Home Posts tagged Biden administration


By Ben Brubeck


The Biden administration’s final rule, “Federal Acquisition Regulation: Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects,” implements Executive Order 14063, which requires federal construction contracts of $35 million or more to be subject to controversial project labor agreements (PLAs).

The Biden administration’s burdensome, inflationary, and anti-competitive PLA mandate rule will needlessly raise costs on taxpayer-funded construction projects and steer contracts to unionized contractors and workers. Absent a successful legal challenge, this executive overreach will reward powerful special interests with government construction contracts at the expense of taxpayers and the principles of free enterprise and fair and open competition in government procurement.

When mandated by governments, PLAs increase construction costs to taxpayers by 12% to 20%, reduce opportunities for qualified contractors and their skilled craft professionals, and exacerbate the construction industry’s worker shortage of more than a half-million people in 2023.

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) will continue to fight on behalf of quality, experienced contractors harmed by this rule and the 88.3% of America’s construction industry who have made the choice not to belong to a union and want a fair opportunity to participate in federal construction projects, but cannot do so because of PLA schemes.

In addition, ABC condemns Biden administration policies independent of this rulemaking that push PLAs on competitive grant programs administered by federal agencies, affecting nearly $260 billion worth of federally assisted infrastructure projects procured by state and local governments, as well as schemes by the Biden administration to coerce private developers of hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of clean energy and domestic microchip manufacturing projects to mandate PLAs. Biden’s PLA policies circumvent congressional intent as none of these policies were passed in funding legislation.

Some background: on Aug. 19, 2022, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued its proposed rule implementing Executive Order 14063. In October 2022, ABC submitted more than 40 pages of comments to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, calling on the Biden administration to withdraw its controversial proposed rule.

ABC’s opposition was shared by more than 50 members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, 19 Republican governors, and a diverse coalition of construction-industry, small-business, and taxpayer advocates urging the administration to withdraw its proposal and additional policies promoting PLA mandates on federal and federally assisted construction projects.

At least 8,000 stakeholders across the country — including 2,500 ABC member contractors — submitted comments opposed to this proposed rule during the 60-day comment period. In a September 2022 survey of ABC contractor members, 98% opposed this proposed rule, and 97% said a construction contract that required a PLA would be more expensive compared to a contract procured via fair and open competition.

ABC plans to challenge this Biden administration scheme in the courts on behalf of taxpayers and the majority of the construction industry. In the interim, ABC will continue to oppose its special-interest-favoring policy using all tools in our advocacy and legal toolbox while educating stakeholders about the negative impact of government-mandated PLAs on federal and federally assisted projects.


Ben Brubeck is vice president of Regulatory, Labor, and State Affairs at Associated Builders and Contractors.


Shot Down

By John S. Gannon, Esq., and Erica E. Flores, Esq.


John S. Gannon

Erica E. Flores

Erica E. Flores

A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most significant employment-law decisions in recent memory. In a decision that appeared to be driven (at least in part) by political ideologies, the six conservative justices of the court ruled against the Biden administration in the back-and-forth legal battle over an emergency temporary standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

If it had gone into effect, the ETS would have required workers at companies with 100 or more employees to either be fully vaccinated or tested for COVID-19 at least weekly. According to the court’s majority, however, OSHA likely does not have the authority to issue such a mandate.

“Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases,” the court wrote. “Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.”

Technically, the ETS is not dead — at least not yet. The court did not rule directly on whether the ETS is legally unenforceable. Instead, the court reinstated a hold on OSHA’s ability to enforce the ETS while litigation is pending elsewhere in lower courts.

“Employers have good reasons to consider implementing a vaccine mandate or ‘shot or test’ rule voluntarily.”

U.S. Secretary of Labor (and former Boston Mayor) Marty Walsh issued a forceful statement attacking the decision. “OSHA stands by the vaccination and testing emergency temporary standard as the best way to protect the nation’s workforce from a deadly virus that is infecting more than 750,000 Americans each day and has taken the lives of nearly a million Americans,” he said. “The common-sense standards established in the ETS remain critical, especially during the current surge, where unvaccinated people are 15 to 20 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than vaccinated people. OSHA will be evaluating all options to ensure workers are protected from this deadly virus.”

Walsh’s statement mirrored the dissenting opinion of the three liberal-leaning Supreme Court justices, who argued that COVID presents a “grave danger” to millions of employees and that the ETS is “necessary” to address these dangers.

It remains to be seen whether OSHA will continue to try to defend the ETS in court or withdraw the ETS entirely. Even if OSHA is successful in lower courts, the ETS appears to be doomed once those cases reach the Supreme Court. President Biden’s executive order requiring employees of federal contractors to get vaccinated is also on hold by court order, and its chances of survival look to be pretty slim.

But the ETS is not the only tool available to OSHA to help stop the spread of COVID in the workplace. Indeed, OSHA still has the power under its ‘general duty clause’ to penalize employers that fail to provide a workplace free of hazards that are likely to cause serious harm. Businesses with low vaccination rates and lackluster masking policies could conceivably get cited by OSHA under the general duty clause if it is clear to the agency that COVID is spreading in the workplace. In addition, private parties have filed numerous wrongful-death lawsuits against businesses where employees and/or their family members died of COVID that is believed to have originated in the workplace. Accordingly, employers have good reasons to consider implementing a vaccine mandate or ‘shot or test’ rule voluntarily.


Different Ruling for Healthcare Facilities

And even if the OSHA ETS and the federal contractor executive order are doomed, another Biden administration vaccine mandate is very much alive. Indeed, on the same day the Supreme Court blocked OSHA from enforcing the ETS for large employers, the court ruled that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does have the necessary regulatory authority to require many healthcare facilities to mandate the COVID vaccine for all staff members.

