Minneapolis Seminar, April 2014 
  • “Employment & Benefits - Review & Preview - A Look Back at 2013 and a Look Ahead to 2014,” Minneapolis Seminar, February 2014 
  • “Overview of Key Provisions Affecting Businesses and Individuals,” Minnesota CLE, January 2014 
  • “The Affordable Care Act – Collective Bargaining Considerations and FLSA Changes,” The 40th Annual Labor & Employment Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, November 2013 
  • “Wellness Programs: Impact of the New HIPAA Nondiscrimination Regulations and Other Federal Laws and Guidance,” Lorman Seminar, October 2013 
  • “DOMA's Demise: Same-Sex Spouses (and Domestic Partners), Employer Benefits, and Taxes,” Lorman Seminar, October 2013 
  • “Health Care Reform for Employers: Are You Prepared for 2014 and Beyond?” Iowa Hospital Association, October 2013 
  • “Top Benefit Concerns for 2013: DOMA, Health Care Reform, and HIPAA,” Minneapolis Seminar, September 2013 
  • “Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision that DOMA is Unconstitutional: Employer Considerations and Action Steps on Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses,” Iowa Hospital Association, September 2013 
  • “The Supreme Court’s DOMA Decision: What it Means for Employer Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses,” Minneapolis Seminar, August 2013 
  • “HIPAA: Complying with the New Final Regulations and Preparing for Audits,” Agassiz Valley Human Resources Association, May 2013 
  • “Health Care Reform 2013 & 2014: Taxes, Fees, and More Requirements,” Fargo Seminar, May 2013 
  • “HIPAA: Complying with the New Final Regulations and Preparing for Audits,” Fargo Seminar, May 2013 
  • “Avoiding Costly Retirement Plan Mistakes,” Fargo Seminar, May 2013 
  • “Wellness Programs: Recent Regulatory Developments and the Matrix of Federal Laws Governing Efforts to Encourage Better Health,” Lorman Seminar, April 2013 
  • “In-Plan Roth Conversions,” Midwest Pension Conference, April 2013 
  • “Health Care Reform 2013 & 2014: Taxes, Fees, and More Requirements,” Minneapolis Seminar, March 2013 
  • “Health Care Reform Taxes and Fees: Employer Shared Responsibility, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, and Transition Reinsurance Fees,” Minneapolis Seminar, March 2013 
  • “Same-Sex Marriages, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships – From Benefits to Form W-2,” Lorman Seminar, February 2013 
  • “Labor, Employment, & Benefits Review & Preview: A Look Back at 2012 and a Look Ahead at 2013,” Minneapolis Seminar, February 2013 
  • “Impact of the Affordable Care Act,” Minnesota Closely Held Business Conference, Minnesota CLE, January 2013 
  • “Health Care Reform Update,” LeadingAge of Iowa, Des Moines Seminar, November 2012 
  • “Wellness Programs: Underlying Legal Requirements and Impact Developments,” Lorman Seminar, October 2012 
  • “Health Care Reform: Approaching Deadlines & Decisions – 2012, 2013, and 2014,” Minneapolis Seminar, October 2012 
  • “Health Care Reform Update,” LeadingAge of Iowa, September 2012 
  • “Health Care Reform Update,” Missouri Hospital Association Seminar, September 2012 
  • “Same-Sex Marriages, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships – From Benefits to Form W-2,” Lorman Seminar, August 2012 
  • “Health Care Reform: The Supreme Court – Its Decision (or What We Think It Will Be),” TruSight Seminar, Minneapolis, June 2012 
  • “Wellness Programs: Underlying Legal Requirements and Impact Developments,” TruSight Seminar, Minneapolis, June 2012 
  • “Wellness Programs: Watching the Law While Promoting Health,” Health Law Institute, Minnesota CLE, June 2012 
  • “ERISA and Investment Professionals,” Minneapolis Seminar, June 2012 
  • “Do 401(k) Plans Provide Retirement Income for Life,” MSBA Employee Benefits Section Seminar, May 2012 
  • “Health Care Reform,” Fargo Seminar, May 2012 
  • “High Deductible Health Plans and Health Savings Accounts,” Fargo Seminar, May 2012 
  • “Wellness Programs: Underlying Legal Requirements and Impact Developments,” Lorman Seminar, April 2012 
  • “Debriefing: The Supreme Court Arguments on Health Care Reform,” Minneapolis Seminar, April 2012 
  • “Avoiding Top Retirement Plan Mistakes,” ISCEBS Seminar, Minneapolis, April 2012 

