IRS Updates Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System

The agency has added two correction methods for overpayments by DB plans and expand the ability to correct an operational failure by plan amendment, among other things.


The IRS has issued Revenue Procedure (Rev. Proc.) 2021-30, updating its comprehensive system of correction programs for sponsors of retirement plans.

The Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) permits plan sponsors to correct plan and operational failures to continue to provide their employees with retirement benefits on a tax-favored basis. The components of EPCRS are the Self Correction Program (SCP), the Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) and the Audit Closing Agreement Program (Audit CAP).

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

In summary, the new Revenue Procedure updates Rev. Proc. 2019-19 primarily to:

  • expand guidance on the recoupment of overpayments of defined benefit (DB) plan benefits;
  • eliminate the anonymous submission procedure under VCP, effective January 1, 2022;
  • add an anonymous, no-fee, VCP pre-submission conference procedure, effective January 1, 2022;
  • extend the end of the SCP correction period for significant failures by one year (which has the result of also extending the safe harbor correction method for employee elective deferral failures lasting more than three months but not beyond the extended SCP correction period for significant failures);
  • expand the ability of a plan sponsor to correct an operational failure under SCP by plan amendment; and
  • extend by three years the sunset of the safe harbor correction method available for certain employee elective deferral failures associated with missed elective deferrals for eligible employees who are subject to an automatic contribution feature in a 401(k) plan or 403(b) plan from December 31, 2020, to December 31, 2023.

Correction of Overpayments by DB Plans

The IRS says previous Revenue Procedures clarified the permissible methods for correcting overpayments under EPCRS by noting that, depending on the facts and circumstances, the correction may not need to include requesting that plan participants and beneficiaries return overpayments to the plan. The agency says that based on comments it received from stakeholders, it is further clarifying and expanding options available for the recoupment of overpayments.

Previous guidance is revised to provide that plan sponsors may offer overpayment recipients the option of repaying it in a single sum payment, through an installment agreement or through an adjustment in future payments.

There are also two new overpayment correction methods: the funding exception correction method and the contribution credit correction method. “These methods reduce the need for defined benefit plans to seek recoupment from overpayment recipients and ease the process for overpayment recipients repaying overpayments, while balancing the interest of other participants in the plan,” the IRS says.

Funding exception correction method. This method provides that corrective payments are not required for a plan subject to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 436 funding-based limitations, provided that the plan’s certified or presumed adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP) that is applicable to the plan at the date of correction is equal to at least 100% (or, in the case of a multiemployer plan, the plan’s most recent annual funding certification indicates that the plan is not in critical, critical and declining, or endangered status, determined at the date of correction). Future benefit payments to an overpayment recipient must be reduced to the correct benefit payment amount.

For purposes of EPCRS, no further corrective payments from any party are required; no further reductions to future benefit payments to an overpayment recipient, or any spouse or beneficiary of the recipient, are permitted; and no further corrective payments from an overpayment recipient, or any spouse or beneficiary of a recipient, are permitted.

Contribution credit correction method. This method provides that the amount of overpayments required to be repaid to the plan is the amount of the overpayments reduced by:

  • the cumulative increase in the plan’s minimum funding requirements attributable to the overpayments (including the increase attributable to the overstatement of liabilities, whether funded through cash contributions or through the use of a funding standard carryover balance, prefunding balance or funding standard account credit balance), beginning with the plan year for which the overpayments are taken into account for funding purposes through the end of the plan year preceding the plan year for which the corrected benefit payment amount is taken into account for funding purposes; and
  • certain additional contributions in excess of minimum funding requirements paid to the plan after the first of the overpayments was made.

This reduction is referred to as a “contribution credit.” Future benefit payments to an overpayment recipient must be reduced to the correct benefit payment amount.

For purposes of EPCRS, if the amount of the overpayments is reduced to zero after the contribution credit is applied, no further corrective payments from any party are required; no further reductions to future benefit payments to an overpayment recipient, or any spouse or beneficiary of the recipient, are permitted; and no further corrective payments from an overpayment recipient, or any spouse or beneficiary of the recipient, are permitted.

However, if a net overpayment remains after the application of the contribution credit, the plan sponsor or another party must take further action to reimburse the plan for the remainder of the overpayment.

Explanations of Other Modifications

The new Revenue Procedure eliminate the condition that requires a plan amendment that increases a benefit, right or feature to apply to all participants eligible to participate under the plan.

It also increases from $100 to $250 the threshold for certain inconsequential amounts for which a plan sponsor is not required to implement correction.

The Revenue Procedure extends the end of the SCP correction period for significant failures from the last day of the second plan year following the plan year for which the failure occurred to the last day of the third plan year following the plan year for which the failure occurred.

