Are Retirement Savings Tax Incentives Leaving the Middle Class Behind?

A new report details how today’s retirement savings structure and tax incentives fail to promote adequate retirement security for the middle class.

A new report by the National Institute on Retirement Security highlights the insufficiencies of current tax incentives in ensuring retirement security for the middle class. It includes marginal tax rates, retirement plan participation and income distribution on retirement savings levels as culpable factors.

The report, “The Missing Middle: How Tax Incentives for Retirement Savings Leave Middle Class Families Behind,” also offers potential solutions that could enhance retirement security for middle-class families.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

Saving for retirement is one of the biggest financial challenges most working Americans will face. While the vast majority will participate in Social Security, less than half will have their income replaced, the report says. Many workers will need to save for retirement through other vehicles.

Congress has passed a number of tax incentives to encourage saving for retirement, but due to the structure of the tax code, uneven levels of retirement plan participation and the growth of income inequality, many of the benefits of these tax incentives accrue to high-income earners, the report says.

“The middle class is left behind by the retirement savings system in key ways. Social Security replacement rates are too low for middle-class families to maintain their standard of living in retirement, but many middle-class households don’t reach the level of income and savings needed to truly benefit from the tax incentives for individual savings,” the report says. “This means the middle class too often is missing out in terms of benefiting from various retirement savings programs.”

More than half of the present value of tax benefits for defined contribution plans and individual retirement accounts accrues to those in the top 10% by income, according to the report, and a significant percentage of the present value of defined benefit pension plans also accrues to those in the top 10%. The top 30% of workers by income receive 89% of the present value of DC plans and IRAs, and 83% of the present value of DB plans.

The value of tax incentives for saving is greater for those at higher income levels, who face higher marginal tax rates, the report says. These incentives are weaker for much of the middle class. Additionally, those who are able to invest earlier and at higher levels enjoy a greater advantage from the deferral of taxation on investment gains.

The tax expenditures for retirement saving, focused on the defined contribution system, have led to inequities beyond income and wealth, the report says. Geographic and racial inequities related to retirement are exacerbated by the tax incentives for saving.

Solutions to these inequities should focus on increasing participation in the retirement savings system and ensuring working families also receive adequate incentives to save for retirement, the report says. Some potential solutions could focus on building upon Social Security, either through benefit changes or allowing the program to integrate lifetime income options for savers.

Reforming the tax expenditures themselves, by eliminating the deduction-based system and replacing it with a refundable credit, is another possibility. Other solutions could focus on increasing access and participation in savings plans, which some states are doing for workers who lack workplace plans, thereby making it easier to participate, the report says. Finally, curbing abuses of the existing system would ensure that the significant sums of federal tax revenue dedicated to retirement security are directed at generating retirement income.

Don’t Be Afraid of DOL, IRS Audits

Assuming there is no malfeasance or criminal activity going on, the process of a DOL or IRS audit does not have to be unpleasant, even if minor issues are discovered.

During the second day of the 2022 PLANSPONSOR National Conference in Orlando, a duo of expert panelists tackled the challenging topic of regulatory audits, explaining what to expect in an audit and how to effectively prepare for that inevitable knock on the door.

Speakers on the panel included Bradford Campbell, partner at Faegre Drinker, and Leah Sylvester, director of retirement plan services at Shepherd Financial. To begin, Sylvester and Campbell discussed why an audit may happen.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

“Often, they find your plan through data mining of Form 5500s, and they may see a particular data point or feature on your Form 5500 that raises their interest in conducting a review,” Campbell said. “Additionally, you may simply be in a region where the local office is doing a push to conduct a series of targeted reviews. So, the important message here is that you should not assume that you have done something wrong or that they already have a particular thing they are investigating you for. Often the audits are more or less random.”

Given this potential for random reviews, Sylvester and Campbell agreed, it is a good idea to make an ongoing effort to stay ahead of the documentation one may need to produce in the case of an audit. They also said that plan sponsors should not be surprised or dismayed if an issue is discovered. Simply put, it happens, and more often than one might expect.

“Don’t be surprised if there is a violation,” Campbell said. “There is something like a 60% violation rate in random DOL audits. In targeted reviews, they find violations in 69% of cases. Many of these issues are going to be minor or technical, but they are going to be there more often than not. Assuming the issues are technical in nature and not related to allegations of wrongdoing, you will be able to work with the auditors to resolve the issues.”

According to Campbell and Sylvester, a typical DOL audit, even in cases where no violation is ultimately found, can run anywhere from six months to two years. Often, an investigation will involve weeks of significant activity and correspondence followed by months of relative silence. Sylvester and Campbell urged attendees to “not fear the quiet periods,” because oftentimes, the investigator is simply swamped with other projects.

“In any audit, having a good game plan and proper preparation is going to set you up for success,” Sylvester said. “In the event you are selected for an audit, again, don’t panic. For most prudent plan sponsors who are diligent and following generally prudent practices, there is no need to panic. You have advisers and counsel on your side, as well.”

Sylvester emphasized the importance of the first impression, and that auditors appreciate when plan sponsors come across as forthright, well-informed and open to review.

“Being able to quickly and easily access your files is comforting, both for you and for your auditor alike,” she explained. “To make this a reality, make sure your files are always current and up to date. If you are taking the time to do the right things for the plan, it just makes sense to take the time to document everything and to ensure that you can tell your story and prove your prudence. Frankly, DOL and IRS auditors are going to know right away if they are dealing with a diligent or a negligent plan sponsor.”

While the subject of any given audit can vary, the panelists agreed there are currently a few hot-button issues. These include missing participants, cryptocurrencies/digital assets and general cybersecurity matters. All three are coming up in audits, Sylvester and Campbell said, but the first topic, missing participants, tends to take up the most oxygen.  

“The DOL has been talking about missing participants for years,” Campbell said. “Still, in their eyes, it is still a growing concern—making sure you know where participants are and that you can communicate with them and transmit their due benefits. When targeting their audits, they are looking for employers with large missing participant populations and for employers where it appears that there is substantial census information that is missing. This is of concern to the DOL for a lot of different reasons, because there are a lot of different things you should be doing in terms of trying to locate missing participants.”

As the panelists explained, retirement plan fiduciaries owe the selfsame duties of prudence and loyalty to participants who are no longer employed by the company as they do to current, actively participating staff. This means they must ensure required minimum distributions are being sent, for example.

“For some perspective, out of the approximately $2 billion of recoveries made by the DOL last year, about $1.5 billion of that amount stemmed from violations regarding the missing participant issue,” Campbell said. “Clearly the DOL continues to take this very seriously, and so plan sponsors must ensure they are exhausting all reasonable opportunities to locate any missing participants.”

Fortunately, the panelists said, many commercial services can help with the task, and they often have very reasonable pricing.

Looking to the future, Campbell and Sylvester said they expect the general matter of cybersecurity to become a major focus for the DOL as well.

“The maintenance of cybersecurity is now considered a fiduciary responsibility by the DOL,” Sylvester warned. “They have now come out with general guidance and best practices about how plan fiduciaries should be evaluating and monitoring services providers. It just makes sense given the extent of data and assets that we work with.”

Both Sylvester and Campbell suggested all requests for proposal, moving forward, should broach the topic of cybersecurity, and plan fiduciaries should be actively monitoring their providers and their own operations for potential cybersecurity lapses.

«