Insights

Client Alert

President’s Program Permitting Deferral of Employees’ 6.2% Social Security Tax for Four Months Presents Complexity and Risk for Employers and Uncertain Benefits for Employees

September 1, 2020

On August 8, 2020, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum entitled “Memorandum on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of the Ongoing COVID-19 Disaster,” effective as of September 1, 2020 (the “Memorandum”). Late on Friday, August 28, 2020, in Notice 2020-65 (the “Notice”) the Secretary of Treasury provided the guidance that was directed by the Memorandum. As described in more detail below, the Memorandum and the Notice provide that employers may suspend withholding the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes for eligible employees with respect to wages paid to them from September 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, but that the deferred taxes generally must be paid over to the Internal Revenue Service ratably during the period January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2021. Employers are asking: Must employers stop withholding the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes? Are there risks to employers if they do suspend the withholding of the employee portion of Social Security Taxes? The short answers are: No, employers are not required to suspend withholding (it is optional in the employer’s discretion). Yes, employers are at risk of owing additional amounts if they do suspend withholding; they are liable for any amounts not ultimately collected from the employee (for example, if an employee terminates employment before the amount is withheld from the employee the employer is liable). Based on this, and the complexity of adjusting payroll systems, we expect that many, if not most, employers will decide not to suspend withholding.This update provides more detail on the intent of the Memorandum, a few points to note surrounding the implementation of the Memorandum, and the options for responding to the Memorandum. The Presidential Memorandum On March 13, 2020, the President determined that the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated an emergency declaration under section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207. The President signed the Memorandum pursuant to that emergency declaration and in response to the breakdown in negotiations between Democrats and Republicans over the next phase of COVID-19 stimulus legislation. In the Memorandum, the President instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to use the Secretary’s authority pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7508A to defer the withholding, deposit, and payment of the employee’s 6.2% Social Security tax on wages (or the Railroad Retirement tax equivalent) paid during the period of September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, subject to the conditions that (a) the deferral shall only be available for any bi-weekly payroll period for employees whose gross wages payable during the period are less than $4,000 (or the equivalent threshold amount if employees are paid for different pay periods than bi-weekly periods), and (b) the amounts deferred shall be without penalties, interest, additional amount, or addition to the tax. In providing for deferral of this tax, the President has sought to increase the take-home pay of every eligible worker for the last four months of the calendar year by 6.2%. This, as the Presidential Memorandum states, “will put money directly in the pockets of American workers and generate additional incentives for work and employment, right when the money is needed most.” Notice 2020-65 provides that employers must pay the deferred taxes to the Internal Revenue Service between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021, otherwise interest, penalties, and additions to tax will begin to accrue on May 1, 2021 with respect to any unpaid taxes. The Notice provides that employers must withhold and pay the deferred taxes ratably during the four-month “payback” period. The Notice also provides that if necessary, the employer may make “other arrangements” to collect the deferred taxes from employees, such as if the employee has left employment. It is important to note that the four-month payback period equals the four-month deferral period. Thus, roughly speaking at least, and subject to the complications discussed below, an employee who had 6.2% more take-home pay during the deferral period would have their net pay go down by twice that amount during the period the deferred taxes must be paid. Points to Note Regarding the Presidential Memorandum and the Notice First, a deferral of a tax obligation is not the same as forgiveness of, or exemption from, a tax obligation. Eliminating the tax obligation entirely would require Congress to pass legislation that retroactively establishes a tax “holiday” beginning on September 1, 2020. While possible, Congress has not shown an appetite to enact a payroll tax holiday for employees during their previous rounds of negotiation