What Is an IRS Compliance Check for a 401(k) Plan?

An IRS compliance check is a limited, voluntary review of filing, reporting and payment compliance. It is not an examination of the 401(k) plan's books and records, and—while the check remains only a compliance check—it generally leaves correction options open that can disappear once an examination begins.^[1][4]

That makes the right response neither:

panic

nor:

ignore it because it is voluntary.

The useful response is:

identify the exact issue, reconcile the filed information, and investigate any underlying plan failure before the contact escalates.

The Current Rulebook Is Newer Than the Public EPCU Label

IRS.gov still has a retirement-plan page labeled:

Employee Plans Compliance Unit (EPCU).^[2][3]

There is a problem with using that page as the procedural rulebook.

The EPCU page itself is marked:

historical content.^[3]

The operating manual changed in 2025.

The Old Unit Procedures Were Replaced

Effective May 29, 2025, the IRS published:

IRM 4.70.10 — TE/GE Compliance Checks.^[1]

The manual says it:

• created a consistent TE/GE compliance-check process
• incorporated the newer Title 26 procedure
• obsoleted former IRM 4.71.22, the Employee Plans Compliance Unit procedures.^[1]

This was more than a naming change.

It means current procedural analysis should start with IRM 4.70.10, not an old EPCU project page.

Why Does IRS.gov Still Say EPCU?

The current Examinations and Enforcement page still presents an:

Employee Plans Compliance Unit (EPCU)

link for retirement-plan sponsors.^[2]

Clicking through reaches the archival page.^[3]

So the public label and the operating rules now live in different places: the website still uses EPCU, while the consolidated TE/GE manual supplies the current mechanics.

A current 2026 article should not pretend the old EPCU manual is still controlling.

What Does the IRS Review at This Stage?

The manual defines the contact as a review of whether a TE/GE taxpayer is adhering to federal:

• tax filing
• information-return filing
• reporting
• payment

requirements.^[1]

The Service also uses the contact to:

• educate taxpayers
• encourage voluntary compliance
• secure delinquent or amended filings where appropriate.^[1]

The boundary matters.

This Contact Is Explicitly Outside Examination

IRM 4.70.10 expressly places the contact outside the examination process.^[1]

Revenue Procedure 2005-32 likewise recognizes categories of limited IRS contacts that do not constitute an examination or inspection of books of account.^[7]

That distinction affects:

• what the IRS is supposed to do during the contact
• taxpayer participation
• EPCRS timing
• whether a later examination can still occur.

It Does Not Directly Determine a Year's Tax Liability

The same manual says the contact does not directly determine tax liability for a particular period.^[1]

That is another line between:

compliance verification

and:

examination.

The IRS can ask the sponsor to correct filings or bring an account into compliance.

A contested tax-liability determination belongs in the proper examination/assessment process.

The IRS Is Not Supposed to Inspect the Plan's Books and Records

For this Title 26 contact, the operating manual says the IRS does not:

• inspect books and records
• discuss books and records
• use the contact to determine worker classification.^[1]

This is one of the most useful response boundaries.

A limited inquiry should not become a full examination merely because everyone starts exchanging documents.

But the IRS Can Review Filed Information

The Service can analyze returns and information already filed or otherwise available to it.^[1][7]

The current procedure specifically lists filings such as:

• Form 5500 series
• Forms W-2/W-3
• Forms 1099/1096
• employment-tax returns
• other applicable information returns.^[1]

For retirement plans, Form 5500 data is an obvious source of leads.

Example: Form 5500 Participant Counts Do Not Reconcile

Suppose Form 5500 reports:

95 participants

while other filed information suggests a materially different workforce.

A compliance check can ask the sponsor to explain or correct the filed reporting.

The Service does not need to open a full plan audit merely to ask:

"Why does this filing look inconsistent?"

A Reporting Error Can Be Just a Reporting Error

Assume the participant count was wrong because:

• a preparer used the prior-year census
• the plan itself operated correctly
• no participant was excluded.

