A Welcome Move To Close Retirement Plan Loopholes

(Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

I’m a big fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. They really incentivize planning for the future, and are a phenomenally good deal if utilized appropriately, especially Roth IRA and Roth 401(k) accounts. If you start saving and investing early, you are going to slash your tax bill by literally hundreds of thousands of dollars over your lifetime. You could have a nice little retirement on your tax savings alone.

But keep in mind that 401(k)s and IRAs were never really intentionally designed to be the middle-class retirement investment vehicles that they have become today. 401(k)s came about in 1980 through fortunate happenstance, and once the IRS issued new rules to make them a bit more accessible, their popularity soared. Roth IRAs came about as a result of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and Roth 401k(s) followed a few years later in 2006. Today, we have a robust suite of retirement savings options for forward-thinking workers of any age or income level.

Even so, anything that was not intentionally engineered from the beginning, and that came about in a piecemeal fashion over many years, is going to have flaws. As helpful as 401(k)s and IRAs have been in allowing millions of Americans to retire comfortably, well, they have also helped people who really were not in need of assistance to retire a bit too comfortably. A pending legislative proposal from House Democrats seeks to change that.

The House Ways and Means Committee released an outline of new tax legislation this week which would bar those with retirement accounts valued at more than $10 million from making extra contributions. Additionally, this legislation would reform required minimum distributions for wealthy savers and repeal the availability of Roth conversions in IRA and 401(k) accounts for those making in excess of $400,000 per year. The proposed legislation would also clean up a number of other retirement account loopholes used by the very rich to achieve highly advantageous tax treatment, including closing the so-called “mega-backdoor Roth” loophole.

The proposed retirement account reforms are meant in part to generate additional tax revenue as Democrats pursue the means to pay for their pending $3.5 trillion infrastructure plan. But these reforms are also a way of ensuring basic fairness in the retirement system. Democrats were outraged to find out, after reading a recent ProPublica report, that PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel owned an IRA valued at $5 billion as of 2019 thanks to some of the retirement account loopholes the new legislation seeks to change.

Right now, Thiel is apparently earning investment gains tax-free on his $5 billion IRA. Assuming a fairly conservative 7 percent rate of return, that’s about $350 million in annual investment income that Thiel, a multibillionaire, does not have to pay a dime of taxes for under the current legal framework as long as he waits to withdraw any of his investment gains until spring of 2027, when he will be 59 ½ years old.

One out of every four working-age Americans does not have anything saved for retirement, according to a 2020 Federal Reserve study, and keeping the rich from achieving huge tax windfalls through the retirement system won’t necessarily help any of those people directly. But it would mean a lower tax burden overall for medium- and low-income people as the ultra-rich picked up more of the slack. It would help ensure the integrity of the IRA and 401(k) savings systems that middle income taxpayers have come to rely on too.

If you don’t have an eight-figure retirement account, or an annual income over $400,000, you have nothing to worry about in these new retirement account reform rules. You do have a lot to think about, however: namely whether the ultra-wealthy need the same favorable tax treatment you do in order to achieve a comfortable retirement. Assuming they don’t, we all might as well get behind these proposals and try for a fairer system of retirement savings. Plus the taxes on even one $5 billion investment account could sure build a lot of roads and bridges.


Jonathan Wolf is a civil litigator and author of Your Debt-Free JD (affiliate link). He has taught legal writing, written for a wide variety of publications, and made it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

We’ve Got Your Number! KPIs You Can Use

There are numbers underlying the success (or failings) of your law firm.

And if you can harness them, this can have a significant, positive impact on your business.  

The good news is that it’s easier to surface that data than ever before. 

In this edition of the Non-Eventcast, I welcome Gabriela Cubeiro of CasePeer and Evan Armstrong of Filevine to address the impact of KPIs (key performance indicators) on modern law practice. 

We talk about how to define a KPI (22:10) in the first instance and how using KPIs can help law firms to build better and stronger teams (24:09), before getting down to best practices for installing KPIs (26:02) — you won’t want to miss that.

If you don’t know much about algebra, or the French you took, this is a great way to get re-acclimated to business intelligence tools.

And while you’re here, browse the Non-Event to see the latest Practice Management, Document Management, and other offerings — the KPI installment is coming soon.