regarding COVID-19 relief bills. Second, the Notice defers the employer’s obligations to pay the portion of the employee’s taxes that is covered under the Memorandum. Neither the Memorandum nor the Notice provides any relief for employers that are unable to recover the deferred taxes through increased withholdings in 2021. Accordingly, if an employee were to terminate employment during the deferral period, or during the payback period before the employer had the opportunity to recover the deferred tax obligation, the employer would still be required to pay the employee’s taxes. Third, neither the Memorandum nor the Notice explicitly requires an employer to take action to discontinue withholdings. Indeed, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has been widely quoted in numerous press reports as stating that an employer’s decision whether to participate in the four-month deferral program is entirely voluntary. Presumably, absent more explicit guidance, employers will be free to continue withholdings as provided for in statutory law. The decision to alter withholdings comes, for many employers, with an investment in retooling existing payroll systems. An employer may decide that the costs associated with implementing such a change, to decrease withholdings for four months, then to increase withholdings when the payback period begins, then to decrease withholdings back to ordinary levels when the appropriate amount is recovered from the employee, outweigh any short-term benefits to employees offered by the deferred taxes. Possible Approaches for Companies in Light of the Presidential Memorandum Three possible approaches for employers to respond to the Memorandum and Notice present themselves: (1) continue to withhold, (2) adopt the tax deferral pursuant to the Notice, either for all eligible employees or for employees who consent to participate and (3) wait and see. The simplest approach is to continue to withhold. This avoids the need to modify payroll systems and avoids the risk of liability if an employee terminates employment prior to the corrective amount being deducted from employees. It also avoids employees asking why additional amounts are being deducted from their pay during the first four months of 2021. If an employer wishes to adopt the tax deferral, the employer will no longer withhold the 6.2% Social Security tax from eligible employees (or from participating employees if the employer adopts tax deferral only for employees who wish to participate). This will provide an employee with increased cash during the deferral period, but will require a greater withholding during the beginning of 2021 to cover the deferred tax obligation. As mentioned above, the employer will still be obligated to pay the deferred taxes even if they are unable to be recovered from the employee during the payback period. This approach would require adjusting the employer’s payroll systems at least twice. There are further complications to this adjustment if an employee is hired during this period or the employee’s compensation changes during this period (complications in assuring that the correct amount is deducted to replace the amount that would have been deducted). An additional complication is only employees with gross pay less than $4,000 during a bi-weekly payroll period are eligible for the tax deferral for that period. A third approach may be available, but goes against the reason for the tax deferral outlined in the Memorandum (allowing employees to retain more pay during the remainder of 2020). Under the third approach, an employer may decide to take a “wait and see” approach to the Notice. This would mean that the employer continues to withhold the 6.2% of wages from the employee, but it does not remit the payment to the Internal Revenue Service until the payback period. If Congress enacts a payroll tax holiday, the employer may return the money to the employees as appropriate; if no further government action is taken, the employer will remit the withheld wages to the IRS during the payback period. This approach will not provide any extra cash to employees, but it would prevent any adverse consequences to the employees when the deferred tax obligations come due. This approach would require some retooling of the employer’s tax infrastructure, but the employer will not have to alter any systems that are in place to withhold from employees. Under this approach there is no risk to employers that they will be unable to recover deferred tax obligations from employees during the payback period, although there is a cursory suggestion in the Notice that failure to deposit penalties could be imposed as a result of the fact that taxes were, in fact, withheld from employees. For Further Discussion Many employers are receiving questions from employees about the payroll tax deferral provided for in the Memorandum. If you would like assistance in answering these questions or in determining what approach to take in response to the Memorandum and Notice, please contact any one of us or any of the Dorsey attorneys with whom you work.  

