How to “Break” a Retirement Plan, Part III: What the IRS Finds Most Often

October 23, 2025

Welcome back to our series, How to “Break” a Retirement Plan” In Part I, we examined structural mistakes—the foundational missteps in plan design, contribution handling, and payroll processes that can quietly set a plan on the wrong path. Part II focused on operational blind spots, showing how day-to-day execution errors, from auto-enrollment missteps to mishandling former employees’ accounts, can derail even a well-designed plan. 


Now, in Part III, we turn our attention to what happens when the IRS takes a closer look. When a retirement plan is audited, the IRS isn’t searching for obscure loopholes; it’s looking for a familiar set of recurring problems. These are the same types of errors that often start small but can grow into significant compliance issues. Understanding where auditors tend to focus can help plan sponsors stay ahead of “issues” before they become “findings”. 

Out-of-Date Plan Documents 


A plan document is only as good as its most recent update. To comply with the law, plan rules must reflect current tax legislation, which means updating documents at least every six years and making interim amendments for major changes. Using outdated plan language can create inconsistencies between how the plan is written and how it operates, a classic compliance misstep. 


Tip: Maintain a tracking calendar for required restatements and amendments, and work with your TPA or document provider to ensure all updates are executed and signed on time. 


Mis-defining Compensation 


All contributions  — whether profit-sharing allocations, match formulas, or employee deferrals  — must align with the plan’s official definition of compensation. Including the wrong types of pay, or leaving out eligible earnings, leads to incorrect contributions and compliance test failures. 


This issue often stems from payroll coding errors or incomplete system integration. It underscores the importance of tight coordination among HR, payroll, and plan administration; better yet, implement direct payroll integration with your recordkeeper or TPA to reduce manual errors. 


Eligibility Mistakes 


Though determining eligibility may seem straightforward, errors are surprisingly common. Missing an employee who should be enrolled - or allowing someone to participate too early - can cause failed compliance tests and trigger required corrections.  


Poorly-defined eligibility rules create structural risk, but that is just half of the story: Even well-written rules fail if they aren’t applied consistently. Sponsors should ensure systems are accurately tracking hours, hire dates, and service history, especially for long-term part-time (LTPT) employees, a new area of regulatory focus. 


Loan Failures 


Retirement plan loans are a popular feature, and they come with strict IRS rules regarding borrowing limits, repayment schedules, and cure periods for missed payments. Common violations include failing to withhold repayments through payroll or exceeding the maximum loan balance. 


Even a plan that is structurally sound and operationally disciplined can face compliance trouble if loan administration isn’t monitored carefully. Regular audits of loan activity and close coordination with payroll are critical to avoid costly reclassifications or taxable distributions. 


Impermissible In-Service Withdrawals 


Withdrawals taken before a participant reaches the allowable age or without meeting other plan-specific criteria can jeopardize a plan’s qualified status. Like hardship withdrawals, these distributions require strict adherence to plan rules and full documentation to prove eligibility. 


A single unauthorized distribution can trigger cascading correction requirements, so maintaining clear approval processes and documented authorization is key. 


Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) Failures 


Participants who reach the required age for RMDs must receive payments on time. Missing or miscalculating an RMD isn’t a small clerical mistake; it’s a violation that can create significant tax penalties for participants and compliance issues for the plan. 


This is another area that highlights the importance of ongoing operational vigilance. Automated tracking systems and annual participant data reviews can help ensure RMDs are processed accurately and on schedule. 


Failed Non-Discrimination Test Corrections 


Plans must ensure contributions do not disproportionately favor highly compensated employees (HCEs). When a plan fails an ADP or ACP test, corrections must be made promptly, either through refunds to HCEs or additional contributions for non-HCEs. 


These failures often reflect a disconnect between plan design and workforce demographics, illustrating the interplay between structure and execution. Proactive midyear testing and plan design reviews can prevent last-minute surprises. 


Top-Heavy Contribution Failures 


When a plan’s assets are concentrated among “key” employees, the law requires minimum contributions to other participants in order to maintain fairness. Failing to meet this requirement is a major compliance red flag and often stems from misaligned plan design or misapplied calculations, themes we’ve explored throughout this series. 


Regular top-heavy testing and ongoing contribution monitoring help ensure the plan remains balanced and compliant. 


Excess Annual Contributions 


Plans must monitor total contributions to ensure participants don’t exceed IRS limits for overall annual additions. Overfunding accounts may seem like a “good problem to have,” but it can result in costly corrections and participant tax complications. 


This again underscores the importance of close coordination among payroll, HR, and plan administrators to verify contribution limits are respected and adjusted as needed. 


The Bottom Line: Lessons from IRS Audits 


Across Parts I and II, we’ve seen how structural missteps and operational blind spots can quietly set a plan on the path toward trouble. Part III shows that when the IRS audits a plan, it’s usually these same issues — document errors, eligibility oversights, and compensation miscalculations — that surface again and again. 


The good news: most of these problems are entirely preventable, and easily repairable if caught early. Awareness, routine compliance reviews, and strong communication between your payroll team, HR department, and third-party administrator can keep your plan running smoothly and audit-ready. 


A retirement plan is only as strong as its foundation, its daily operations, and its ongoing oversight. By learning from the patterns the IRS most frequently identifies, plan sponsors can protect participants, avoid penalties, and keep their plans far from “broken.” 

