Tag: Biden

Auto Industry Picks up Capitol Hill Advocacy on Reports of Resurgence of Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) Proposal

Last week, General Motors Chair and CEO Marry Barra, Toyota Motor North America President and CEO Ted Ogawa, Ford Motor Company CEO James Farley, and Stellantis CEO Carlos Taveres sent a letter to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy revamping the industry’s advocacy for the inclusion of certain production tax credits ahead of a possible budget reconciliation package.

This letter comes on the heels of recent reports on Capitol Hill that the lynchpin to the Senate passing a budget reconciliation package, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), has had multiple in person conversations with Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer regarding a legislative path forward on the proposal.

The letter specifically advocated for the inclusion in any final BBB proposal of House-passed legislation, authored by Congressman Dan Kildee (D-MI-05) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) which would extend and build on current tax credits for EVs. Specifically, the provision would make consumers eligible for a $7,500 credit for eligible EV purchases for the first five years and an additional $4,500 credit if the EV is manufactured by a unionized facility, and an additional $500 credit if the EV uses an American made battery. In addition, the proposal would amend the current credit authority to make the credits refundable and transferrable at the time of purchase rather than consumers having to claim the credit on their tax return. Finally, the proposal would bar consumers making over $400,000 from eligibility and creates EV price limits to preclude luxury EVs from eligibility.

While this provision enjoys broad Democrat support in the Senate, Senator Manchin, foreign automakers and Tesla have publicly criticized the $4,500 bonus for union made vehicles.

Additional Electric Vehicle Infrastructure funding that could be included in the bill include:

  • Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Rebate Program –$2 billion for eligible entities for covered expenses associated with EV supplies including grounding conductors, attachment plugs and other fittings, electrical equipment, batteries, among other things;
  • Electric Vehicle Charging Equity Program – $1 billion to provide technical assistance, education and outreach, or grants for projects that increase deployment and accessibility of EV supply equipment in underserved or disadvantaged communities;
  • General Services Administration Clean Vehicle Fleet program – $5 billion for GSA for the procurement of EVs and related infrastructure for the Federal Fleet (excluding USPS and DOD vehicles);
  • United States Postal Service Clean Vehicle Fleet and Facility Maintenance – $3 billion for the USPS to purchase electric delivery vehicles and $4 billion for the purchase of related infrastructure; and
  • District of Columbia Clean Vehicle Fleet – $10 million for the District of Columbia for the procurement of EVs and related infrastructure.

While it is unclear what would be in a final BBB deal or if it would have the votes to pass the House and the Senate, industry representatives are descending on Capitol Hill to push for critical funding and tax provisions that could have significant benefits to their respective industries, especially those provisions that could lower costs for producers and consumers in the current economic climate.

Article By William Ball of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more utilities and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Surprise! The No Surprises Act Changes Again

The No Surprises Act (Act), which became effective Jan. 1, 2022, is the latest health care law passed with the best of intent: to create consumer protection from unexpected out-of-network medical bills and to create a federal independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to resolve payment disputes between payers and out-of-network providers. Unfortunately, the Act, especially the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) implementation of the IDR process, also creates a new administrative burden for health care providers. Providers and medical associations filed lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions to challenge HHS’ implementation of the IDR process and the constitutionality of the Act before it was even in effect.

On Feb. 24, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the Texas Medical Association’s Motion for Summary Judgement to vacate select IDR requirements. The Court found that HHS’ interim final rule’s IDR process, intended to resolve payment disputes regarding reimbursement for out-of-network emergency services and out-of-network services provided at in-network facilities, was contrary to the clear language of the Act[1] (Rule).

In general, the Act[2] requires health insurance payers (Insurers) to reimburse providers for certain out-of-network services at a statutorily calculated “out-of-network rate.”[3] Where an All-Payer Model Agreement or specified state law does not exist, to set such a rate, an Insurer must issue an initial out-of-network rate decision and pay such amount to the providers within 30 days after the out-of-network claim is submitted.[4] If the provider disagrees with the Insurer’s proposed out-of-network reimbursement rate, the provider has a 30-day window to negotiate a different payment rate with the Insurer.[5] If these negotiations fail, the parties can proceed to the IDR process.[6]

Congress adopted a baseball-style arbitration model for the Act’s IDR process. The Insurer and provider each submit a proposed out-of-network rate with limited supporting evidence. The arbitrator picks one of the offers while taking into account specified considerations, including the “qualified payment amount,” the provider’s training, experience, quality, and outcomes measurements, the provider’s market share, the patient’s acuity, the provider’s teaching status, case mix, and scope of services, and the provider’s/Insurer’s good-faith attempts to enter into a network agreement.[7] The “qualifying payment amount” (QPA), is designed to represent the median rate the Insurer would pay for the item or service if it were provided by an in-network provider.[8]

The Rule requires the IDR arbitrator to select the proposed payment amount that is closest to the QPA unless “the certified IDR entity [arbitrator] determines that credible information submitted by either party … clearly demonstrates that the [QPA] is materially different[9] from the appropriate out-of-network rate.”[10] This is a clear departure from the analysis set forth in the Act.

The Texas Medical Association challenged the Rule under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), arguing that the Departments exceeded their authority by giving “outsized weight” to one statutory factor over the others specified by Congress, and that the Departments failed to comply with the APA’s notice and comments requirements in promulgating the Rule. In turn, the Departments argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the claims.

After dispensing with defendant’s standing arguments, the Eastern District of Texas Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and determined that “the Act unambiguously establishes the framework for deciding payment disputes and concludes that the Rule conflicts with the statutory text.” Under the Act, the arbitrators (or certified IDR entities) “shall consider … the qualifying payment amounts” and the provider’s level of training, experience, and quality outcomes, the market share held by the provider, the patient’s acuity, the provider’s teaching status, case mix, and scope of services, and the demonstrated good faith efforts of both parties in entering into a network agreement.”[11] The Act did not specify that any one factor should be considered the “primary” or “most important” factor. The Rule, in contrast, requires arbitrators to “select the offer closest to the [QPA]” unless “credible” information, including information supporting the “additional factors,” “clearly demonstrates that the [QPA] is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.”[12] The Departments characterized the other factors as “permissible additional factors” that may be considered only when appropriate.[13] The Court found that the Department’s Rule was inconsistent with the Act and that since Congress had spoken clearly on the factors to be considered in the arbitration process, the Department’s interpretation of the Act was not appropriate and had exceeded the Department’s authority.[14]

Following the Court’s decision, the Departments issued a memorandum on Feb. 28, 2022, clarifying the Act’s requirements for providers and Insurers. The memo specifically noted that the Court’s decision would not, in their opinion, affect the patient-provider dispute resolution process.[15] The Departments also stated they would withdraw any guidance inconsistent with the Court’s Opinion, provide additional training for interested parties, and keep the IDR process portal open to resolve disputes. The Departments also will be considering further rulemaking to address the IDR process.

The No Surprises Act continues to surprise us all with more adaptations. Enforcement of this new law remains uncertain in light of the numerous legal challenges, including at least one constitutionality challenge.

[1] Requirements Related to Surprise Billing: Part II, 86 Fed. Reg. 55,980 (Oct. 7, 2021).

[2] Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. BB, tit. I, 134 Stat. 1182, 2758-2890 (2020).

[3] 300gg-111(a)(1)(C)(iv)(II) and (b)(1)(D).

[4] 300gg-111(a)(1)(C)(iv) and (b)(1)(C).

[5] 300gg-111(c)(1)(A).

[6] 300gg-111(c)(1)(B).

[7] 300gg-111(c)(5).

[8] 300gg-111(a)(3)(E)(i)(I)-(II).

