Private Pensions
Little Information Available on Qualified Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans Gao ID: GAO-11-533R May 12, 2011To raise private savings for workers' retirement, federal law provides tax incentives for contributions to pension plans. Company sponsors of private defined benefit (DB) pension plans can claim a tax deduction for their contribution amount to a tax-qualified pension plan, and employees' taxes on contributions and investment earnings are deferred until they retire and start receiving benefit payments. To achieve and maintain tax-qualified status, DB plans must comply with multiple federal requirements that are designed to ensure that executives and other highly compensated employees (HCE) do not receive excessively high benefits, both in an absolute sense and relative to nonhighly compensated employees (NHCE). These include limits on total benefit levels, limits on the amount of compensation that can be included in determining benefit levels, and limits on disparities in benefits between HCEs and NHCEs. The goal of the nondiscrimination requirements is to encourage expanded coverage and greater distribution of benefits between the highly paid and workers at lower earnings levels. To demonstrate compliance, plan sponsors may use an IRS preapproved plan or develop a customized plan, which must pass general nondiscrimination tests. These tests generally require a plan sponsor to perform mathematical calculations that compare the proportion of NHCEs who benefit under a tax-qualified plan with the proportion of HCEs who benefit, taking into account their respective benefit accrual rates. Due to the restrictions placed on benefits in a tax-qualified plan, some private sponsors of tax-qualified retirement plans provide additional nontax-qualified supplemental retirement benefits to certain HCEs as part of the HCE's total compensation. These benefits do not enjoy the tax advantages conferred upon qualified plans. In addition, any assets backing these benefits generally remain company assets and, depending on the funding arrangement, could be withdrawn by the sponsor or made available to creditors in the case of a sponsor bankruptcy. Utilizing flexibilities in the nondiscrimination rules, some plan sponsors have designed ways to indirectly transfer some of these nontax-qualified supplemental executive benefits into their existing tax-qualified DB plans. In effect, plans accomplish this by increasing the benefits under the qualified plan, with an offsetting reduction in the benefits under the nonqualified plan, which extends to the HCE the security of DB plan funding and the tax benefits of a qualified plan. These arrangements, commonly referred to as Qualified Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (QSERP), can provide HCEs with a higher qualified benefit amount, the tax advantages provided by a qualified plan, as well as the increased benefit security provided by the backing of qualified plan assets. Since QSERPs are provided to HCEs, but are funded by the assets used to pay qualified plan benefits for all employees, some observers have questioned whether these arrangements affect the benefits promised to NHCEs.
(1) The prevalence of Qualified Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (QSERPs) is unknown because comprehensive data are not available, and we were unable to identify sufficient experts with broad quantitative information on QSERP arrangements. IRS maintains a database that tracks plan sponsors' requests for an IRS determination on the acceptability of pension plan amendments, but it does not capture data to allow for the systematic identification of amendments that have the effect of transferring nontax-qualified benefits into their existing tax-qualified DB plans. We were unable to identify any other private or public data on the prevalence of QSERPs. In addition, there was little qualitative information on their prevalence or design. We found no academic or related literature on the prevalence or design of QSERPs. While many of the pension experts we interviewed were familiar with QSERPs, some stated that they did not possess sufficient specialized knowledge about the prevalence or design of these arrangements. (2) Recent economic conditions, which contributed to a decline in the overall funding of many plans, may have made the implementation of new QSERP arrangements less likely. However, given the lack of data on QSERPs, we cannot confirm whether the number of QSERPs changed in response to the economic downturn. It is possible that plan sponsors could introduce new QSERPs in the future as the ratio of plan assets to plan liabilities improves, but the current pension plan funding requirements of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) place limits on the addition of new liabilities to a tax-qualified plan. (3) QSERPs are one of a variety of arrangements that plan sponsors may use to provide additional qualified benefits to HCEs within the constraints of the nondiscrimination rules. (4) Potential QSERP implications may in some instances include a reduced federal income tax liability for plan sponsors and a higher and more secure qualified benefit amount for HCEs. Any effect on the benefit security of NHCEs is uncertain. PPA requirements reduce the likelihood that a QSERP could be added to a plan that did not have sufficient funding to pay promised benefits. It is uncertain what effect, if any, a QSERP arrangement would have on PBGC.
GAO-11-533R, Private Pensions: Little Information Available on Qualified Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-533R
entitled 'Private Pensions: Little Information Available on Qualified
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans' which was released on June 13,
2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-11-533R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 12, 2011:
The Honorable Sander Levin:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Richard Neal:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Lloyd Doggett:
Member:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Private Pensions: Little Information Available on Qualified
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans:
On March 28, 2011, we briefed your staffs on the results of our work.
This report formally conveys the information provided at that briefing.
To raise private savings for workers' retirement, federal law provides
tax incentives for contributions to pension plans. Company sponsors of
private defined benefit (DB) pension plans can claim a tax deduction
for their contribution amount to a tax-qualified pension plan, and
employees' taxes on contributions and investment earnings are deferred
until they retire and start receiving benefit payments.[Footnote 1] In
fiscal year 2011, tax expenditures for DB pension plans will total
almost $52 billion in estimated federal income tax revenue losses
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.[Footnote 2] These tax
incentives are structured to strike a balance between encouraging
employers to start and maintain voluntary, tax-qualified pension plans
and ensuring that employees receive an equitable share of the tax
subsidized benefits.
