Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should issue guidance on how funding or assistance from other government programs can be combined with the NMTC including the extent to which other government funds can be used to leverage the NMTC by being included in the qualified equity investment.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has not issued guidance on how funding or assistance from other government programs can be combined with the NMTC, as GAO recommended in July 2014. However, Treasury has taken steps toward addressing this action. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), which administers the NMTC program, completed new empirical research assessing the extent to which other government programs are being combined with the NMTC. The findings of this research (issued in August 2017) indicate that some NMTC projects, especially those using other government funds to leverage the NMTC, potentially received more government funds than needed to close a financing gap. As of January 2020, CDFI Fund officials said that they intend to solicit public comments on additional data to be collected from the Community Development Entities before using these data to identify NMTC-financed projects that may have excessive public funding. Once fully implemented, these additional actions could help ensure that low-income community projects do not receive more government assistance than required to finance a project.

Recommendation: To better protect plan sponsors and participants who use managed account services, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for the EBSA to consider the fiduciary status of managed account providers when they offer services on an opt-in basis and, if necessary, make regulatory changes or provide guidance to address any issues.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL concurred with this recommendation and agreed to review existing guidance and consider whether additional guidance is needed in light of the various business models we described. On April 8, 2016, DOL issued a final rule that clarified that anyone providing advice that is individualized or specifically directed to a participant pertaining to a decision to take, or refrain from taking, a distribution from the plan is a fiduciary. According to DOL, this final rule will better protect plan participants by requiring service providers who provide investment advice to act in their clients' best interest, preventing the erosion of their retirement savings by fees and substandard performance attributable to conflicts of interest. In 2018, a court ruling vacated this regulation; there is legal uncertainty surrounding the regulation and its effect regarding fiduciary duties,

Recommendation: To help sponsors who offer managed account services or who are considering doing so better protect their 401(k) plan participants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to require plan sponsors to request from record keepers more than one managed account provider option, and notify the Department of Labor if record keepers fail to do so.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with a regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant-directed individual account plans. However, in Spring 2017, DOL removed this project as an active project on its regulatory agenda. GAO believes requiring plan sponsors to ask for more than one choice of a provider may be an effective method of broadening plan sponsors' choices of managed account providers. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors and participants more effectively assess the performance of managed accounts, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to amend participant disclosure regulations to require that sponsors furnish standardized performance and benchmarking information to participants. To accomplish this, EBSA could promulgate regulations that would require sponsors who offer managed account services to provide their participants with standardized performance and benchmarking information on managed accounts. For example, sponsors could periodically furnish each managed account participant with the aggregate performance of participants' managed account portfolios and returns for broad-based securities market indexes and applicable customized benchmarks, based on those benchmarks provided for the plan's designated investment alternatives.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with (1) its regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant directed individual account plans and (2) open proposed rulemaking project involving the qualified default investment alternative and participant-level fee disclosure regulations. In Spring 2017, the project on brokerage windows was removed as an active project on DOL's regulatory agenda, and the project on qualified default investment alternatives was moved to the long-term action category. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors and participants more effectively assess the performance of managed accounts, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to amend service provider disclosure regulations to require that providers furnish standardized performance and benchmarking information to sponsors. To accomplish this, EBSA could promulgate regulations that would require service providers to disclose to sponsors standardized performance and benchmarking information on managed accounts. For example, providers could, prior to selection and periodically thereafter, as applicable, furnish sponsors with aggregated returns for generalized conservative, moderate, and aggressive portfolios, actual managed account portfolio returns for each of the sponsor's participants, and returns for broad-based securities market indexes and applicable customized benchmarks, based on those benchmarks provided for the plan's designated investment alternatives.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with (1) its regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant directed individual account plans and (2) open proposed rulemaking project involving the qualified default investment alternative and participant-level fee disclosure regulations. In Spring 2017, the project on brokerage windows was removed as an active project on DOL's regulatory agenda, and the project on qualified default investment alternatives was moved to the long-term action category of DOL's regulatory agenda. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors who offer managed account services or who are considering doing so better protect their 401(k) plan participants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to provide guidance to plan sponsors for selecting and overseeing managed account providers that addresses: (1) the importance of considering multiple providers when choosing a managed account provider, (2) factors to consider when offering managed accounts as a Qualified Default Investment Alternative or on an opt-in basis, and (3) approaches for evaluating the services of managed account providers.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with a regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant-directed individual account plans. However, in Spring 2017, DOL removed this project as an active project on its regulatory agenda. GAO continues to believe that plan sponsors would benefit from additional guidance for selecting and overseeing managed account providers. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: Because ROI provides insights on the productivity of a program and is one important factor in making resource allocation decisions, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should calculate actual ROI for implemented initiatives, compare the actual ROI to projected ROI, and provide the comparison to budget decision makers for initiatives where IRS allocated resources.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: No executive action taken as of December 2019. While IRS agreed that having actual ROI data for implemented initiatives would be useful, it did not believe it was feasible to produce such estimates, as GAO recommended in June 2014. GAO maintains that IRS should be able to provide some information on past initiatives, such as whether funds requested were used in the manner originally proposed. As of December 2016, IRS officials reported there is no timeline for full implementation. Comparing projected ROI to actual ROI can help hold managers and IRS accountable for the funding received.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency, comprehensiveness, and transparency of information provided to Congress and policymakers on the federal investment in export promotion programs, the Secretary of Commerce, as chair of the TPCC, should report in its National Export Strategies on how resources are allocated by agency and aligned with priorities.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Export Enhancement Act [15 U.S.C. Section 4727(c)] states that the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee's (TPCC) strategies should establish a set of priorities for federal export promotion activities and propose a unified federal trade promotion budget that supports the plan. In written comments on GAO's report, the Director of the TPCC Secretariat generally concurred with the recommendation on behalf of the Secretary. Nevertheless, the Director noted the TPCC's limited authority over budget reporting and resource allocations and gave examples of some challenges they faced, including shifts in the political and budgetary landscape and how different Administrations and Congresses have emphasized different priorities over time. In the years following GAO's 2013 report, the TPCC has not issued any National Export Strategies (NES), except in 2016; however this 2016 NES did not include any budget information on how resources were allocated by agency and aligned with the strategy's priorities. In August 2020 Commerce officials told GAO they had collected budget information from TPCC agencies related to trade promotion activities (FY19 actual and FY20 requested). They noted that the budget categories and agencies from which it was collected reflected changes in Administration priorities and new Congressional mandates. However, they said this information has not been transmitted to Congress.