[9] “Material difference” is defined as “a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person with the training and qualifications of a certified IDR entity making a payment determination would consider the submitted information significant in determining the out-of-network rate and would view the information as showing that the [QPA] is not the appropriate out-of-network rate. 149.510(a)(2)(viii).

[10] 45 C.F.R. 149.510(c)(4)(ii).

[11] 300gg-111(c)(5)(C)(i)-(ii).

[12] 45 C.F.R. 149.510(c)(4)(ii)(A).

[13] 86 Fed. Reg. 56,080.

[14] Because the Departments had exceeded their statutory authority, no Chevron deference was owed to their regulations. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984).

[15] This is a separate dispute resolution process designed to address disputes between patients and providers when bills for uninsured and self-pay patients are inconsistent with the good faith estimate provided by the health care provider.

Article By Stacey A. Borowicz and Joseph D. Wheeler of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

For more healthcare legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Congress Grants Five Month Extension for Telehealth Flexibilities

On Tuesday, March 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (“2022 CAA”). This new law includes several provisions that extend the Medicare telehealth waivers and flexibilities, implemented as a result of COVID-19 to facilitate access to care, for an additional 151 days after the end of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”). This equates to about a five-month period.

The 2022 CAA extension captures most of the core PHE telehealth flexibilities authorized as part of Medicare’s pandemic response, including the following:

  • Geographic Restrictions and Originating Sites: During the extension, Medicare beneficiaries can continue to receive telehealth services from anywhere in the country, including their home. Medicare is permitting telehealth services to be provided to patients at any site within the United States, not just qualifying zip codes or locations (e.g. physician offices/facilities).
  • Eligible Practitioners: Occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, and qualified audiologists will continue to be able to furnish and receive payment for telehealth services as eligible distant site practitioners during the extension period.
  • Mental Health:  In-person requirements for certain mental health services will continue to be waived through the 151-day extension period.
  • Audio-Only Telehealth Services: Medicare will continue to provide coverage and payment for most telehealth services furnished using audio-only technology. This includes professional consultations, office visits, and office psychiatry services (identified as of July 1, 2000 by HCPCS Codes 99241-99275, 99201-99215, 90804-90809 and 90862) and any other services added to the telehealth list by the CMS Secretary for which CMS has not expressly required the use of real-time, interactive audio-visual equipment during the PHE.

Additionally, the 2022 CAA allocates $62,500,000 from the federal budget to be used for grants for telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas. Such funds may be used to finance construction of facilities and systems providing telemedicine services and distance learning services in qualified “rural areas.”

Passage of the 2022 CAA is a substantial step in the right direction for stakeholders hoping to see permanent legislative change surrounding Medicare telehealth reimbursement.

Article By Joelle M. Wilson and Laura Little of Polsinelli PC

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Senator Manchin Announces That He Will Not Support the Build Back Better Act – Where Things Stand Now

Today, December 19, 2021, Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) said that he opposes the Build Back Better Act, which effectively prevents its passage.  While there are no immediate prospects for the Build Back Better Act to become law, future tax acts tend to draw upon earlier proposals.  With a view to future tax proposals, this blog summarizes the final draft that was released by the Senate Finance Committee on December 11, 2021 (the “Build Back Better Bill”), and compares it to the bill passed by the House of Representatives (the “House Bill”) and the prior bill that was released by the House Ways and Means Committee in September 2021 (the “Prior House Bill”), which the House Bill was based on.  In light of Senator Manchin’s announcement, this blog refers to the bills in the past tense.

Summary of Significant Changes to Current Law in the Build Back Better Bill

Individual taxation

  •  A 5% surtax would have been imposed on income in excess of $10 million ($5 million for a married individual filing a separate return) and a 3% additional surtax would have been imposed on income in excess of $25 million ($12.5 million for a married individual filing a separate return). The surtax would have also applied to non-grantor trusts but at significantly lower thresholds – the 5% surtax would apply to income in excess of $200,000 and the 3% surtax would apply to income in excess of $500,000.  The individual income tax rates would have otherwise remained the same as under current law.
  • The 3.8% net investment income tax would have been expanded to apply to the active trade or business income of taxpayers earning more than $400,000. As a result, active trade or business income allocated to a limited partner of a limited partnership or a shareholder of a subchapter S corporation would have been subject to the net investment income tax. Under current law, the tax applies only to certain portfolio and passive income.  Under current law, a limited partner of a limited partnership and a shareholder of a subchapter S corporation is otherwise not subject to self-employment taxes.  The Build Back Better Act would not have had otherwise imposed self-employment taxes on S corporation shareholders or limited partners.
  • The exemption of gains on the disposition of “qualified small business stock” would have been reduced from 100% to 50% for taxpayers earning more than $400,000/year, and all trusts and estates.
  • “Excess business losses” in excess of $250,000 ($500,000 in the case of a joint return) would have been carried forward as business losses (thus remaining still subject to the limitation) and would not have been converted to net operating losses, and the excess business loss provision would have been made permanent. It currently is scheduled to expire in 2026.
  • Losses recognized with respect to worthless partnership interests would have been treated as capital losses (rather than ordinary losses as is often the case under current law), and would have been taken when the event establishing worthlessness occurs (rather than at the end of the year under current law).
  • The wash sale rules would have been expanded to cover commodities, foreign currencies, and digital assets, like cryptocurrency, as well as dispositions by parties related to the taxpayer.
  • The constructive ownership rules would have been expanded to cover digital assets, like cryptocurrency.

Business taxation

  • A corporate minimum tax of 15% would have been imposed on “book income” of certain large corporations. But the corporate income tax rates would have remained unchanged at 21%.
  • 1% excise tax would have been imposed on the value of stock repurchased by a corporation.
  • The interest expense deduction of a domestic corporation that is part of an “international financial reporting group” and whose average annual net interest expense exceeds $12 million over a three-year period would have been disallowed to the extent its net interest expenses for financial reporting purposes exceeds 110% of its proportionate share (determined based on its share of either the group’s EBITDA or adjusted basis of assets) of the net interest expense for financial reporting purposes of the group. The disallowed interest deduction could be carried forward for subsequent years.
  • Losses recognized by a corporate shareholder in liquidation of its majority-owned corporate subsidiary would have been deferred until substantially all of property received in the liquidation is disposed of by the shareholder.
  • Corporations spinning off subsidiaries would have been limited in their ability to use debt of the subsidiary to receive tax-free cash.

International taxation

  • A foreign person who owns 10% or more of the total vote or value of the stock of a corporate issuer (as opposed to 10% or more of total vote under current law) would have been ineligible for the portfolio interest exemption.
  • The Build Back Better Bill would have substantially revise the various international tax rules enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), including “GILTI”, “FDII” and “BEAT” regimes.
  • Foreign tax credit limitation rules would have been applied on a country-by-country basis.
  • Section 871(m), which imposes U.S. withholding tax on U.S.-dividend equivalent payments on swaps and forward contracts, would have been expanded to require withholding on swaps and forwards with respect to, or by reference to, interests in publicly traded partnerships.[1]

Proposals Not Included in the Build Back Better Bill

The Build Back Better Bill would not have:

  • Increased individual and corporate income tax rates (other than the surtaxes);
  • Changed the tax treatment of carried interests;
  • Affected the “pass-through deduction” under section 199A;
  • Affected “like-kind” exchanges under section 1031;
  • Increased the cap on social security tax withholding;
  • Changed the $10,000 annual cap on state and local tax deductions;[2] or
  • Treated death as a realization event.

