The correction applies to proposed rule document 2026-16314, published August 11. It changes the printed hearing-date language to September 25, corrects an image, and fixes the regulatory heading identifying the Trump Account contribution program. The correction is narrow: it does not finalize the proposed tax treatment or require employers to offer the benefit.

What the proposal would allow

If finalized, the proposal would allow a qualifying employer to contribute up to $2,500 per employee per year to the Trump Account of the employee or an eligible dependent without including the contribution in the employee’s gross income.

The $2,500 limit would be an aggregate limit per employee, not a separate limit for each dependent. The proposed rule would provide for inflation adjustments after 2027.

A qualifying Trump Account contribution program generally would have to be established as a separate written employer plan. The plan would need to identify eligible employee classes, set contribution rules, describe account-designation procedures and provide for required certifications, notices, reporting and correction procedures.

The proposal also would require employers to use a reasonable method to verify that contributions are sent to valid Trump Accounts and to identify qualifying contributions to trustees. A salary-reduction arrangement under a Section 125 cafeteria plan would be proposed only for contributions to a dependent’s Trump Account, not the employee’s own account.

Why employers may need to prepare

For employers considering the program, the proposal raises operational questions beyond the contribution amount. Payroll systems may need to identify qualifying contributions and apply the employee-level annual limit. Benefits teams would need to review plan documents, employee communications, account-verification procedures, trustee coordination and reporting, including possible Form W-2 reporting.

Employers also would need to assess whether eligibility rules and contribution practices comply with the proposed nondiscrimination standards. PwC‘s specialist analysis identified potential administrative work involving plan design, payroll, trustees, recordkeeping and reporting if the regulations move forward.

The proposed rule also addresses nondiscrimination rules for dependent-care assistance programs. It would clarify how eligibility, contributions and average benefits are evaluated for highly compensated employees and other employees. If a plan failed certain tests, the proposed rules would generally deny the tax exclusion to highly compensated employees while preserving it for non-highly compensated employees, subject to proposed correction mechanisms.

Those provisions concern plan administration and tax-exclusion treatment. They would not create a universal new child-care benefit.

What employees and families should know

The proposal does not change current tax treatment simply because it was published. Employees should not treat employer-funded Trump Account contributions as a generally available tax exclusion until final guidance applies.

Families interested in the potential benefit can ask whether their employer is considering a contribution program and how eligibility would be determined. Employers are not universally required to participate, and any eventual benefit would depend on the final rule and the employer’s plan design.

The proposed regulations state that they would apply to plan years beginning on or after the date a final rule is published in the Federal Register. Treasury and the IRS have not yet issued final regulations for this proposal.

Deadlines and the hearing

Comments and requests to speak at the public hearing must be received by September 25, 2026, according to the August 11 proposed rule and the August 24 correction. The hearing is scheduled for October 15, 2026, at 10 a.m. Eastern time, unless it is canceled because no requests to speak or outlines are received by September 25.

The proposed rule separately says that requests to attend the hearing must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern time on October 13. The IRS announcement issued August 11 also refers to October 13 as the deadline for requests to speak, creating a conflict with the Federal Register proposal and correction. Organizations planning to participate should rely on the corrected Federal Register record and verify the filing instructions before submitting materials.

The next major step will be Treasury and IRS review of public comments. Any final regulations would determine whether the proposed exclusion takes effect, when it applies and what final compliance requirements employers, payroll providers and account trustees must follow.

Sources

• Federal Register correction notice, C1-2026-16314
• Federal Register proposed rule, August 11, 2026
• IRS announcement, August 11, 2026
• PwC proposed-rule analysis

The revised proposal cuts $500,000 from the budget rejected on Town Meeting Day. Even after that reduction, it represents a 2.6% increase over the prior year. The vote will determine funding for Killington’s municipal operations and services.

