The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Labor (DOL) conduct different types of benefit plan audits, such as retirement plans and health and welfare plans, and for various reasons. In a presentation, Jeffrey Holdvogt and Maggie McTigue discuss IRS and DOL audit triggers, the process for each and what to do if your plan is audited. They also discuss the top audit issues and actionable steps companies can take to avoid audits and compliance issues.
At the 2016 Joint Fall CLE Meeting on October 1, 2016, Andrew Liazos presented on “Maintaining Retirement Plan Documents after Revenue Procedure 2016-37.”
As an employer sponsoring a retirement plan, you are required by law to keep your books and records available for review by the IRS. Having these records will also facilitate answering questions when determining participants’ benefits. As a plan sponsor you should keep the plan and trust document, recent amendments, determination and approval letters, related annuity contracts and collective bargaining agreements.
The presentation highlights key changes under Revenue Procedure 2016-37 and the consequential impacts on annual audits, plan drafting, choice of plan, existing plan administration, EPCRS and other various transactions.
View presentation slides.
M&A advisors are becoming increasingly familiar with leveraged ESOP transactions and are routinely considering the ESOP platform in structuring acquisitions and divestitures. The first part of this article references the ways in which leveraged ESOPs have historically been used to provide a tax-advantaged exit strategy for privately held business owners. The article then discusses the advantages the leveraged ESOP structure can bring to M&A advisors and private equity groups charged with structuring acquisitions and divestitures during a down economy.
This article, which appeared in Benefits Law Journal, discusses the standard of prudence formulated by the Third Circuit for employer stock cases brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Circuit Courts’ subsequent treatment of that standard. Although a number of Circuit Courts have adopted the Moench presumption of prudence, there is still significant disagreement over the procedural stage at which the presumption applies and how the presumption can be rebutted. Given this split between the courts, judicial intervention by the US Supreme Court is necessary to resolve these outstanding issues and fulfill Congress’s goal of attaining uniformity of benefits regulation.
To read the full article, click here.