Discussion

Individual Tax Changes

Surtax on individuals

The Build Back Better Bill would have added new section 1A, which would have imposed a tax equal to 5% of a taxpayer’s “modified adjusted gross income” in excess of $10 million (or in excess of $5 million for a married individual filing a separate return).  Modified adjusted gross income would have been adjusted gross income reduced by any reduction allowed for investment interest expenses.  Modified adjusted gross income would not have been reduced by charitable deductions and credits would not have been allowed to offset this surtax.  An additional 3% tax would have been imposed on a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income over $25 million (or in excess of $12.5 mm for taxpayers filing as married filing separately).  The surtaxes would also have applied to non-grantor trusts at significantly lower thresholds – the 5% surtax would apply to modified adjusted gross income in excess of $200,000 and the 3% additional surtax would have applied to modified adjusted gross income in excess of $500,000.

As a result, the top marginal federal income tax rate on modified adjusted gross income in excess of $25 million would have been 45% for ordinary income and 31.8% for capital gains (including the net investment income tax).  Nevertheless, the Build Back Better Bill rate on capital gains would have remained meaningfully less than the 39.6% rate proposed by the Biden Administration.

The Build Back Better Bill did not include a change to the individual income tax rates, which was a major departure from the Prior House Bill.  The Prior House Bill included a similar surtax on individual taxpayers, but the threshold was lower at $5 million for taxpayers that file joint returns and the surtax rate was 3%.

The surtax would have been effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.

Application of net investment income tax to active business income; increased threshold

The Build Back Better Bill would have expanded the 3.8% net investment income tax to apply to net income derived in an active trade or business of the taxpayer, rather than only to certain portfolio income and passive income of the taxpayer under current law.

As a result, the 3.8% net investment income tax would have been imposed on limited partners who traditionally have not been subject to self-employment tax on their distributive share of income, and S corporation shareholders who have not been subject to self-employment tax on more than a reasonable salary. This proposed change was generally consistent with the Biden administration’s proposal to impose 3.8% Medicare tax (although the additional net investment income tax proposed in the Build Back Better Bill would not be used to fund Medicare).

The Build Back Better Bill also would have limited the 3.8% net investment income tax so that it applies only to taxpayers with taxable income greater than $400,000 (and $500,000 in the case of married individuals filing a joint return), rather than $250,000 under current law.

These changes were consistent with the proposals in the Prior House Bill and would have applied in taxable years beginning after 2021.

Limitation on “qualified small business stock” benefits

The Build Back Better Bill would have limited the exemption of eligible gain for disposition of “qualified small business stock” (“QSBS”) to 50% for taxpayers with adjusted gross income of $400,000 or more, as well as all trusts and estates, and would have subjected the gain to the alternative minimum tax.

Very generally, under current law, non-corporate taxpayers are entitled to exclude from tax up to 100% of gain from the disposition of QSBS that has been held for more than 5 years.[3]  In addition, gain from the sale of QSBS can potentially be deferred if proceeds are reinvested in other QSBS.

The same proposal was included in the House Bill and the Prior House Bill.  The Prior House Bill contained a proposal to increase corporate tax rates, which together with the proposed changes to the QSBS rules, would have further limited desirability of investing in QSBS. The Build Back Better Bill, the House Bill and the Prior House Bill only addressed the rules applicable to exclusion of gain from the sale of QSBS, and did not alter the rules allowing for deferral of gains for proceeds invested in other QSBS.   Although the benefits associated with ownership of QSBS would have remained significant, had the Build Back Better Bill passed, in light of the reduction in potential gain that would have been excluded, the Build Back Better Bill would have required a reevaluation of choice-of-entity decisions based on QSBS benefits.

The proposal would have been effective retroactively and apply to sales or exchanges of stock on or after September 13, 2021, which is the date that the Prior House Bill was released.

Excess business losses

Under current law, for taxable years that begin before January 1, 2027, non-corporate taxpayers may not deduct excess business loss (generally, net business deductions over business income) if the loss is in excess of $250,000 ($500,000 in the case of a joint return), indexed for inflation.  The excess loss becomes a net operating loss in subsequent years and is available to offset 80% of taxable income each year.  The Build Back Better Bill would have made this limitation permanent and would treat the losses carried forward to the next taxable year as deduction attributable to trades or businesses, which would have been subject to the excess business losses limitation under section 461(l).  As a result, no more than $250,000/$500,000 in losses could be used in any year, and excess business losses would never have become net operating losses.  Unlike deductions that are suspended under the passive activity rules and at-risk rules that become deductible upon a disposition of the interest in the relevant trade or business, the excess business losses continue to be limited after the sale of the relevant trade or business.

This proposal is consistent with the Prior House Bill and would have been retroactive and apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020.

Worthless partnership interest and limitation on loss recognition in corporate liquidations

Under current law, if a partner’s interest in a partnership becomes worthless, in the taxable year of worthlessness the partner may take an ordinary loss if the partner receives no consideration and a capital loss in all other cases.  As a practical matter, this rule allows for an ordinary loss if the partner has no share of any liabilities of the partnership immediately prior to the claim of worthlessness, or a capital loss if the partner has a share of any partnership liability immediately prior to the claim of worthlessness (because relief of partnership liabilities is treated as consideration received in a sale).  Under current law, if a security (not including an obligation issued by a partnership) that is held as a capital asset becomes worthless, the loss is treated as occurring on the last day of the taxable year in which the security became worthless.

Under the Build Back Better Bill, if a partnership interest becomes worthless, the resulting loss would have been treated as a capital loss (and not an ordinary loss).  Also, in the case of a partnership interest or a security that becomes worthless, the loss would have been recognized at the time of the identifiable event establishing worthlessness (and not at the end of the taxable year).  The proposal would also have expanded the scope of securities subject to worthless securities rules to included obligations (bond, debenture, note, or certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness, with interest coupons or in registered form) issued by partnerships.  These proposals were also included in the Prior House Bill and would apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.

The Build Back Better Bill would also have deferred the loss that is recognized by one corporate member of a controlled group[4] when a subsidiary merges into it in a taxable transaction under section 331 until substantially all of the property received in the liquidation is disposed to a third-party.  This proposal would effectively have eliminated taxpayers’ ability to enter into Granite Trust transactions to recognize capital losses by liquidating an insolvent subsidiary.[5]  A similar loss deferral rule would also have applied to dissolution of a corporation with worthless stock or issuance of debt in connection with which corporate stock becomes worthless.  This proposal would have applied to liquidations occurring on or after the date of enactment.

Expansion of wash sale and constructive sale rules

The Build Back Better Bill would have expanded the application of wash sale rules and constructive sale rules to cryptocurrencies and other digital assets.

The Build Back Better Bill would also have expanded the wash sale rules to include transactions made by related parties.  The wash sale rules disallow a loss from a sale or disposition of stock or securities if the taxpayer acquires or enters into a contract to acquire substantially similar stock or securities thirty days before or after the sale giving rise to the claimed loss.  The basis of the acquired assets in the wash sale is increased to include the disallowed loss.  Under the Build Back Better Bill, a wash sale would also have occurred when a “related party” to the taxpayer (other than a spouse) acquires the substantial similar stock or securities within the thirty-day period.[6]  More significantly, the disallowed loss in a wash sale triggered by a related party (other than a spouse) would have been permanently disallowed under the Build Back Better Bill. If the Build Back Better Bill had passed, it would have been challenging for certain taxpayers to comply with the related party provisions—and very difficult for the IRS to enforce it.  Under the provision, if a parent were to sell stock at a loss and, within 30 days, her child were to purchase the same stock, the parent’s loss would have been denied, even if neither parent nor child knew about each other’s trades.

The Build Back Better Bill would have exempted from the wash sale rules foreign currency and commodity trades that were directly related to the taxpayer’s business needs (other than the business of trading currency or commodities).  This exception would not have applied to digital assets.