Client Alert

DOL and IRS Relief on Deadlines

May 7, 2020

The DOL and IRS have issued relief for employers, participants, and beneficiaries regarding a number of deadlines with respect to employee benefit plans.  This update reviews three recent pieces of guidance that provide relief. Background Section 518 of ERISA (as amended by section 3607 of the CARES Act) provides in the event of a Presidentially declared disaster or a public health emergency, the Secretary of Labor (DOL) may issue guidance suspending deadlines for affected plan administrators, participants, and beneficiaries for a period of up to one year.  In addition, section 7508A of the Internal Revenue Code provides in the event of a Presidentially declared disaster the Secretary of the Treasury may issue guidance suspending deadlines for affected plan administrators, participants, and beneficiaries for a period of up to one year.  In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the agencies have exercised this authority. DOL and IRS Final Regulations DOL and IRS final regulations (published in the federal register on May 4, 2020) suspend several employee benefit plan deadlines for the period from March 1, 2020 until 60 days after the announced end of the National Emergency (the “Outbreak Period”).  Much of the relief is for participants and beneficiaries.  The deadlines then commence (or resume) to run as of that date.  The affected plans and affected deadlines: Health plans – The HIPAA 30- or 60-day special enrollment period. Health plans – The COBRA 60-day election period. Health plans – The COBRA 45-day initial premium payment period. Health plans – The COBRA 30-day grace period for subsequent premiums. Health plans – The COBRA notification date for a qualifying event or disability determination. Health plans – External review:  The request for external review date by which a claimant is to file a request for an external review after receipt of an adverse determination. Health plans – External review:  The date within which a claimant may file information to perfect a request for external review upon a finding that the request was not complete. Health and retirement plans – ERISA claims. Health and retirement plans – ERISA claim appeals. The regulations contain examples that, when combined below, illustrate how COBRA premium payments work under the suspended deadlines.  The examples suppose a terminated participant (suppose terminated as of February 1, 2020) timely elects COBRA and makes the February COBRA premium payment.  Suppose the National Emergency ended April 30, 2020, in which case the suspension period would end June 29, 2020.  The participant is not required to make the COBRA premium payments for March, April, May, or June until July 29, 2020 (rather than the first day of each of these months).  Thus, the 30-day grace period for the payments for these months is July 29, 2020 (30 days after June 29, 2020).  The participant is entitled to coverage under the group health plan until the premium payments are due.  If by July 29, 2020 the participant has only paid two months of premium payments, these are applied to March and April 2020 and the participant is then not covered after April 2020. The regulations are available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-05-04/pdf/2020-09399.pdf. EBSA Disaster Relief Notice 2020-01 The DOL has issued EBSA Notice 2020-01 which provides relief from a number of deadlines. First, the notice provides relief for deadlines related to providing certain required notices or disclosures to participants and beneficiaries during the same Outbreak Period noted above if the employer has acted in good faith in working to provide the notices.  This relief does not mean that plan administrators are not required to provide the notices noted below, but rather that if they are unable to provide them due to the coronavirus.  This relief extends to the following ERISA disclosures: Annual funding notices required by ERISA section 101(f). Summary annual reports (SARs). Summary plan descriptions (SPDs) and summaries of material modifications (SMMs). QDRO notices. Periodic pension benefit statements required by ERISA section 105. General plan notices (such as plan fee disclosures). Qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) notices. Notices of adverse benefit determinations and appeals. Blackout notices. Note that the notice does not provide relief with respect to Form 5500 filings (IRS Notice 2020-23 provides some relief with respect to non-calendar year plans). Second, the notice indicates that the DOL will not take enforcement action in connection with a temporary delay in forwarding elective contributions and loan repayments to a retirement plan trustee during the Outbreak Period, if the failure is solely attributable to the coronavirus outbreak. Again, employers and plan administrators should work to forward the elective contributions and loan payments as soon as practicable. The notice ends with the DOL acknowledging that the coronavirus may cause problems with fiduciary compliance.  The DOL indicates it will focus on compliance assistance instead of enforcement during this time.  The notice is available at: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/disaster-relief/ebsa-disaster-relief-notice-2020-01.pdf. IRS Notice 2020-23 The IRS has issued Notice 2020-23 which also provides relief. Notice 2020-23 extended retirement plan deadlines due on April 1 through July 14 to July 15, 2020, including the following: Plan loan repayments due during the period April 1, 2020 to July 14, 2020. The 60-day window to roll over an eligible rollover distribution received from an eligible retirement plan, so that the participant will have until the later of (i) 60 days after receipt of the distribution or (ii) July 15, 2020 to complete the rollover. The April 15, 2020 deadline for a plan to distribute employee deferrals in excess of the Internal Revenue Code section 402(g) limit (plus associated earnings) for calendar year 2019. The 90-day deadline to elect a permissible withdrawal from an eligible automatic contribution arrangement (EACA) after the date of the employee’s first elective contri¬bution under the EACA. The deadline for restating a retirement plan by the close of its remedial amendment period. Non-calendar year plans may also be able to use the extension with respect to the following deadlines: The 2½-month period after the close of the plan year deadline to distribute excess contributions (ADP testing) and excess aggregate contributions (ACP testing), and related earnings on both, to avoid the 10% excise tax imposed on such excess amounts. The end of the following plan year deadline to correct ADP and ACP test failures by distributing excess contributions and excess aggregate contributions to highly compensated employees. The Form 5500 series and the Form 8955-SSA filing deadline. The notice is at 2020-18 IRB 742 (April 27, 2020), which is available at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb20-18.pdf. Next Steps With all of these extensions, the best course for plan administrators is to continue to comply with the timing requirements for distributing notices and to provide relief to participants with respect to the deadlines if they miss one of the deadlines.  The relief does not require employers to issue a broad-based notice about the suspension of the deadlines or to change forms.  Employers will need to review processes (for example, if an employer in the past sent a participant who had not paid a COBRA premium on time a communication that COBRA would be discontinued for failure to pay premiums within the grace period, the employer needs to modify this practice during the Outbreak Period).  Hopefully, the DOL and IRS will provide additional guidance on implementing the relief. Please contact the attorney you work with at Dorsey with questions and for further assistance. For further updates on the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19), please visit Dorsey's Coronavirus Resource Center.  

Legal Writings

  • Contributing Author, ERISA chapter of Employment Law and Practice, 3d ed., Minnesota Practice Series, West (2005-2017)
  • Author, numerous client updates

Firm Highlights

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.