Effective January 1, 2022, plan sponsors can request a no-fee, anonymous, VCP pre-submission conference under specified circumstances. Also beginning January 1, 2022, Audit CAP sanctions are required to be submitted through the Pay.gov website instead of by certified check or cashier’s check.

The IRS has extended by three years (from December 31, 2020, to December 31, 2023) the sunset of the safe harbor correction method available for certain employee elective deferral failures associated with missed elective deferrals for eligible employees who are subject to an automatic contribution feature in a 401(k) or 403(b) plan.

The Revenue Procedure also identified which plans are eligible for certain correction programs and the effects of examinations. If the plan or plan sponsor is under examination, VCP is not available. The regulation also identifies when SCP is available to a plan that is under examination.

Talking Scale With Voya, Sterling Resources Leaders

Over the past decade, the universe of retirement plan recordkeepers has contracted from about 400 to approximately 150, with no signs of slowing. Experts say one lesson learned in this time is that not all scale is created equal.


Peter Demmer is the co-founder of Sterling Resources and has executive management responsibility for the firm’s strategic consulting practice.

As Demmer tells PLANADVISER, Sterling Resources specializes in supporting retirement plan services in the U.S. and international markets, providing financial and business analysis, including merger and acquisition (M&A) support and market research services. Naturally, given the tremendous amount of consolidation that has occurred in the retirement plan space over the past decade or so, Demmer has been following the trends closely, conducting proprietary research and consulting directly with some of the largest and most dynamic retirement plan service providers.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Providing some context for his work, Demmer notes that, over the past decade, the universe of retirement plan recordkeepers has declined from about 400 to approximately 150, with no signs of slowing. At the same time that the number of providers has shrunk dramatically, the role of the retirement plan services industry has grown significantly, with more people and assets invested in the system than ever before. All told, total U.S. retirement savings total approximately $35 trillion.

Demmer says this story of increasing scale is often misconstrued or is not always presented with proper context.

“What I mean is that not all scale is created equal,” Demmer explains, citing internal data showing that only about half of the recent M&A transactions appear to have added significantly to pre-tax profits in the proceeding years after the closing of the sale.

The Sterling Resources data shows participant volume continues to be the most important driver of expenses, in particular for the two components—client service and technology—that have the highest fixed cost values. However, the number of plans, the volume of assets and other variables are important expense drivers as well. The costs that appear to be least impacted by scale are sales and indirect/overhead allocations.

The main negative drag on profitable M&A appears to be having little experience in integrating diverse books of business, Demmer says. Other negative factors such as complex service structures or multiple platforms of the seller added to slow conversion of the acquired book. Factors that contributed to post-M&A success, on the other hand, were rapid integration into a single technology and process platform. Another important factor was an ability to offer a substantial cost benefit along with “real service breadth improvements” to the sellers’ clients, he notes.

The research also made clear that “fixed costs” don’t stay fixed forever, whether before or after an M&A transaction. In other words, for the average provider in Sterling’s client base, the fixed costs of the major components of client service aggregated to about $37 per participant as of four years ago. Today the figure is closer to $50 per participant. As Demmer sees it, this indicates an uptrend in defining adequate scale or fixed cost savings potential.  

Reflecting on these points, Charlie Nelson, vice chairman and chief growth officer at Voya Financial, says there is no doubt that the retirement industry M&A activity that has defined the past decade will continue for the foreseeable future.

“The competition for scale continues to accelerate,” he tells PLANADVISER. “We’ve seen consolidation even among and within the 10 largest providers, and by some measures as much as 75% of all retirement savings assets are now recordkept by the top 10 providers. Even the biggest and best firms are seeing intense competition among themselves.”

Nelson points out that Voya (and many of its peer firms) now actively engage with Sterling Resources to conduct and share anonymized market performance research, giving these firms a direct way to compare their own profitability and efficiency—not to mention the quality of their service deliverables—with that of the broader marketplace.

“Over the longer term, we plan to advance our technology infrastructure to facilitate our accelerated growth,” Nelson says. “It will be about leveraging investments in our data, digital and analytics capabilities, and our automation capabilities. It’s all in the spirit of driving improved outcomes and enhanced client solutions for individuals.”

As to whether Voya has more acquisitions up its sleeve, Nelson says the future is open.

“I can tell you that I don’t believe that we need inorganic acquisition activity to meet our growth plans for 2021, but as we navigate the coming years, we will most definitely be looking for opportunities that can help us grow even faster,” he says. “It’s not a prerequisite that we do this in the near term, but we will absolutely be looking out with this strategic view.”

«