Finally, the Build Back Better Bill would have provided that an appreciated short sale, short swap, short forward, or futures contract is constructively sold under section 1259 when the taxpayer enters into a contract to acquire the reference property (and not when the taxpayer actually acquires the reference property, as current law provides).

The changes were the same as those proposed in the Prior House Bill.  The proposal would have applied after 2021.

SALT deductions

The Build Back Better Bill has a “placeholder for compromise on deduction for state and local taxes”.  This is a key departure from the House Bill, which included an increase to the current annual $10,000 cap on SALT deductions to $80,000 until 2030, at which time the $10,000 annual limitation would apply again.

Business Tax Changes

Corporate alternative minimum tax

The Build Back Better Bill would impose a 15% minimum tax on “book income” of corporations with a 3-year average book income in excess of $1 billion.  A corporation’s book income would have been calculated based on the corporation’s audited financial statement (or if publicly traded, the financial statement shown on SEC Form 10-K), but adjusted to take into account certain U.S. income tax principles.[7]  Because this is a minimum tax, a corporation would have paid any excess amount of this minimum tax over its regular tax for the applicable tax year.  This minimum tax would also have applied to a foreign-parented U.S. corporation if the U.S. corporation has an average annual book income of $100 million or above.

The Prior House Bill did not include this corporate minimum tax based on book income, but the Biden administration’s tax reform proposals included a similar corporate minimum tax for large corporations.  The Build Back Better Bill does not otherwise provide for an increase in corporate income tax rates.

The corporate minimum tax would have been effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022.   

Limitation on business interest expense deductions

The Build Back Better Bill would have introduced an additional interest deduction limitation for a U.S. corporate member of an international group that has disproportionate interest expense as compared to the other members of the group.  New section 163(n) would generally have limited the interest deduction of a U.S. corporation that is part of an “international financial reporting group” and has net interest expense that exceeds $12 million (over a three-year period) if the ratio of its net interest expense to its EBITDA (or if an election is made, the aggregated bases of its assets)[8] exceeds by 110% of the similar ratio for the group.

Proposed section 163(n) was similar to what was included in the Prior House Bill, as well as a proposal that was included in the Senate and House bill for TCJA that was ultimately dropped in the conference agreement between the Senate and the House.  This limitation appears to target base erosion interest payments that may not be captured under the BEAT regime (which is further discussed in detail below).

The Build Back Better Bill would also have revised section 163(j) to treat partnerships as aggregates for purposes of applying the business interest expense limitation.  As a result, the section 163(j) limitation would have been applied at the partner level.  Under current law, the limitation, which very generally limits business interest expense deduction to 30% of EBITDA, is applied at the partnership level.   The interest deductions limited under section 163(j) or (n) (whichever imposes a lower limitation) would have continued to be allowed to be carried forward indefinitely (as opposed to 5 years under the Prior House Bill).

The proposals would have been effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022.

Limitation on using controlled corporation’s debt in a spin-off transaction

The Build Back Better Bill would have limited the ability of a U.S. “distributing corporation” to effectively receive cash tax-free from a spun-off “controlled corporation” subsidiary.  Under current law, a controlled corporation can issue debt securities to its parent distributing corporation that the distributing corporation can then use to redeem its own outstanding debt on a tax-free basis in connection with the spin-off of the controlled corporation.  The Build Back Better Bill would have required the parent distributing corporation to recognize gain in this transaction to the extent that the amount of controlled corporation debt it transfers to its creditors exceeds (x) the aggregate basis of any assets it transfers to its controlled corporation in connection with the spin-off less (y) the total amount of liabilities the controlled corporation assumes from it and (z) any payments that the controlled corporation makes to it. This effectively would have treated the debt securities issued by a controlled corporation as same as any other property distributed by the controlled corporation (which is commonly called as “boot”).

The proposal would have applied to reorganizations occurring on or after the date of enactment.

Excise tax on corporate stock buybacks

The Build Back Better Bill would have imposed a nondeductible 1% excise tax on publicly traded U.S. corporations engaging in stock buybacks. The tax was to be imposed on the value of the stock “repurchased” by the corporation during the tax year, reduced by value of stock issued by the corporation during the tax year (including those issued to the employees).  The term “repurchase” is defined as a redemption within the meaning of section 317(b), which is a transaction in which a corporation acquires its stock from a shareholder in exchange for property.  Repurchases that are (i) dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes, (ii) part of tax-free reorganizations, (iii) made to contribute stock to an employee pension plan or ESOP, (iv) made by a dealer in securities in the ordinary course of business, or (v) made by a RIC or a REIT are not subject to the excise tax.  Also, repurchases that are less than $1 million in a year are excluded.

It was unclear how the value of repurchased stock was to be determined in calculating the excise tax amount.  The types of transactions that would have been covered under the proposed rule is also unclear.  The term “repurchase” was very broad and it could have had applied to different types of transactions, such as redemption of redeemable preferred stocks or redemption of stock in a company’s acquisition transaction.  The rule would also have had significant impact on de-SPAC transactions, which involve redemption rights for shareholders of the SPAC.  The Treasury would also have been provided with a broad authority to issue regulations to cover economically similar transactions.

The proposal would have applied to repurchases of stock after December 31, 2021.

International Tax Changes

Portfolio interest exemption

Under current law, a foreign person that owns 10% or more of the total voting power of a corporate issuer of debt is not eligible for the “portfolio interest” exemption, which provides for exemption from withholding on interest paid on certain debt.  Current law does not prohibit “de-control structures” under which the sponsor of a fund will typically invest a small percentage of the capital of a U.S. blocker in exchange for large percentage of its voting stock, thereby ensuring that no foreign investor will own 10% of the voting power of the U.S. blocker and permitting those foreign investors who own more than 10% of the value of the U.S. blocker to take the position that they may avoid U.S. withholding tax on interest received from the U.S. blocker.  The Build Back Better Bill would have revised this exception so that any person who owns 10% or more of the total vote or value of the stock of a corporate issuer would have been ineligible for the portfolio interest exemption.  This change would have prevented the de-control structures.

This proposal, which was also included in the Prior House Bill, would have applied to obligations issued after the date of enactment (i.e., all existing obligations would have been grandfathered).  However, if a grandfathered obligation was “significantly modified” for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it might have lost its grandfathered status.  Also, any subsequent draws on existing facilities that are made after the date of enactment would not have been grandfathered.

GILTI

The “global intangible low-taxed income” (“GILTI”) regime generally imposes a 10.5% minimum tax on 10-percent U.S. corporate shareholders of “controlled foreign corporations” (“CFCs”) based on the CFC’s “active” income in excess of a threshold equal to 10% of the CFC’s tax basis in certain depreciable tangible property (such basis, “qualified business asset investment”, or “QBAI”).  GILTI is not determined on a country-by-country basis, and, therefore, under current law a U.S. multinational corporation may be able to avoid the GILTI tax with respect to its subsidiaries operating in low-tax rate countries by “blending” income earned in the low tax-rate countries with income from high-tax rate countries.  Taxpayers are allowed 80% of the deemed paid foreign tax credit with respect to GILTI.

The Build Back Better Bill would have imposed GILTI on a country-by-country basis to prevent blending of income from a low tax-rate country with income from a high-tax rate country. This general approach would have been largely consistent with the prior proposals made by the Biden administration and the Senate Finance Committee.[9]

The Build Back Better Bill would have determined net CFC tested income and losses and QBAI on a country-by-country basis.  The Build Back Better Bill would have achieved this by using a “CFC taxable unit” – net CFC tested income and loss would have been determined separately for each country in which CFC taxable unit is a tax resident.  The Build Back Better Bill would have allowed a taxpayer to carryover country-specific net CFC tested loss to succeeding tax year to offset net CFC tested income of the same country.  In addition, taxpayers would no longer have been able to offset net CFC tested income from one jurisdiction with net CFC tested losses from another jurisdiction.  These proposed changes on determining net CFC tested income on a country-by-country basis were consistent with the Prior House Bill’s proposals.