The remedy may primarily be:

correct the filing.

Do not manufacture a qualification correction when the plan itself was right.

The Same Reporting Error Can Reveal a Qualification Failure

Change the facts.

The Form 5500 count is low because:

eight eligible employees were never enrolled.

Now there are two issues:

1. reporting may be wrong
2. plan operation may be wrong.

Correcting the Form 5500 does not restore those employees' missed benefits.

The plan failure needs a separate EPCRS analysis.

Selection Is Issue-Focused

The TE/GE manual describes the case plan as issue focused.^[1]

Selection can be based on:

• IRS data
• filed returns
• discrepancies
• project-specific criteria.

The point is not to audit everything.

The Service targets a defined compliance concern.

Historical Retirement-Plan Projects Show the Pattern

Past Employee Plans compliance projects have looked at issues such as:

• Form 5500-EZ filing by one-participant plans
• complete discontinuance of employer contributions
• plan amendment compliance
• rollover-as-business-startup arrangements.^[8][9]

Those examples do not mean the same projects are active today.

They show how the IRS uses filed data to isolate a question before deciding whether a full examination is warranted.

Letter 4204 Opens the Contact

Under the consolidated procedure, the initial contact is Letter 4204 — TE/GE Compliance Check with Information Request.^[1]

That is not the same as:

Letter 6031

used to open a current TE/GE examination.

INV-121 covers the examination process.

The letter number identifies the procedural lane.

Form 13837 Carries the Questions

The accompanying request is Form 13837 — Compliance Check Information Request.^[1]

The current manual uses the acronym:

CCIR.

That form contains the specific questions the Service wants answered.

It is not the same as:

Form 4564 — Information Document Request

used during an examination.

Compliance-Check Documents vs. Examination Documents

The first task after receiving IRS correspondence is to identify which process actually started.

The Ordinary Response Period Is 30 Days

The opening letter generally carries a 30-calendar-day response date.^[1]

The IRS sets a follow-up date later to account for mailing.

If no response arrives, the procedure calls for follow-up efforts.

A plan sponsor should not use the voluntary nature of the check as a reason to let the date pass by accident.

The IRS Can Call After the First Letter

If nothing arrives, the instructions generally call for telephone follow-up after the initial response cycle.^[1]

If contact is made, the examiner can:

• confirm receipt
• explain the reason for the contact
• review what Form 13837 requests
• discuss response methods
• consider a reasonable short extension.^[1]

This is still a compliance check.

A follow-up phone call does not automatically convert it into an audit.

Certified Follow-Up Can Come Next

If the initial contact does not produce a complete response, the Service can send Letter 3854 by certified mail.^[1]

The certified mailing creates proof of delivery and gives the sponsor another opportunity to respond.

Ignoring the first letter therefore does not usually make the issue disappear.

Participation Is Legally Voluntary

The current manual is explicit:

the taxpayer may legally choose not to participate.^[1]

That is an important taxpayer right.

It should not be confused with:

the IRS has to abandon the issue if we decline.

It does not.

Voluntary Does Not Mean Consequence-Free

If the sponsor does not respond, the file can be closed as a no-response case

and potentially sent forward for examination consideration.^[1]

A partial response can also lead to referral.

The correct distinction is:

no penalty merely for refusing the voluntary check

versus:

the underlying facts can still justify a later examination.

No-Response Cases Can Be Referred

Under the resolution rules, a no-response case can be closed using:

Letter 4220 — Compliance Check Case Closed as a Referral to Classification.^[1]

The case can then move into IRS classification for possible examination consideration.

That is a strategic reason to respond even though the sponsor is not legally compelled to participate in the check itself.

Partial Responses Can Also Create Referral Risk

Suppose Form 13837 asks for five items.

Sponsor responds to two.

The IRS follows up.

The remaining material never arrives.

A partial-response case can also close with:

• Letter 4220
• Form 5666 referral material
• classification referral for possible examination.^[1]

The lesson is not:

answer everything the IRS could ever want.