Recommendation: To help improve its ability to oversee M&O contractor costs, including indirect costs, for its laboratories and make more effective use of DOE and contractor resources, the Secretary of Energy should take--or, as appropriate, direct the Administrator of NNSA to incorporate more specific benchmarking requirements into future laboratory contracts--similar to the benchmarking requirements used by DOE to assess and manage pension and post-retirement benefit costs--including which costs should be benchmarked, how frequently benchmarking should occur, and what process should be used to ensure corrective actions are taken, as needed.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2017, the Director of NNSA Office of Policy issued guidance to NNSA Laboratory Field Office Managers to update contracts to include a new clause requiring laboratory contractors to submit a strategic plan every year in accordance with guidance. Part of the annual plan requires contractors to discuss the costs of doing business and cost-increase factors at the sites, including overhead dollars. The annual strategic plan is due to the NNSA Office of Policy by August 15 each year. The annual strategic plans included information on indirect costs and cost drivers, but did not include benchmarking. We again requested information on the benchmarking requirements, if any, in July 2020.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the appropriate IRS officials to perform a risk assessment to determine the appropriate level of Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) access that should be granted to employee groups that handle hard-copy taxpayer receipts and related sensitive taxpayer information as part of their job responsibilities.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. In October 2019, the functions within the Small Business/Self-Employed organization completed risk assessments to determine the appropriate level of Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) access that should be granted to the employees who handle hard-copy taxpayer receipts and related sensitive taxpayer information as part of their job responsibilities. In addition, IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, the Taxpayer Advocate Service organization, in coordination with the Information Technology organization, as necessary, will complete a risk assessment of all employee groups that handle hard-copy taxpayer receipts and related sensitive taxpayer information to determine the most appropriate level of IDRS access.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the appropriate IRS officials to, based on the results of the risk assessment, update the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) accordingly to specify the appropriate level of IDRS access that should be allowed for (1) remittance perfection technicians and (2) all other employee groups with IDRS access that handle hard-copy taxpayer receipts and related sensitive information as part of their job responsibilities.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that by October 2020, the Small Business/Self-Employed, Taxpayer Advocate Service, and Tax Exempt & Government Entities organizations will work with the Information Technology organization, as necessary, to ensure that the applicable Internal Revenue Manual section(s) are revised for any policy changes on (1) risk mitigation, including specifying the appropriate level of Integrated Data Retrieval System access that should be allowed and (2) risk acceptance for affected employee groups, as needed.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the appropriate IRS officials to establish procedures to implement the updated IRM, including required steps to follow to prevent (1) remittance perfection technicians and (2) all other employee groups that handle hard-copy taxpayer receipts and related sensitive information as part of their job responsibilities from gaining access to command codes not required as part of their designated job duties.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that by October 2020, the Small Business/Self-Employed, Taxpayer Advocate Service, and Tax Exempt & Government Entities organizations will work with the Information Technology organization, as necessary, to establish procedures to prevent affected employees from gaining access to command codes not required as part of their designated job duties, as needed.

Recommendation: Should the program be extended beyond 2009, to ensure that the maximum amount of capital ends up in low-income community businesses, Congress may wish to consider offering grants to CDEs that would provide the funds to low-income community businesses. If it does so, Congress may wish to require Treasury to gather appropriate data to assess whether and to what extent the grant program increases the amount of federal subsidy provided to low-income community businesses compared to the NMTC; whether the grant program otherwise affects the success of efforts to assist low-income communities; and how costs for administering the program incurred by the CDFI Fund, CDEs, and investors would change. One option may be for Congress to set aside a portion of funds to be used as grants and a portion to be used as tax credit allocation authority under the current structure of the program in a future allocation round to facilitate comparison of the two program structures.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislative action has been identified as of March 2020. Section 141 of division Q of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, extended NMTC through 2020 (Public Law 116-94). However, this act did not offer grants in lieu of credits, as GAO suggested in January 2010. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the cost of this extension to be approximately $1.5 billion. Offering grants in lieu of NMTCs could result in a greater portion of the federal subsidy reaching low-income community businesses.