The Build Back Better Bill would also have (i) reduced the exclusion amount from 10% to 5% of QBAI, (ii) increased the effective tax rate on GILTI for corporate taxpayers from 10.5% to 15%,[10] and (iii) helpfully reduced the “haircut” for deemed paid foreign tax credit for GILTI from 20% to 5% (i.e., 95% of GILTI amount would have been creditable as deemed paid credit).

The GILTI proposals would generally have been effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.

FDII

The “foreign-derived intangible income” (“FDII”) regime encourages U.S. multinational groups to keep intellectual property in the U.S. by providing a lower 13.125% effective tax rate for certain foreign sales and provision of certain services provided to unrelated foreign parties in excess of 10% of the taxpayer’s QBAI.  The lower effective tax rate is achieved by 37.5% deduction allowed for FDII under section 250.

The Build Back Better Bill would have reduced the section 250 deduction for FDII from 37.5% to 24.8%, which would have had the effect of increasing the effective rate for FDII from 13.125% to 15.8%.[11]  The Build Back Better Bill further provided that if a section 250 deduction actually exceeded the taxable income of the taxpayer, the deduction would have increased the net operating loss amount for the taxable year and could be used in subsequent years to offset up to 80% of taxable income.

This proposal generally would have been effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.

BEAT/SHIELD

The “base erosion and anti-abuse tax” (“BEAT”) generally provides for an add-on minimum tax, currently at 10%, on certain deductible payments that are made by very large U.S. corporations (generally, with at least $500 mm of average annual gross receipts) whose “base erosion percentage” (generally, the ratio of deductions for certain payments made to related foreign parties overall allowable deductions) is 3% or higher (or 2% for groups that include banks and securities dealers).

The Build Back Better Bill would have expanded the BEAT regime.  The proposal would have increased the BEAT tax rate gradually from 10% up to 18% by the taxable year starting after December 31, 2024.  The proposal would also have substantially revised the formula for calculating “modified taxable income”, which generally appeared to have increased the income amount that would have been subject to the BEAT regime.  Finally, the Build Back Better Bill would have eliminated the 3%/2% de minimis exception.  These proposals were generally consistent with the BEAT proposals in the Prior House Bill, but with different tax rates.

The Build Back Better Bill did not include the Biden administration’s “Stopping Harmful Inversions and Ending Low-Tax Developments” (“SHIELD”), which had been proposed to replace the BEAT regime.

Changes to Subpart F regime

The Build Back Better Bill would have significantly changed the subpart F regime.  The Build Back Better Bill would have helpfully reinstated section 958(b)(4) retroactively.  Section 958(b)(4) had prevented “downward” attribution of ownership of foreign person to a related U.S. person for purposes of applying subpart F regime.  Section 958(b)(4) was repealed in the TCJA, which allowed stock owned by a foreign person to be attributed downward to a U.S. person for purposes of determining a foreign corporation’s CFC status.

To address the situation that had prompted the repeal of downward attribution, the Build Back Better Bill would have introduced a new section to apply the GILTI and subpart F regimes to a foreign corporation that would have been a CFC if the downward attribution rule had applied, but only if the U.S. shareholder held at least 50% of vote or value of the foreign corporation’s stock.  This regime would have been effective for taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment.

The Build Back Better Bill would also have allowed a U.S. shareholder of a foreign corporation to elect to treat the foreign corporation as a CFC, which may have permitted a taxpayer to exclude foreign-source dividends received from the foreign corporation under the Build Back Better Bill’s amended section 245A (which is discussed below).  The Build Back Better Bill also would have limited the scope of foreign base company sales and services income, which is includible as subpart F income, to sales and services provided to U.S. residents and pass-through entities and branches in the United States, which effectively would have subjected foreign base company sales and services income for non-U.S. sales and services to the GILTI regime.  The Build Back Better Bill also would have amended section 951(a) so that a United States shareholder that receives a dividend from a CFC would have been subject to tax on its pro-rata share of the CFC’s subpart F income (generally negating any deduction under section 245A with respect to the dividend), regardless of whether the shareholder held shares in the CFC on the last day of the taxable year.  Current law requires a United States shareholder to include Subpart F income only if it owned shares of the CFC on the last day of the taxable year.

Foreign tax credits

The Build Back Better Bill would have imposed the foreign tax credit limitation on a country-by-country basis.  Currently, foreign tax credits are calculated on an aggregate global basis and divided into baskets for active income, passive income, GILTI income, and foreign branch income.  The revised rules would have calculated foreign tax credit limitations based on a country-by-country “taxable unit”, which is consistent with the “CFC taxable unit” used under the Build Back Better Bill’s GILTI rules.  Together with the proposed amendments to the GILTI regime, this revision to the foreign tax credit limitation rules would have sought to prohibit taxpayers from using foreign tax credits from taxes paid in a high-tax jurisdiction against taxable income from a low-tax jurisdiction.

The Build Back Better Bill would have made a number of other changes to the foreign tax credit rules, including and repealing the carryback period (which, under current law, is 1 year, but retaining the current 10-year carryforward period for excess foreign tax credit limitation).

This proposal would have been generally effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.

Dividends from foreign corporations

The Build Back Better Bill would have amended section 245A so that the foreign portions of dividends received only from a CFC (rather than any specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation) would have qualified for the participation exemption (and not have been subject to U.S. federal income tax) under section 245A.[12]  Currently, section 245A allows foreign-source dividends from any specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation (a broader concept than CFC) to be exempt from U.S. tax under section 245A.  Although the provision appeared to narrow the scope of section 245A, as noted above, the Build Back Better Bill would have permitted a taxpayer and a foreign corporation to make an election to treat the foreign corporation as a CFC, in which case the benefits of section 245A would have been available to all dividends paid by the electing foreign corporation (even if U.S. shareholders own less than 10%).  This provision was consistent with the proposal in the Prior House Bill and would have been effective for distributions made after the date of the enactment.

Anti-inversion rules

The Senate Finance Committee’s Build Back Better Bill would have significantly expanded the anti-inversion rules.  Generally, under current law, a foreign acquirer of an inverted U.S. corporation – typically, an existing U.S. corporation that is acquired by a foreign acquirer and whose shareholders continue own the U.S. corporation indirectly through their ownership in the foreign acquirer – is treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, if the continuing ownership stake of the shareholders of the inverted U.S. corporation is 80% or more.   If the continuing ownership stake of the shareholders of the inverted U.S. corporation is between 60% and 80%, certain rules designed to prevent “earnings stripping” – or deductible payments by the U.S. corporation to its foreign parent – apply.

The Build Back Better Bill would have lowered the 80% threshold in treating a foreign acquirer of an inverted U.S. corporation as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes to 65%.  The Build Back Better Bill would also have lowered the 60% threshold in applying the earnings stripping rules to 50%.  Finally, the Build Back Better Bill would have expanded the scope of the anti-inversion rules to cover acquisitions of substantially all of the assets constituting (i) a trade or business of a U.S. corporation or partnership, or (ii) a U.S. trade or business of a non-U.S. partnership.