It is:

if you choose to participate, answer the actual compliance-check request completely and consistently.

Referral Is Not the Same as Examination

A referral moves the issue to:

classification for possible examination consideration.^[1]

It does not guarantee that an audit will open.

IRS classification still determines whether the matter warrants examination resources.

So do not overstate:

Letter 4220 = audit.

It means:

the compliance-check lane may be ending and the examination lane may be next.

That Transition Is Critical for EPCRS

The contact itself remains outside examination.^[1][4]

Current IRS guidance specifically says certain form and operational mistakes can still be corrected through EPCRS while the matter remains at this stage.^[4]

That can preserve:

• SCP
• VCP

subject to their own requirements.

This is the biggest practical advantage of discovering the error at this stage.

VCP Can Still Be Available During a Compliance Check

VCP is the formal IRS voluntary-correction route discussed in INV-116.

The program closes when the plan or sponsor meets the EPCRS definition of:

Under Examination.^[5]

This limited contact, standing alone, is not that event.

So a sponsor that finds a problem during the check can still have time to:

• classify the failure
• determine whether SCP works
• file VCP when formal IRS approval is preferable.

Do Not Assume the Window Lasts Until Letter 6031

There is an important qualification.

The EPCRS Under Examination definition is broader than:

"we received Letter 6031."^[5]

It can include notification of:

• an impending examination
• an impending referral for examination.

So the right rule is:

compliance check itself ≠ examination

not:

VCP remains open until a specific audit form arrives no matter what else the IRS has communicated.

If referral or examination notice appears, re-test the cutoff immediately.

Example: The Inquiry Uncovers a Compensation Error

IRS asks about a Form 5500 discrepancy.

During the sponsor's internal review, the benefits team discovers:

bonuses were excluded from matching compensation for three years even though the plan includes them.

That is an operational failure.

The sponsor now has two projects.

Compliance-check response

Address the filed information the IRS asked about.

Qualification correction

Calculate:

• affected participants
• missed match
• earnings
• testing effects
• former participants.

Then choose the appropriate EPCRS route.

Do not wait for the IRS to discover the operational issue first.

Example: SCP Is Clearly Available

Assume:

• established compliance procedures existed
• error was inadvertent
• current SCP conditions are satisfied
• correction method is established
• no examination cutoff has occurred.

The sponsor may be able to self-correct.

INV-115 covers the current SCP framework.

The IRS contact does not by itself require a VCP filing.

Example: VCP Is the Better Choice

Change the facts.

The newly discovered failure involves:

• weak pre-existing procedures
• unusual retroactive amendment
• large participant population
• acquisition closing in six months.

SCP is debatable.

The sponsor wants written IRS approval.

Because the contact remains a compliance check, VCP may still be available.^[4][5]

Waiting for a referral can destroy that option.

The Check Can Be More Valuable Than It Looks

The opening letter often feels like:

administrative nuisance.

That can be a mistake.

The sponsor has received a signal:

IRS data found something worth asking about.

At the same time, the matter has not yet crossed into a plan examination.

That combination creates a valuable opportunity to:

• understand the data problem
• correct reporting
• self-audit the underlying plan
• use EPCRS while voluntary routes remain open.

Do Not Wait for the Check to Close Before Investigating the Plan

Bad sequence:

answer the information request → wait six months → receive referral → then investigate underlying plan operation.

Better sequence:

answer the filing question + investigate whether the same fact indicates a qualification failure + correct while the procedural window is better.

The second approach preserves options.

What Can the IRS Review Without Inspecting Books and Records?

This line deserves precision.

The Service may analyze:

• filed returns
• information returns
• information already in IRS systems
• material voluntarily provided to explain a discrepancy.^[1][7]

What the current compliance-check procedure says it should not do is conduct:

inspection or discussion of the taxpayer's books and records.^[1]

That distinction limits the scope.

A Request Can Be Narrow Without Being Trivial

Suppose the IRS asks:

Why does Form 5500 show no employer contributions for five years?

The sponsor can respond with filed-plan information and an explanation relevant to the issue.

That does not authorize a full review of:

• general ledger
• every payroll record
• all participant files
• all trust statements

unless the matter moves into the appropriate examination process or the sponsor voluntarily provides material.

Overproduction Can Create Its Own Problem

The instinct to be cooperative can turn into:

send the whole plan archive.

That is poor process.

A bulk production can:

• obscure the requested answer
• create inconsistent data
• introduce unrelated issues
• blur the procedural boundary
• make later chronology harder to reconstruct.

A strong response is:

complete, accurate and scoped to the question.

Not minimal to the point of evasion.

Not unlimited.

What If the IRS Request Seems to Cross the Line?

If the information request or follow-up correspondence appears to demand a full books-and-records inspection:

do not simply ignore it.

Ask:

• Is this still the same limited IRS contact?
• Is the IRS asking for filed-return verification?
• Is the requested item voluntarily supplied explanation?
• Has the matter been converted or referred to examination?

That is a good point to involve benefits/tax counsel.

The procedural label should match the requested authority.

Do Not Use the Boundary to Hide Relevant Facts

Scope discipline is not concealment.

If the IRS asks:

Was Form 5500 item X reported correctly?

and the truthful answer is:

no

the sponsor should not manufacture a narrow response to avoid the correction.

The better strategy is:

• answer accurately
• correct the filing
• separately evaluate the plan consequence.

Credibility matters if the case later reaches examination.

Compliance Checks Often Target Filed-Return Compliance

The TE/GE rules allow the reviewer to secure:

• delinquent returns
• amended returns
• current-year returns
• related payments.^[1]

That can bring the taxpayer into compliance without opening an examination.

For a 401(k), a common distinction is:

information-return problem

versus:

qualification problem.

They can coexist.

Amended Form 5500 Is Not EPCRS

Suppose a plan failed to report something correctly on Form 5500.

An amended filing can fix:

the return.

If the underlying reason was that the plan also failed to follow its terms:

an amended return does not fix:

the plan.

Use the correct correction system for each defect.

Example: Complete Discontinuance of Contributions

IRS has historically used compliance checks to identify plans showing long periods without employer contributions.^[9]

Why could that matter?

A complete discontinuance of contributions can trigger:

full vesting

requirements under the qualified-plan rules.

Suppose the plan properly had no required employer contribution.

But several terminated participants were left partially vested after a complete discontinuance.

The Form 5500 clue can lead to:

• reporting correction
• participant vesting correction.

Different layers.

Example: One-Participant 401(k)

A one-participant 401(k) can have a Form 5500-EZ filing requirement when combined one-participant plan assets exceed the applicable threshold.

The IRS has used compliance-check projects to identify sponsors that may have failed to file.^[8]

A sponsor receiving that inquiry should first establish:

• plan assets
• filing status
• existence of other one-participant plans
• whether a filing was actually required.

Do not assume the letter proves noncompliance.

The Check Is Not an IRS Ruling

A favorable compliance-check closure does not function like:

• determination letter
• VCP compliance statement
• Audit CAP closing agreement.

It means the defined compliance-check issue was resolved or no further action was warranted in that process.

It does not certify:

the entire 401(k) is qualified.

INV-122 explains determination letters.

Letter 4140 Closes a Resolved Case

Current rules use Letter 4140

for cases where a complete response results in:

• full compliance
• agreed correction
• no change/no further action.^[1]

That is a better result than referral.

It is still not a global plan approval.

Referral Closures Use a Different Letter

Current rules use Letter 4220

for no-response and partial-response closures involving referral to classification.^[1]

The letter difference matters.

One generally says:

we are closing the compliance check with the issue resolved/no further action here.

The other says:

the check is closing with potential examination referral.

Read the actual closing correspondence.