Under the restrictive CMS rule, all employees, licensed providers, contractors, trainees, and volunteers of most Medicare- and Medicaid- certified providers and suppliers must be fully vaccinated for COVID, regardless of whether they perform their duties within the actual facility or provide care directly to patients. The rule covers a host of healthcare providers, including (but not limited to) hospitals, programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly, long-term-care facilities, intermediate-care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities, home health agencies, comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities, community mental-health centers, and clinics, rehabilitation agencies, and public-health agencies as providers of outpatient physical therapy and speech-language pathology services.

When does the CMS rule go into effect? Covered facilities must demonstrate that all non-exempt staff have received a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Jan. 27, and that all staff are fully vaccinated by Feb. 28. CMS will consider staff to have been fully vaccinated by the Feb. 28 deadline even if it has not yet been 14 days since they received their final dose. Booster doses are not required, but are recommended.

Covered employers must also develop policies and procedures to document and track staff vaccinations, assess requests for exemptions in accordance with federal law, and collect proper documentation of the need for a medical exemption, and must implement additional safety precautions for any staff members who are entitled to a religious or medical exemption. CMS has not offered substantive guidance as to when an employee or other staff member may be entitled to such an exemption, choosing instead to refer covered facilities to guidance published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

To avoid civil penalties, denial of payment, and even termination from the Medicare and Medicaid program, covered employers that have not already taken steps toward compliance with the CMS interim final rule should act immediately to develop and implement the necessary policies and procedures, determine staff vaccination status, collect required documentation, and assess requests for religious and medical exemptions.

When in doubt about requested exemptions, employers should also consider consulting experienced employment counsel, who can offer guidance and advice about when an exemption may be legally required for medical or religious reasons and when such an exemption can be lawfully denied.


John Gannon and Erica Flores are attorneys at the law firm Skoler, Abbott & Presser, P.C. in Springfield; (413) 737-4753; [email protected]; [email protected]

Accounting and Tax Planning

Death and Taxes

By Jim Moran, CPA


On April 28, the Biden administration released its FY 2022 revenue proposals. Along with raising the corporate tax rate to 28% and the top individual rate to 39.6%, widespread changes have been proposed to the capital gains tax rate and estate tax.

Under current federal law, upon death, property passes to a beneficiary at fair market value, with a few exceptions. This means the beneficiary’s basis generally becomes the value of the property at the decedent’s date of death, also referred to as ‘step-up in basis.’ For gifts made during a donor’s lifetime, the donee receives the donor’s basis in the property. This means the donee’s basis remains the same as the donor’s basis, generally original cost plus any improvements. No taxable gain or loss occurs upon the transfer of the property. Gain or loss is realized only when the property is eventually sold.

Under the Biden administration’s proposal, transfers of appreciated property upon death, or by gift, may result in the realization of capital gain to the donor or decedent at the time of the transfer. This means tax may be triggered at the date of the transfer regardless of whether the property is subsequently sold. This would be accomplished by eliminating the step-up in basis upon death of a decedent and requiring a tax be paid on a portion of the value of a gift made.

Fortunately, the Biden proposal would allow a $1 million per-person exclusion from recognition of unrealized capital gains on property either transferred by gift or held at death. The per-person exclusion would be indexed for inflation after 2022 and would be portable to the decedent’s surviving spouse under the same rules that apply to portability for estate- and gift-tax purposes (making the exclusion effectively $2 million per married couple). It is important to note, however, in the case of gifts, the donee’s basis in property received by gift during the donor’s life would be the donor’s basis in that property at the time of the gift to the extent that the unrealized gain on that property counted against the donor’s $1 million exclusion from recognition.

“Under the Biden administration’s proposal, transfers of appreciated property upon death, or by gift, may result in the realization of capital gain to the donor or decedent at the time of the transfer. This means tax may be triggered at the date of the transfer regardless of whether the property is subsequently sold.”

Tangible personal property (other than collectibles) would also be excluded from the triggering of gain. The exclusion under current law for certain small-business stock would remain, and the $250,000 per-person exclusion under current law for capital gain on a principal residence would apply to all residences currently allowed under IRC Section 121 and would be portable to the decedent’s surviving spouse, making the exclusion effectively $500,000 per couple.

The Biden proposal allows for some exempt transferees. Property transferred by a decedent to a charity would be exempt. Transfers by a decedent to a U.S. spouse would be at be the carryover basis of the decedent, and capital gain would not be recognized by the surviving spouse until the surviving spouse disposes of the asset or dies.

In addition to transfers upon death or gift to an individual, transfers of appreciated property into, or distributed in kind from, trusts (other than revocable grantor trusts) and partnerships may be treated as recognition events for the donor or donor’s estate. Valuation is another important concern in regard to a partial interest. The transfer of a partial interest would be at the ‘proportional share.’ Valuation discounts for minority interests will not apply.

Under Biden’s proposal, the donor would report any deemed recognition events on the donor’s gift-tax return. A decedent would report any capital gains on an estate-tax return or, potentially, a separate capital-gains return. A decedent would be able to offset capital gains against any unused capital-loss carry-forwards and up to $3,000 of ordinary income on their final individual income-tax returns. Any capital-gains taxes deemed realized at death would be deductible on the decedent’s federal estate-tax return if required.

The proposal would be effective for gains on property transferred by gift and on property owned at death by decedents dying after Dec. 31, 2021.

With a 50/50 partisan split in the U.S. Senate, it is currently unclear what the final proposal will end up being. Now is the time to start thinking about the how the proposed changes will affect you. Make an appointment with your tax or financial-planning professional to discuss what steps you should consider taking. You may need to be willing to act quickly should these proposals become reality.


Jim Moran, CPA, MST is a manager with Melanson CPAs, focusing on commercial services and tax planning, compliance, and preparation.