This provision was not included in the House Bill, but it did reflect some elements of an anti-inversion rule proposal by the Biden administration, such as the lowering of the 80% threshold to treat a foreign acquirer as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes and the expansion of the scope of the rules to cover certain asset acquisitions.  This proposal would have applied for taxable years ending after December 31, 2021.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

[2] The House Bill contained a provision that would raise the $10,000 cap to $80,000 for 2021 through 2030.

[3] The amount of gain eligible to be taken into account for these purposes by any taxpayer and any corporation is subject to a cap generally equal to the greater of (i) $10 million cumulative exclusions of gain with respect to that corporation and (ii) 10 times the taxpayer’s aggregate adjusted tax bases of QSBS of the corporation disposed of in that year.

[4] Generally, corporations connected through stock ownership of more than 50%.  Section 267(f).

[5] In a Granite Trust transaction, a corporate parent that owns a depreciated subsidiary reduces its ownership in the subsidiary to below 80% before liquidating the subsidiary so that the liquidation is taxable and any built-in loss of the parent in the subsidiary’s stock would have been recognized.

[6] A related party for this purpose includes (i) the taxpayer’s spouse, dependent, (ii) any corporation, partnership, trust or estate that is controlled by the taxpayer, and (iii) the taxpayer’s retirement account and certain other tax-advantaged investment accounts for which the taxpayer is the beneficiary or the fiduciary.

[7] For example, if a corporation owned foreign corporations that are “controlled foreign corporations” for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the corporation would have had to take into account its pro-rata share of such foreign corporation’s book income.  Also, prior year’s net operating losses (calculated for book purposes) could have been used to reduce the book income, but could have only offset 80% of the book income for the subsequent year.

[8] The election to use the aggregated bases of assets in lieu of EBITDA was added in the Senate Finance draft of the Bill.

[9] The Senate Finance Committee’s prior proposal (which included a draft legislation and a section-by-section explanation) provided for mandatory exclusion of high-taxed income.  This approach was different than the Build Back Better Bill, but the general approach of disallowing “blending” of income between high-tax jurisdiction and low-tax jurisdiction was the same.

[10] This would have been achieved by reducing the deduction provided to corporate taxpayers under section 250 from the current 50% level to 28.5%.  The Build Back Better Bill would have not changed the tax rate to be applied to a non-corporate taxpayer’s GILTI amount.  This was a lower rate than what was proposed in the Prior House Bill (37.5%), but the effective tax rate under the Prior House Bill was higher due to the increased income tax rates.

[11] The FDII deduction was higher under the Prior House Bill (at 21.875%), with an effective tax rate of 20.7% (taking into account the increased corporate rate).  The Senate Finance Committee’s prior proposal also stated that the FDII deduction would have been reduced, but did not commit to a specific percentage.

[12] The Build Back Better Bill would have also amended section 1059 so that if a corporation received a dividend from a CFC that was attributable to earnings and profits of the foreign corporation before it was a CFC or before it was owned by the corporation, the non-taxed portion of that dividend would have reduced the basis of the CFC’s stock, regardless of whether the corporation had held the CFC’s stock for 2 years or less.  Therefore, CFC’s dividends that are exempt from tax under section 245A could have been subject to the proposed expanded section 1059.

Article By David S Miller, Muhyung (Aaron) Lee, Amanda H Nussbaum, Arnold P May, and Daniel J. Paulos of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more legislative legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2021 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Biden Administration Issues New Government-Wide Anti-Corruption Strategy

On Dec. 7, 2021, the White House published a government-wide policy document entitled “United States Strategy on Countering Corruption” (“Strategy”). The Strategy implements President Biden’s National Security Memorandum from earlier in 2021, which declared international corruption a threat to U.S. national security.

The Strategy is notable for several reasons:

First, the Strategy focuses not just on the “supply side” of foreign bribery and corruption—that is, companies acting in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)—but also on the “demand side” of the equation, namely corrupt foreign officials and those who assist them. It promises to pair vigorous enforcement of the FCPA with efforts to hold corrupt leaders themselves accountable, via U.S. money laundering laws, economic sanctions, and visa restrictions.

Second, the Strategy specifically calls out the role of illicit finance in facilitating and perpetuating foreign corruption, promising “aggressive enforcement” against those who facilitate the laundering of corrupt proceeds through the U.S. economy. Professional gatekeepers such as lawyers, accountants, and trust and company service providers are specifically identified as targets of future scrutiny. The Strategy also promises to institute legislative and regulatory changes to address anti-money laundering (AML) vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system. These promised changes include:

  • Finalizing beneficial ownership regulations, and building a national database of beneficial owners, as mandated by the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020.

  • Promulgating regulations designed to reveal when real estate is used to hide ill-gotten gains. Contemporaneously with the White House’s issuance of the Strategy, the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), inviting public comment on its plan to apply additional scrutiny to all-cash real estate transactions.

  • Prescribing minimum reporting standards for investment advisors and other types of equity funds, which are currently not subject to same AML program requirements as other financial institutions.

Third, the Strategy calls for a coordinated, government-wide response to corruption, and it contemplates a role not only for law enforcement and regulatory agencies but also for agencies such as the Department of State and Department of Commerce, which is to establish its own new anti-corruption task force. It remains to be seen if the increased scope of anti-corruption efforts called for by the Strategy will result in new or additional penalties for persons and entities perceived as corrupt or as facilitating corruption, but the Strategy may place an additional premium on corporate anti-corruption compliance.

Individuals and entities operating in sectors traditionally associated with corruption and/or AML risk should consider taking the following steps in response to the Strategy. These considerations apply not only to U.S. persons and businesses but also to anyone who may fall within the broad purview of the FCPA, U.S. money laundering statutes, and other laws with extraterritorial reach:

  • Increase due diligence for any pending or future transactions in jurisdictions where potentially corrupt actors or their designees play a role in awarding government contracts. Ensure any payments are the result of arms-length transactions based on legitimate financial arrangements.

  • Professional gatekeepers should become familiar with the particular risks associated with the industries in which they operate. While AMLA made it clear that lawyers, accountants, and real estate professionals will come under increased scrutiny based on the risk profile of their clients, the Strategy increases the likelihood that law enforcement will devote additional resources in this sometimes-overlooked area.

  • Given the increased role the State Department will continue to play in the anticorruption space based on the National Defense Authorization Act and the Strategy, companies doing business in or with countries vital to U.S. foreign policy goals should remember that in addition to the individual leaders of these countries, government institutions and lower-level officials could create risk and will be closely watched. Though the U.S. government often talks about specific government officials, the Strategy appears to take a broader approach.

  • Businesses should continue to examine and reexamine third-party risk with an emphasis on preventing potential problems before they occur. Additional resources and increased cooperation between and among government agencies may lead to additional investigations and enforcement actions, so compliance programs should be updated where necessary.

Article By Kyle R. Freeny and Benjamin G. Greenberg of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more white collar crime and consumer rights legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2021 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

DOL Publishes Final Rule Implementing President Biden’s $15 Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Executive Order 14026

The Department of Labor (DOL) has published its Final Rule implementing President Biden’s April 27, 2021, Executive Order 14026 raising the minimum wage from $10.95 an hour to $15 an hour (with increases to be published annually). The new wage rate will take effect January 30, 2022, though as discussed below, the rate increases will not be applied to contracts automatically on that date.

The Final Rule is substantially similar to the DOL’s proposed Notice of Rulemaking issued in July 2021 and is more expansive in coverage than the current federal contractor minimum wage requirements in effect under former President Obama’s Executive Order 13658.