A revised proposal heads to voters

The Select Board scheduled the public vote for Aug. 11, 2026. The approved action followed negotiations involving the board and Town Manager Patrick Cushing. The board also abandoned its effort to eliminate an administrative position.

The available information does not establish that the budget has passed. It remains a proposal until voters act, and the full ballot language was not available in the town website search results reviewed for this report.

The budget dispute included proposed staffing cuts and employee benefits. A June 22 meeting lasted 8.5 hours, underscoring the length of the discussions before the board approved the revised plan.

What the numbers mean

The $500,000 reduction is measured against the proposal rejected on Town Meeting Day. The 2.6% figure describes the revised proposal’s increase over the previous year’s budget; it should not be read as a specific property-tax increase.

The precise effect on individual tax bills cannot be determined from the available information. That calculation would require the adopted budget and grand-list figures. The Aug. 11 vote, rather than the June 29 board action, is the next decisive step for the spending plan.

The town’s official website maintains municipal notices, public-meeting materials and a calendar listing Select Board meetings in July. Those materials provide the town’s continuing channel for notices as Killington prepares for the vote.

For residents, the practical issue is whether the revised spending plan will provide the funding level needed for town operations and services. For town employees and administrators, the proposal follows a dispute over staffing and benefits, while the decision not to eliminate an administrative position marks one change from the board’s earlier effort.

Voters will make the final decision Aug. 11. Until then, the revised budget remains a proposal, and the outcome of the public vote is not yet known.

What changed in the federal rules

The agencies propose defining “excepted fertility benefits” as a limited-excepted-benefit pathway—meaning fertility-related coverage that meets specific conditions could be handled differently than standard group market requirements.

The core conditions: a four-part checklist

Under the proposal, excepted fertility benefits would have to satisfy four requirements at the same time:

• Scope: Fertility-related items and services would have to be substantially all for diagnosing, mitigating, or treating infertility (or infertility-related reproductive health conditions), and substantially all provided by licensed or authorized medical professionals.
• Maximum lifetime dollar limit: Total lifetime benefits would be capped at $120,000 per participant (plus the participant’s eligible beneficiaries), with the $120,000 figure indexed for medical inflation for plan years after 2027.
• Separate policy or “not integral” structure: The fertility benefits must be provided under a separate policy/certificate/insurance contract or otherwise be not an integral part of the main group plan. To meet the “not integral” test, employers would need to offer participants access to a traditional group health plan that is not limited to excepted benefits and is not an account-based plan (like certain health FSAs or HRAs)—but participants would not need to enroll in that other plan to receive the fertility benefit.
• Notice to participants: Plans or issuers must provide a written notice to participants and beneficiaries describing the coverage (including benefits and limits), how to access in-network providers, and how to submit claims. The notice must be understandable to the average participant and provided at the first opportunity to enroll, annually thereafter, and upon request.

Who is affected—and when it would start

Group health plans and insurers: The proposal would apply to group health plans and to issuers offering group health insurance coverage for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2027.

Participants: If a workplace plan adopts this structure, participants could see updates to how fertility benefits are described and how the required notices explain limits and access.

Employers and plan administrators: Employers would need to ensure the fertility benefit design meets all conditions simultaneously (scope, separate/not-integral structure, the lifetime cap with indexing, and the participant notice timing and content requirements).

Individual market: HHS is asking for input

Separately, HHS is seeking comment on whether similar “excepted fertility benefits” standards should apply in the individual insurance market for policy years beginning on or after January 1, 2027—so this portion is not yet a final nationwide individual-market rule.

What to watch next

July 13, 2026 is the main near-term milestone. Comments could shape the final rule, including how eligibility conditions, notices, and the lifetime-cap mechanics are implemented. If you have workplace fertility coverage, watch for plan document updates and new notice materials ahead of 2027.

Sources

• DOL fact sheet on the proposed “excepted fertility benefits” rule
• Federal Register proposed rule (FR Doc. 2026-09479)