A Later Examination Is Legally Possible

Because this IRS contact is not an examination, the taxpayer should not assume the one-inspection/reopening protections applicable to completed examinations block a later audit.^[1][7]

Revenue Procedure 2005-32 distinguishes limited contacts from examinations and recognizes that information gathered for one purpose can lead to later examination activity for another purpose or period.^[7]

The check is not an audit shield.

"We Already Had an IRS Check" Is Not a Defense

A future examiner may hear: "The IRS already reviewed this plan."

If the earlier activity was only this limited review:

that statement is too broad.

Ask:

• what issue?
• what letter?
• what information?
• what years?
• was there ever a formal examination?

The prior procedural status determines the significance.

Participation Decision: Legal Right vs. Practical Strategy

The sponsor can legally decline.^[1]

But the decision should consider:

• clarity of the issue
• strength of the filed reporting
• likelihood of easy resolution
• presence of a qualification failure
• time needed for EPCRS correction
• risk of referral.

A blanket:

never answer voluntary IRS contacts

is not a sophisticated rule.

Neither is:

send everything immediately.

When Declining Might Be Rational

Examples can include a request that:

• appears procedurally improper
• materially exceeds the compliance-check scope
• overlaps with another active IRS proceeding
• raises a complex privilege or representation issue.

Even then, silence is usually worse than a controlled response explaining the position through counsel.

When Participation Is Usually Attractive

Participation is often sensible when:

• discrepancy is simple
• sponsor can reconcile it
• amended filing is straightforward
• no broader problem exists
• sponsor can demonstrate compliance cleanly.

Resolving the issue at compliance-check level can avoid the cost of examination.

If You Find an Error, Separate It Into Two Columns

Use this table:

This prevents an amended return from being mistaken for a participant correction.

A Practical 401(k) Compliance-Check Response File

Create one controlled response file with:

IRS correspondence

• opening letter
• information request
• follow-up letters
• closing letter.

Issue statement

One paragraph:

What does the IRS appear to be checking?

Filed-return reconciliation

Identify:

• exact line/item
• filed number
• correct number
• reason for difference.

Supporting explanation

Only what is necessary and appropriate to answer the check.

Internal plan review

Separate work product assessing whether the same facts reveal:

• operational
• document
• demographic
• employer eligibility

failure.

Correction track

If needed:

• SCP memo
• VCP submission
• amended filing
• participant correction.

Keep the two tracks distinct.

Representation Can Still Matter

Even though the contact is less formal than an audit, the sponsor can use an authorized representative.

The current TE/GE procedure recognizes:

• Form 2848
• Form 8821

in the review process.^[1]

As in INV-121:

• Form 2848 supports representation by an eligible representative for stated matters
• Form 8821 primarily authorizes access to tax information.

Choose based on what the adviser needs to do.

Do Not Turn Every Check Into a Legal Battle

An opening letter asking why a Form 5500 was late may not need a 30-page legal memo.

Over-lawyering a simple reporting issue can:

• increase cost
• slow response
• distract from the real fix.

Use judgment.

Complex qualification consequences deserve deeper analysis.

Simple filing corrections deserve clean execution.

Example: Clean No-Change Closure

IRS asks about an apparent missing filing.

Sponsor produces evidence that:

• return was timely filed
• IRS/DOL data did not match correctly
• no delinquency exists.

No qualification issue is found.

The compliance check can close no-change.

That is exactly the kind of limited issue the process is designed to resolve.

Example: Agreed Reporting Correction

IRS identifies inconsistent Form 5500 information.

Sponsor verifies:

the filed return was wrong.

Underlying plan operation was correct.

Sponsor files the proper amendment.

The IRS closes the check after compliance is restored.

No EPCRS correction is needed merely because the annual report had an error.

Example: Reporting Correction Plus VCP

IRS asks about participation data.

Sponsor discovers a multi-year exclusion failure.

Counsel concludes:

• SCP eligibility is uncertain
• correction amount is substantial
• formal IRS approval is valuable.