$15 Wage Rate Does Not Apply to All Federal Contractors, All Federal Contracts, or All Workers

Covered Contracts

The $15 wage rate will apply to workers on four specific types of federal contracts that are performed in the U.S. (including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and certain U.S. territories):

  • Procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA), but not the Davis-Bacon Related Acts
  • Service Contract Act (SCA) covered contracts
  • Concessions contracts – meaning a contract under which the federal government grants a right to use federal property, including land or facilities, for furnishing services. The term “concessions contract” includes, but is not limited to, a contract the principal purpose of which is to furnish food, lodging, automobile fuel, souvenirs, newspaper stands, or recreational equipment, regardless of whether the services are of direct benefit to the government, its personnel, or the general public
  • Contracts related to federal property and the offering of services to the general public, federal employees, and their dependents

The Executive Order does not apply to contracts or other funding instruments, including:

  • Contracts for the manufacturing or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment to the federal government
  • Grants
  • Contracts or agreements with Indian Tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
  • Contracts excluded from coverage under the SCA or DBA and specifically excluded in the implementing regulations and
  • Other contracts specifically excluded (See NPRM Section 23.40)

Effective Date; Definition of “New” Contracts Expanded

The Final Rule specifies that the wage requirement will apply to new contracts and contract solicitations as of January 30, 2022. Despite the “new contract” limitation, the regulations, consistent with the language of the Biden Executive Order, strongly encourage federal agencies to require the $15 wage for all existing contracts and solicitations issued between the date of the Executive Order and the effective date of January 30, 2022.

Similarly, agencies are “strongly encouraged” to require the new wage where they have issued a solicitation before the effective date and entered into a new contract resulting from the solicitation within 60 days of such effective date.

Pursuant to the Final Rule, the new minimum wage will apply to new contracts; new contract-like instruments; new solicitations; extensions or renewals of existing contracts or contract-like instruments; and exercises of options on existing contracts or contract-like instruments on or after January 30, 2022.

Geographic Limitations Expanded

The Final Rule applies coverage to workers outside the 50 states and expands the definition of “United States” to include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Outer Continental Shelf lands as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, and Johnston Island.

Workers Performing Work “On or In Connection With” a Covered Contract

Only workers who are non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and performing work on or in connection with a covered contract must be paid $15 per hour. The wage requirement applies only to hours worked on or in connection with a covered contract.

A worker performs “on” a contract if the worker directly performs the specific services called for by the contract. A worker performs “in connection with” a contract if the worker’s work activities are necessary to the performance of a contract but are not the specific services called for by the contract.

The Final Rule includes a “less-than-20% exception” for those workers who only perform work “in connection with” a covered contract, but do not perform any direct work on the contract. For workers who spend less than 20% of their hours in a workweek working indirectly in connection with a covered contract, the contractor need not pay the $15 wage for any hours for that workweek.

Tipped Employees

Under the Final Rule, DOL is phasing out lower wages and tip credits for tipped employees on covered contracts. Employers must pay tipped employees $10.50 per hour in 2022 and increase those wages incrementally, under a proposed formula in the NPRM. Beginning in 2024, tipped employees must receive the full federal contractor wage rate.

$15 Wage Contract Clause Requirements, Enforcement Obligations

The Final Rule provides that a Minimum Wage contract clause will appear in covered prime contracts, except that procurement contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) will include an applicable FAR Clause (to be issued by the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council) providing notice of the wage requirement.

In addition, covered prime contractors and subcontractors must include the Contract Clause in covered subcontracts and, as will be in the applicable FAR Clause, procurement prime contractors and subcontractors will be required to include the FAR clause in covered subcontracts.

In addition, the Final Rule provides that contractors and subcontractors:

“… shall require, as a condition of payment, that the subcontractor include the minimum wage contract clause in any lower-tier subcontracts … [and] shall be responsible for the compliance by any subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor with the Executive Order minimum wage requirements, whether or not the contract clause was included in the subcontract.”

The DOL will investigate complaints and enforce the requirements but under the Final Rule, contracting agencies may also enforce the minimum wage requirements and take actions including contract termination, suspension and debarment for violations.

Preparation for the $15 wage

To prepare, contractors and subcontractors of covered contracts should consider taking the following steps:

  • Review existing multi-year contracts with options or extensions that may be exercised on or after January 30, 2022, to plan for wage increases at the exercise of the option or extension, but also review any contract modifications to see if an agency is including the requirement early than required, as is allowed under the Final Rule
  • Identify job titles that typically perform work directly on covered contracts and those that perform indirect work above 20% in a workweek
  • Plan for wage increases for covered workers who are not already making $15 per hour
  • Determine impact on existing collective bargaining agreements particularly on SCA-covered contracts
  • Prepare for submission of price/equitable adjustments based on wage increases if allowed under the contract terms

Article By Leslie A. Stout-Tabackman of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, read more at the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Biden Signs Largest Climate and Resiliency Infrastructure Bill in U.S. History

Today President Biden signed H.R. 3684, the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” (IIJA), into law after months of negotiations on both the bill itself and the still pending “Build Back Better Act”. These two measures encapsulate the Biden Administration’s legislative priorities, many of which were rolled out during the campaign. The U.S. Senate passed the IIJA on August 10 by a vote of 69-30. Last week, on November 5, the House of Representatives passed the measure by a vote of 228-206. The months long negotiations resulted in bipartisan support for the IIJA in both the House and Senate.

Broadly, the IIJA:

Provides Funding: The funds provided are appropriated dollars, allowing Executive Branch agencies to distribute funds without further legislative action. The funds provided are for both new and existing federal programs for surface transportation, energy infrastructure, transportation safety, transit, broadband, ports and waterways, airports, drinking water and wastewater. ​

Expedites Permitting: There are several new programs created to support transmission development and streamline the permitting of new energy infrastructure, such as electric transmission

Provides New Authorities and Creates New Programs: Various federal agencies are required to develop new programs and processes, all aimed at deploying clean energy or improving cybersecurity​.

The IIJA represents a monumental investment in all types of infrastructure. However, most significantly, it will provide the largest federal investment since the New Deal in the Nation’s infrastructure and in developing the tools to curb carbon emissions and harden infrastructure to increase resiliency against the current global challenge of climate change. The Department of Energy and other federal agencies will receive $65 billion for power and grid related programs, including grid infrastructure, resiliency investments, clean energy demonstration projects and cybersecurity. An additional $7.5 billion will be available for alternative fueling infrastructure for grants to build public fueling systems, including electric and hydrogen fuels, establish alternative fuel corridors, and find ways to recycle used electric vehicle batteries to be reused as energy storage devices.

In July, our team shared the details of the bill passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As signed into law, this earlier summary still accurately reflects the details of the funding that will be provided.

Implementation and Timing of Funding: Agencies will now be tasked with standing-up new or expanding existing programs to award federal funds to eligible infrastructure projects. Agency offices will work over the coming weeks to establish grant program parameters, develop, and publish solicitations for applications, set timelines for awards and oversee implementation of awarded funds.

The IIJA included deadlines for some agency actions, requiring that programs be established in 60, 90, or 180 days. Note that many of the agency offices, particularly within the Department of Energy, remain functioning without political appointees. For instance, the Office of Electricity, which will be responsible for issuing $3 billion in grants through the Smart Grid Investment Matching Grant Program, is operating under an Acting Assistant Secretary until the Senate confirms the Biden Administration’s nominee for that post. There are no legal or political impediments to getting funding programs up and running without a political appointee heading any federal office, but political influence on the pace and timing for the process may be limited.

Certain programs will automatically send funds to states through existing formula funding programs. Formula grant programs are non-competitive awards based on a predetermined formula. These programs are sometimes referred to as state-administered programs and are found throughout the federal government. Examples include the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan program, and the Department of Transportation’s Formula Funds for Rural Areas, and Buses and Bus Facilities formula grants programs. Once the states have received their federal allocations they will then make those funds available through their existing award structure, which may be competitive or formula-based.