Highlights

  • Data analytics for law firms – 5:27
  • Focusing on clients – 8:24
  • Software providers – 11:26
  • The analytic side of software – 12:17
  • Reports to generate data – 16:53
  • KPI, what is that? – 22:10
  • Building a better and stronger team – 24:09
  • Future for law firms – 25:05
  • The best KPI process – 26:02

Episode Resources

  • https://redcavelegal.com/
  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaredcorreia
  • https://twitter.com/RedCaveLegal
  • https://www.filevine.com/
  • https://www.casepeer.com/

Justice Stephen Breyer Is NOT A Fan Of The Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The truth is, in that matter that we had before us, it was a procedural question. We didn’t get to the merits of the law.

And one of my objections, which was pretty strong … is when we have an important case like that, even if it’s procedural, we should have a full proceeding, and not decide it just on the basis of an emergency motion, which it was.

— Justice Stephen Breyer, in pointed remarks given about the Supreme Court’s near-midnight “shadow docket” refusal to block a law prohibiting abortions after six weeks in Texas, during an interview with Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. Justice Breyer dissented to the decision, without adding the traditional “respectfully” his dissent. Watch the footage, below.


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Lawsuit: Aetna fertility coverage policy “an illegal tax” on LGBTQ people – MedCity News

Aetna allegedly discriminated against LGBTQ individuals by making them pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for fertility treatments, according to a new class-action lawsuit. But the Hartford, Connecticut-based health insurer claims that a change in New York State coverage requirements led to the claims denial described in the suit.

Filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York on Monday, the lawsuit alleges that as a result of Aetna’s policy plaintiff Emma Goidel and her spouse were forced to pay nearly $45,000 out of pocket before becoming eligible for fertility coverage.

Goidel and her spouse are enrolled in Aetna’s Student Health Plan for Columbia University. The couple wants children, and since they are LGBTQ individuals, they cannot conceive through intercourse and require fertility treatments to get pregnant, such as intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization, both of which are broadly covered by the plan.

Aetna’s policy defines infertility as the inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected, heterosexual intercourse. After that time period, coverage for fertility treatment kicks in.

But the insurer “requires individuals who cannot conceive through intercourse due to their sexual orientation or gender identity to pay out of pocket for 12 cycles of [intrauterine insemination] before Aetna will provide them with coverage for fertility treatments,” the suit states.

This allegedly results in LGBTQ individuals being forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket that others are not required to pay.

“Aetna’s discriminatory Policy is an illegal tax on LGBTQ individuals that denies the equal rights of LGBTQ individuals to have children,” the lawsuit claims.

Aetna has agreed to cover the costs incurred by the plaintiff and her spouse after their fertility treatment claims were denied.

“Those costs will be promptly covered, and we’ll review similar cases to ensure coverage decisions were made according to the new [New York State coverage] requirements,” said Ethan Slavin, head of national media relations at Aetna, in an email. “We have a history of support for the LGBTQ community, which we’ll continue to build on.”

But the lawsuit goes further than reimbursement for costs incurred by the couple and asks the court to prevent Aetna from implementing and enforcing the policy. The plaintiffs are also demanding a jury trial.

Photo: wildpixel, Getty Images

Top 50 Biglaw Firm Postpones The Official Reopening Of Its Offices Until 2022

Hour by hour, as billable time ticks away, Biglaw leaders have an important decision to make. Will they further postpone their planned office reopenings due to the hyper-contagious Delta variant of COVID-19? By all accounts, it’s looking more and more like the answer is a resounding “yes.” But just how far out are some firms willing to delay their return to the office?

Maybe things will be better next year.

Perkins Coie, for example, has its sights set on a January 2022 reopening. Attorneys and staff were originally supposed to return to the office on October 4. Instead, the top 50 Am Law firm will join the small handful of other firms that will forgo office life for all of 2021. These firms include Cahill, Cooley, Sanford Heisler, and Willkie.

A spokesman offered the firm’s reasoning to Bloomberg: “Our goal remains to protect the health and safety of all our attorneys and professional staff, while ensuring continuity of service to our clients.” For the time being, those who do enter any Perkins Coie office must be vaccinated (effective October 1) and masked.

Which firm will be the next to put off its return to the office until next year? With the way things are going, it might be a good idea….

Help us help you. Let us know what your firm is doing to protect employees and adjust to the new normal during this unprecedented moment in time.

As soon as you find out about the reopening plan at your firm, please email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Office Reopening”) or text us at (646) 820-8477. We always keep our sources on stories anonymous. There’s no need to send a memo (if one exists) using your firm email account; your personal email account is fine. If a memo has been circulated, please be sure to include it as proof; we like to post complete memos as a service to our readers. You can take a photo of the memo and attach as a picture if you are worried about metadata in a PDF or Word file. Thanks.