The sponsor can potentially file VCP while the matter remains a compliance check.^[4][5]

That is precisely why the procedural distinction matters.

Example: Sponsor Ignores the Contact

The opening letter arrives.

No response.

Certified follow-up correspondence arrives.

No response.

The case can close with:

• Letter 4220
• referral material
• classification consideration.^[1]

The sponsor has preserved its legal right not to participate.

It may also have traded a limited inquiry for a possible examination.

Those statements are not contradictory.

Example: Partial Response

Sponsor answers the easy reporting questions but ignores the one item that appears problematic.

The IRS follows up.

Still no answer.

That partial-response pattern can also be referred.^[1]

Selective silence can therefore be worse than either:

• complete response
• explicit, represented explanation of why a request exceeds scope.

Example: Request Appears Too Broad

Form 13837 asks a limited Form 5500 question.

Later contact appears to request:

• complete general ledger
• all participant election forms
• all bank statements
• every payroll register.

Those look more like books-and-records examination material.

The sponsor should clarify:

Is the IRS still conducting a compliance check, and what authority/scope supports the request?

Do not assume the process changed without confirmation.

What to Do When the Opening Letter Arrives

1. Verify the process

Confirm:

• opening letter
• information request
• tax period/plan identified
• IRS contact information.

2. Calendar the response date

Generally 30 calendar days under current procedure.^[1]

3. Identify the issue from the filed data

Ask:

What did the IRS see?

4. Reconcile before answering

Compare:

• Form 5500
• participant counts
• contributions
• plan status
• other filed information.

5. Run a targeted plan review

Ask whether the same discrepancy signals a qualification failure.

6. Preserve EPCRS options

If a plan error exists:

• classify it
• evaluate SCP
• consider VCP before examination status changes.

7. Respond to the actual request

Accurate.

Complete.

Scoped.

8. Do not volunteer a full audit file

The current rule does not call for books-and-records inspection.^[1]

9. Track every IRS communication

A later notice of examination or referral can affect EPCRS timing.

10. Read the closing letter

Know whether the check ended:

• no change/agreed
• no response/partial response with referral.

Limited IRS Review vs. Examination

The difference is substantive.

Not cosmetic.

Which IRS Documents Signal Which Process?

Do not use the word audit until you know which documents you received.

Full Response vs. No Response vs. Partial Response

The response choice affects the route.

It does not control IRS classification after the check.

What the Historical EPCU Page Still Gets Right

The archived Employee Plans page says these contacts were designed to resolve many issues through correspondence and avoid on-site books-and-records examinations.^[3]

That concept remains consistent with current TE/GE procedure.

What should not be carried forward are:

• old unit structure
• obsolete IRM citations
• old project procedures.

Use the archival page for context and IRM 4.70.10 for current mechanics.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this an IRS audit?

No.

No. Current TE/GE procedure expressly places this Title 26 contact outside examination.^[1]

Can the IRS inspect my 401(k) books and records during the check?

The current compliance-check procedure says the check is not an inspection or request of books and records and directs examiners not to inspect or discuss them.^[1]

Is participation mandatory?

No.

The taxpayer may legally choose not to participate.^[1]

Is there a penalty just for declining the voluntary check?

The compliance-check procedure does not make participation mandatory. Separate penalties or liabilities can still exist for underlying filing, reporting or tax failures.

Can ignoring the letter cause an audit?

It can increase referral risk.

Current rules allow no-response and partial-response cases to be sent to classification for possible examination consideration.^[1]

Does referral guarantee an audit?

No.

Referral means the matter is sent for examination consideration.

What letter opens the current process?

Letter 4204.^[1]

What is Form 13837?

The Compliance Check Information Request used in the current TE/GE process.^[1]

Is that the same as Form 4564?

No.

Form 4564 is an Information Document Request associated with an examination.

How long do I usually have to respond?

Current general procedure uses a 30-calendar-day response date on the initial letter.^[1]

Can the IRS follow up by phone?