How Your Organization Can Apply for Federal Funding Opportunities: As agencies establish parameters for new programs or develop solicitations for existing programs, it is important to engage with the agencies in this process to ensure your project will meet agency program criteria for a funding award, and to ensure solicitations are designed to support your infrastructure projects. Our professionals have had significant success in assisting clients through these processes, and successfully assisted clients in the development of grant applications for awards under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. Contact any of our professionals to learn more about what grant programs your organization may be eligible for, how to engage with the agencies, as well as apply and partner with the federal government to ensure funding is awarded for your project.

What’s Next, Human Infrastructure: The IIJA represents only the provisions in the Biden agenda that were able to earn bipartisan support. The remainder of the President’s priorities are encapsulated in a Budget Reconciliation bill, H.R. 5376, the “Build Back Better Act”, (BBBA) developed by House and Senate Democrats and requiring only a 50-vote threshold in the Senate.

For months, the Build Back Better Act and IIJA and were linked in the legislative process by President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who demanded that one not pass without the other. This approach resulted in a rift between the Democratic Party’s moderate and progressive members. While the final outcome for the IIJA resulted in bipartisan votes in both the House and Senate, passage only came after a deal was struck between moderates and progressives within the Democratic Caucus to decouple the IIJA and the “Build Back Better Act”.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has publicly said that the “Build Back Better Act” will be brought to the House Floor during the week of November 15. Senate Leadership has made no such promise for timely action. In addition, some House Democrats and some Senators have announced they want to see the details of budget scoring – what individual provisions will cost – from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Tax Committee – before proceeding. Some limited data has begun to be released by the CBO but not any numbers covering many of the most complex and controversial programs. The schedule may be accelerated if Democrats and Republicans cannot come to an agreement to increase the debt ceiling, a must-pass measure that may need to be included in the Budget Reconciliation process. As negotiations continue, the content of the legislation passed by the House is expected to be altered significantly during Senate consideration. Should that be the case, the House will vote a second time on the measure as amended by the Senate.

Article By: Tracy Nagelbush Tolk and Tiffany Ganthier from Van Ness Feldman LLP

© 2021 Van Ness Feldman LLP

President Biden Revokes ‘Buy American and Hire American’ Executive Order

On January 25, 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order (EO) 14005 entitled “Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers,” which directs federal government agencies to “maximize the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.” While this order directs all agencies to follow this policy via the federal procurement and budgetary process, it also revoked the “Buy American and Hire American” executive order (EO 13788), which President Trump signed on April 18, 2017. Otherwise known as BAHA, EO 13788 had a stated goal of protecting U.S. workers, promoting job growth, and protecting the integrity of the U.S. immigration system.

The BAHA executive order prompted several federal agencies to issue numerous policy memos, with the net result being substantial changes to adjudication standards for applications for various immigration benefits. In October 2017, following the directives of BAHA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued an updated policy memo that altered the longstanding policy of deferring to prior adjudications where the petitioner, beneficiary, and underlying facts remained unchanged from a previously approved petition for the same employee. USCIS issued the updated policy to “help advance policies that protect the interests of U.S. workers.” The updated policy created additional challenges for employers to get routine extension of stay petitions approved for workers who were already in the United States and where there had been no significant changes in the job details subsequent to the last petition’s approval.

The BAHA executive order has resulted in an overall increase in the rates of requests for evidence (RFE) and case denials. As recently as fiscal year (FY) 2020, H-1B RFE rates reached almost 30 percent, down from slightly more than 40 percent in FY 2019. Furthermore, H-1B visa petition denial rates exceeded 26 percent in FY 2020 and 34 percent in FY 2019 for cases where an RFE had been issued. For L-1 visa petitions, RFE rates had reached slightly more than 54 percent in both FY 2020 and FY 2019. Petitions for L-1 visas saw denial rates exceeding 43 percent in FY 2020 and 49 percent in FY 2019 for cases where an RFE was issued. In contrast, pre-BAHA RFE rates hovered around 21 percent for H-1B petitions and just over 30 percent for L-1 petitions. Denial rates before BAHA were generally about 20 percent for H-1B petitions post-RFE, and L-1 visa petitions were denied at about a 33 percent rate after receiving an RFE.

It remains to be seen how USCIS visa petition adjudication standards will change in the coming years, and particularly whether RFE and denial rates will drop following the end of the Trump administration and the revocation of BAHA. However, employers can expect that there will be a shift in immigration policy under the Biden administration with a more favorable view towards high-skilled business immigration.

ARTICLE BY Brian D. Bumgardner and
Andrew G. Drozdowski of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
For more, visit the NLR Government Contracts, Maritime & Military Law section.

Medicare and the 2020 Election

Now that the campaign for President appears to be down to two candidates, we need to address the health care questions that both will face. In this blog, we will talk about Medicare and in a later blog, we will talk about the public option.

A question which has faced not just these two individuals, President Trump and Presidential Candidate Biden, but has faced the country for the last 10-15 years, is the projected deficit in the Medicare program as it is now configured.  In an attempt to respond to and ameliorate this deficit, various steps have been taken in the past which have delayed the impact of the deficit but have not eliminated it.  Past steps that have been taken include the elimination of the cap on W-2 earnings for purposes of calculating the Medicare tax, the application of the Medicare tax to non-W-2 earnings for individuals whose taxable income is above a certain level, calculation of Medicare Part B monthly premiums based upon income (the higher the income, the higher the premium that needs to be paid by the beneficiary), and the attempt to both explicitly and implicitly limit the payments being made by the Medicare program for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.  The explicit attempt was the development of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), which was never effectively implemented and ultimately repealed.  The implicit attempt is ongoing and has resulted in the necessity for beneficiaries with private insurance to subsidize the care being provided to the Medicare (that’s correct, not Medicaid, but Medicare) beneficiaries.

This “subsidy” by private insurance to health care providers to cover the costs of providing care to the Medicare beneficiaries is slowly having an impact on the care delivery system. It has resulted in a few prior Medicare providers now refusing to render care to Medicare patients in the non-hospital setting.  It is also encouraging physicians only to take Medicare patients who have previously been their private patients when that individual had private insurance so that the continuity of care to those individuals is not being disrupted.

As this subsidy increases, it becomes more and more likely that fewer providers will be providing care to Medicare beneficiaries, to the extent that they can legally opt out.

The next issue raised in the campaign is the extension of the Medicare program proposed by Presidential Candidate Biden to individuals from the ages of 60-65. Unlike the Social Security program, which attempted to resolve its deficit problems by extending the retirement age from age 65 over a period of time to age 67, the proposal by Presidential Candidate Biden is the opposite and that is to reduce the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

The questions that need to be answered are:

  1. How much is it going to cost?
  2. The proposal recognizes that the current Medicare program (currently facing a shortfall) cannot pay for the services provided to these new Medicare beneficiaries and proposes that the government pay the costs–which means the taxpayer. The question then is what changes will be made to the tax code and whose taxes will be increased–of course this raises the questions always associated with tax increases.
  3. It appears that all aspects of the Medicare program – Parts A, B, C, and D – will be available to the age cohort 60 to 65. Will the copays, deductibles and premiums, as applied to current Medicare beneficiaries, be applicable to this cohort?
  4. Will the same payments be made to the providers for care rendered to this cohort of new Medicare beneficiaries? Will this adversely impact the willingness of some providers to continue to participate in providing care to Medicare beneficiaries?

When answers to these questions become clear, to the extent that it does become clear, we will analyze these questions in a subsequent blog. Otherwise at this point in time, it is speculation as to the impact.

© 2020 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved