As auditors, we are required to review the controls in place at a plan sponsor of a retirement plan and its service providers to assess the risk of material misstatement resulting from control risk. In doing so, we constantly evaluate the adequacy of the control structure and recommend improvements to strengthen the processes to prevent errors.
Discrimination. It’s a concept that most people don’t associate with retirement plan savings.
The use of the wrong definition of compensation is the most common error found in employee benefit plan audits, and it can be a very costly mistake to correct in accordance with the provisions of the IRS’ Employee Plan Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS).
Plan administrators probably view the management representation letter as a document they must sign so they likely do so without reading it closely.
On April 6, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its final rule expanding the definition of investment advice fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and modifying the complex list of prohibited transaction exemptions as it relates to the expanded definition.
It is not often that we can give our clients good news as a result of new guidance from the Internal Revenue Service, but thanks to Notice 2016-16, Mid-Year Changes to Safe Harbor Plans and Safe Harbor Notices, we have fantastic news.
One of the most common operational errors when administering retirement plans is the failure to implement a participant’s elective deferral election or change in percentage.
Most plan sponsors know that their retirement plans are subject to discrimination tests, generally designed to prevent highly compensated employees (HCEs) from obtaining a benefit that is disproportionately favorable when compared to the benefits of the non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs).
In a previous blog, DOL Audit Quality Study: Employee Benefit Plan Auditors Are not Making the Grade, we discussed the results of the 2015 Audit Quality Study performed by the Department of Labor (DOL).
It may be counter-intuitive, but reducing the number of employees who are eligible to participate in a retirement plan could be the greater good in certain situations.