September 15, 2026
The Challenge Sometimes the most expensive retirement plan mistakes aren't dramatic. They're quiet. A former client of ours changed retirement plan providers following an acquisition several years prior. On the surface, everything appeared to be operating normally after moving to the new provider: employees continued making contributions to the plan, the plan’s investments remained in place, and the business continued its normal operations. Then another merger opportunity came along. As part of their due diligence process, the buyers reviewed the retirement plan. What they found immediately raised concerns. The annual Form 5500 filings required by ERISA law had not been submitted for several years. That also meant that none of the required compliance testing had been completed, and routine administrative responsibilities had also gone undone. What had started as a routine review quickly became a significant obstacle to completing the business sale. The Hidden Risk Many employers assume that once a retirement plan provider is hired, responsibility for the plan’s ongoing administration has effectively been transferred to that provider. But a plan sponsor is never completely relieved of its responsibility to oversee the plan. Even when outside providers are hired to handle filings, testing, recordkeeping, or other administrative functions, the employer still needs to make sure those responsibilities are being fulfilled. At the same time, there is an important difference between a provider that simply waits for the employer to supply information and one that actively works with the employer to make sure the plan stays on track. In this case, some of the missing work may have resulted from information requested by the provider that was never supplied by the employer. Technically, the employer still had a responsibility to provide that information and ensure the work was completed. But years of required administration should not quietly disappear into a communication gap. A proactive administrator follows up. If the usual contact isn’t responding, they escalate the issue. They make sure the appropriate people understand what is outstanding, why it matters, and what could happen if it isn’t addressed. Retirement plans require ongoing attention every year, including government filings, compliance testing, participant administration, documentation, and, when necessary, operational corrections. When those responsibilities are neglected, the consequences may not become obvious immediately. Instead, problems can accumulate quietly in the background until an IRS inquiry, Department of Labor investigation, audit, or—as in this case—a business transaction suddenly exposes years of unresolved issues. The prospective buyer made it clear that the retirement plan issues needed to be addressed before the transaction could move forward. The Rescue Knowing we had previously administered their plan, the current company leadership contacted us. Our first step was to determine the full scope of the problem. The timing made the situation particularly challenging. This wasn’t simply a retirement plan cleanup project. A business transaction was underway, and the company needed answers quickly. We assembled a team to determine the full scope of the problem and begin developing a path forward. Because we have deep experience with taking over neglected plans, we were able to separate perceived problems from actual compliance issues and reconstruct the plan's history. In reviewing the prior documentation, we identified exactly which administrative functions had been completed and which had been missed. We gathered historical payroll and participant data and developed a comprehensive correction strategy. Having access to historical plan records was especially important. Retirement plan problems may not surface until years after the underlying event, making good record retention critical. If you’re curious about how long to hold onto plan documentation, please see our blog post here . The final correction effort proved to be far more manageable than originally feared. Instead of allowing uncertainty around the retirement plan to continue hanging over the transaction, the employer now understood what had actually gone wrong, what needed to be corrected, and what steps were required to move forward. The Outcome With the correction efforts clarified and a clear roadmap in place, the employer was able to begin correcting the plan and continue moving toward its business transaction. More importantly, the company avoided entering the acquisition process with unresolved retirement plan liabilities hanging over or ruining the deal. The experience also reinforced an important lesson: Changing retirement plan providers doesn't eliminate administrative responsibilities. But it also demonstrated why the quality of the administrator matters. A good retirement plan administrator doesn’t simply process the information that arrives. They help make sure the information arrives in the first place. The Lesson: Oversight Is a Shared Process Employers ultimately have a responsibility to oversee their retirement plans, even when they hire professionals to handle much of the day-to-day work. That doesn’t mean the employer should have to become a retirement plan expert or personally track every filing deadline and compliance requirement. That’s one of the reasons experienced administration matters. A proactive provider should help keep the employer informed, identify missing information, follow up when something is outstanding, and escalate issues before a missed request becomes a missed filing—or several years of missed filings. The cost of failing to do so can extend well beyond an annual administration fee: Missed filings and potential penalties Incomplete compliance testing Corrective work Additional professional fees Delayed business transactions Uncertainty during mergers and acquisitions  By the time those costs appear, they can far exceed whatever might have been saved by choosing a lower-cost service model. That’s why retirement plan administration shouldn’t simply be viewed as paperwork. It should be viewed as an ongoing partnership in managing risk.
August 18, 2026
The Challenge A business owner came to us after receiving confusing news from their retirement plan actuary. Their Defined Benefit (Cash Balance) Plan had performed exceptionally well over several years; strong investment returns seemed to have created what’s called an overfunded Plan. While it seems like a positive name, an overfunded plan can create excessive and unexpected tax liabilities. So, their actuary recommended terminating the Plan by transferring the excess assets into the company's other Plan, a 401(k)/Profit Sharing Plan, before eventually closing both Plans, a lengthy and complicated process.
July 15, 2026
As we wrap up the second quarter of 2026, one trend continues to stand out: retirement plans are becoming increasingly specialized. Whether driven by changing regulations, unique workforce structures, or evolving business goals, employers are finding that a one-size-fits-all approach simply doesn't work. This quarter, we explored the unique retirement plan challenges facing several industries—including medical and dental practices, construction companies, architecture and design firms, wineries, and California employers navigating CalSavers requirements. We also continued our series on the hidden risks of low-quality retirement plan services, highlighting how operational complexity, fragmented accountability, and misaligned incentives can create costs that extend far beyond administrative fees. For employers still evaluating their retirement plan options, we also discussed opportunities that many business owners overlook, including the ability to establish retirement plans after filing a tax extension and potentially generate meaningful tax savings. Below is a recap of the articles we published this quarter. We hope they provide practical insights to help you reduce risk, improve plan performance, and make more informed retirement plan decisions.
More Posts