Perkins Coie Says Lawyers, Staff Can Stay Home Rest of Year (1) [Bloomberg Law]


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Elizabeth Warren Would Like Wells Fargo’s Latest Setback To Be Its Last

To be honest, Wells Fargo probably didn’t think much of its latest regulatory run-in, a $250 million fine for failing to stop doing the mortgage things—overcharging customers, improperly kicking them out of their homes, etc.—it had been told three years earlier to stop doing. I mean, anything less than 10 figures isn’t going to make Charlie Scharf sweat, and the CEO more or less shrugged the whole thing off, simply saying, “progress will come alongside setbacks.”

Morning Docket: 09.16.21

* The “They Took Er Election” people are coming back and fencing is being erected. [NBC Washington]

* New Illinois law makes it a national leader in combating climate change. That’s ill. [WQAD]

* At least seven anti-mask talking heads have died due to COVID. At this point, they’d be better off saying Candyman five times in a mirror. [Business Insider]

* AG finds Aurora’s police force is racist and has a habit of drugging people illegally. People get fired from Dunkin’ for way less. [CNN]

* Ja’han Jones weighs in on if our oligarchy has turned fascist. [MSNBC]


Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. Before that, he wrote columns for an online magazine named The Muse Collaborative under the pen name Knehmo. He endured the great state of Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com.

Who’s The Real As*hole Here — See Also

Long Live #ASSLaw: A moment Above the Law will not soon forget.

Prank Gets Too Real: And a lawyer gets arrested.

What In The World Is Going On? It’s almost like someone should teach them to be critical on race theory or something.

A Whole Podcast About Lawyers’ Terrible Behavior: Because yeah.

O’Melveny Will Pay For (Some) Of Your Peloton: The latest in perks.

Remember Lawyers Are Still In The Client Service Business: A ranking.

Don’t Call It Overenrollment — This Law School’s 1L Class Is Just Pleasantly Plump

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

Which law school in the top 20 of the U.S. News & World Report ranking has already reported 124 more students in its 1L class over last year’s enrollment numbers (80 percent of the top 20 law schools have reported enrollment numbers for the latest class)?

Hint: We’ve reported for a while that more students than ever want to go to law school this year — and highly qualified candidates at that. The law school in question also reported the incoming class had a median LSAT of 169 and GPA of 3.8, both improvements over the preceding class.

See the answer on the next page.

Basketball Game Clock Patent Owner Blows The Whistle On Alleged Infringer

A new patent infringement lawsuit involving the ability for a whistle to start and stop a game clock has tipped off in a North Carolina federal court. Michael Costabile, a former NBA referee, is suing fellow basketball referee Keith Fogleman for allegedly ripping off Costabile’s patent that is a “system for remotely starting and stopping a time clock in an environment having a plurality of distinct activation signals.”

Costabile’s claim to fame, outside of developing the system surrounding his patent, is that he blew the whistle on a foul in the last moments of a 1990 NBA game between the Milwaukee Bucks and Philadelphia 76ers, which resulted in Charles Barkley hitting two free throws and causing the 76ers to win by one point. The complaint states that this was a highly contested call due to questions surrounding whether the whistle was blown prior to or after the final buzzer was sounded.

A year later, Costabile started working on a whistle-activated timing system. He then created a corporate entity and, in 1995, launched his first product based on a belt pack recognizing the sound of a referee’s whistle and starting/stopping the clock due to the distinctive noise. Multiple advances had been made since that time, which resulted in more than one patent registration.

Using “information and belief” language in the complaint, Costabile argues that, roughly five years ago, Fogleman took possession of Costabile’s product, claiming that he wanted to repair and return it to a high school in North Carolina. However, Costabile says that Fogleman took possession of the apparatus in order to reverse-engineer it and then sell an identical competing system to Costabile’s patented device.

Costabile is of the belief that, in March 2021, Fogleman established a corporate entity called UStopIt, LLC, which is also a named defendant in the complaint and has marketed and sold infringing products under the name WhistleStop. In June, Costabile contacted Fogleman with notice of the alleged patent infringement, and Fogleman’s counsel, Justin Nifong of NK Patent Law, denied any infringement with an argument that his client designed around Costabile’s first patent obtained in April 2011.

The complaint alleges that, because Fogleman and his company were made aware of the infringement by way of letter and continued their infringing actions, they should be found to have willfully, wantonly, and deliberately engaged in acts of infringement of Costabile’s patents, permitting increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred under 35 U.S.C. § 285.


Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.