Yes.

Current procedure calls for telephone follow-up in specified nonresponse situations.^[1]

Why might I receive certified mail?

Letter 3854 can be sent by certified mail after no response or incomplete response.^[1]

Can I still use VCP?

Potentially yes.

Current IRS guidance says a compliance check is not an examination, so certain plan errors can still be corrected using EPCRS.^[4]

Can I wait until the check is over to decide?

That is risky.

If the matter later reaches an examination/referral notice that triggers EPCRS Under Examination status, VCP can become unavailable.^[5]

Does amending Form 5500 correct the 401(k) itself?

Only if the problem was purely reporting.

An operational or document failure requires its own correction analysis.

Does a favorable closing letter prove the plan is qualified?

No.

It closes the identified compliance-check issue. It is not a determination letter or plan-wide qualification ruling.

Why does IRS.gov still use the EPCU label?

The retirement-plan site still uses the label, but the linked unit page is marked historical. The current compliance-check operating rules are in IRM 4.70.10.^[1][2][3]

The ROIStreet Compliance-Check Response Sequence

Identify the opening letter and information request → calendar the response date → identify the exact filed-data discrepancy → reconcile the return before responding → determine whether the issue is reporting-only or signals a qualification failure → keep books-and-records production outside the check unless the procedural basis is clear → choose whether to participate with full awareness that nonresponse can lead to referral → if a plan failure exists, classify it immediately → evaluate SCP → evaluate VCP while the matter remains outside examination → correct participant economics separately from reporting → submit a complete, scoped response → track any referral or examination notice for EPCRS timing → read the closing letter by outcome → retain the compliance-check and correction file

The wrong assumption is:

"Voluntary means unimportant."

It does not.

This type of 401(k) contact is one of the few IRS touchpoints where the sponsor can see that a problem has attracted attention while still retaining more correction flexibility than it would have in a formal examination. That is the moment to investigate and correct—not the moment to wait.

Sources & References

1. Internal Revenue Service: IRM 4.70.10 — TE/GE Compliance Checks — https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-070-010
2. Internal Revenue Service: Examinations and Enforcement — https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/examinations-and-enforcement
3. Internal Revenue Service: Employee Plans Compliance Unit (EPCU) — Historical Page — https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/employee-plans-compliance-unit-epcu
4. Internal Revenue Service: Voluntary Correction Program — Did You Complete Your Correction? — https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/voluntary-correction-program-did-you-complete-your-correction
5. Internal Revenue Service: Revenue Procedure 2021-30 — Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System — https://www.irs.gov/irb/2021-31_IRB
6. Internal Revenue Service: Notice 2023-43 — SECURE 2.0 Expansion of EPCRS — https://www.irs.gov/irb/2023-24_IRB
7. Internal Revenue Service: Revenue Procedure 2005-32 — Examinations and Reopenings — https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-05-32.pdf
8. Internal Revenue Service: Financial Advisors: Are Assets in Your Clients' One-Participant Plans More Than $250,000? — https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/financial-advisors-are-assets-in-your-clients-one-participant-plans-more-than-250000
9. Internal Revenue Service: Complete Discontinuance of Contributions and What You Need to Know — https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/no-contributions-to-your-profit-sharing-401-k-plan-for-a-while-complete-discontinuance-of-contributions-and-what-you-need-to-know

Educational Disclaimer

ROIStreet publishes educational content about retirement-plan qualification, IRS compliance contacts and correction. This article is not legal, tax, controversy, fiduciary or plan-administration advice. The effect of a compliance-check letter depends on the exact correspondence, information requested, plan and tax periods involved, underlying filing issues, qualification failures, subsequent referral notices and current EPCRS guidance.

The ROIStreet Reader Promise

We strive to explain before we evaluate, present evidence before opinions, discuss risks alongside potential benefits, distinguish facts from analysis, and correct material errors transparently.

Our purpose is to help readers better understand investing—not to tell them what to do.