To achieve and maintain tax-qualified status, DB plans must comply
with multiple federal requirements that are designed to ensure that
executives and other highly compensated employees (HCE) do not receive
excessively high benefits, both in an absolute sense and relative to
nonhighly compensated employees (NHCE).[Footnote 3] These include
limits on total benefit levels, limits on the amount of compensation
that can be included in determining benefit levels, and limits on
disparities in benefits between HCEs and NHCEs. For instance, the
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) places a limit of $195,000 on the annual
benefit that an individual can receive from a tax-qualified pension
plan beginning at age 62. In addition, it sets a limit of $245,000 on
the amount of annual compensation that can be used in calculating the
benefit amount. Third, the IRC and Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
regulations require that benefits in a tax-qualified plan not
discriminate significantly in favor of HCEs in terms of coverage and
benefit amounts (the "nondiscrimination requirements").
The goal of the nondiscrimination requirements is to encourage
expanded coverage and greater distribution of benefits between the
highly paid and workers at lower earnings levels. To demonstrate
compliance, plan sponsors may use an IRS preapproved plan or develop a
customized plan, which must pass general nondiscrimination tests.
[Footnote 4] These tests generally require a plan sponsor to perform
mathematical calculations that compare the proportion of NHCEs who
benefit under a tax-qualified plan with the proportion of HCEs who
benefit, taking into account their respective benefit accrual rates.
[Footnote 5] Pursuant to IRS regulations, the timing of plan
amendments must also be nondiscriminatory. A plan sponsor can, but is
not required to, request a determination letter from IRS confirming
that the level of benefits under the plan meets the regulatory
standards relating to benefit accrual rates. To obtain IRS review of
whether a plan amendment is nondiscriminatory, the plan sponsor must
demonstrate compliance with objective requirements by providing
specific demonstrations in the determination letter request filed with
IRS.
Due to the restrictions placed on benefits in a tax-qualified plan,
some private sponsors of tax-qualified retirement plans provide
additional nontax-qualified supplemental retirement benefits to
certain HCEs as part of the HCE's total compensation. These benefits
do not enjoy the tax advantages conferred upon qualified plans. In
addition, any assets backing these benefits generally remain company
assets and, depending on the funding arrangement, could be withdrawn
by the sponsor or made available to creditors in the case of a sponsor
bankruptcy.[Footnote 6] Utilizing flexibilities in the
nondiscrimination rules, some plan sponsors have designed ways to
indirectly transfer some of these nontax-qualified supplemental
executive benefits into their existing tax-qualified DB plans. In
effect, plans accomplish this by increasing the benefits under the
qualified plan, with an offsetting reduction in the benefits under the
nonqualified plan, which extends to the HCE the security of DB plan
funding and the tax benefits of a qualified plan. These arrangements,
commonly referred to as Qualified Supplemental Executive Retirement
Plans (QSERP), can provide HCEs with a higher qualified benefit
amount, the tax advantages provided by a qualified plan, as well as
the increased benefit security provided by the backing of qualified
plan assets.[Footnote 7] Since QSERPs are provided to HCEs, but are
funded by the assets used to pay qualified plan benefits for all
employees, some observers have questioned whether these arrangements
affect the benefits promised to NHCEs. To the extent that the share of
benefits to HCEs was maximized, NHCEs' benefits would represent a
smaller proportion of the accrued benefits under the company's
qualified plan. However, a few experts maintain that increasing some
HCEs' tax-qualified benefits could give HCEs and plan decision makers
a larger stake in continuing the DB plan and in keeping it adequately
funded.
In this context, you asked us to examine several aspects of QSERP
arrangements. To respond to your request, this report addresses (1)
what is known about the prevalence and design of QSERP arrangements
and to what extent recent economic conditions have influenced plan
sponsors implementing these arrangements; (2) the key regulatory and
statutory issues associated with these arrangements; and (3) the
implications of these arrangements for involved parties, including the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).[Footnote 8]
Scope and Methodology:
For the purposes of our review, we focused exclusively on QSERP
arrangements. To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant federal laws
and regulations; conducted a comprehensive review of available
literature on plan designs; and interviewed professional pension
experts, consultants, and cognizant federal officials.
We conducted our work from November 2010 to May 2011 in accordance
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence
to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our
work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the
analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and
conclusions in this product.
Key Findings:
* The prevalence of QSERPs is unknown because comprehensive data are
not available, and we were unable to identify sufficient experts with
broad quantitative information on QSERP arrangements. IRS maintains a
database that tracks plan sponsors' requests for an IRS determination
on the acceptability of pension plan amendments, but it does not
capture data to allow for the systematic identification of amendments
that have the effect of transferring nontax-qualified benefits into
their existing tax-qualified DB plans. We were unable to identify any
other private or public data on the prevalence of QSERPs. In addition,
there was little qualitative information on their prevalence or
design. We found no academic or related literature on the prevalence
or design of QSERPs. While many of the pension experts we interviewed
were familiar with QSERPs, some stated that they did not possess
sufficient specialized knowledge about the prevalence or design of
these arrangements.
* Recent economic conditions, which contributed to a decline in the
overall funding of many plans, may have made the implementation of new
QSERP arrangements less likely.[Footnote 9] However, given the lack of
data on QSERPs, we cannot confirm whether the number of QSERPs changed
in response to the economic downturn. It is possible that plan
sponsors could introduce new QSERPs in the future as the ratio of plan
assets to plan liabilities improves, but the current pension plan
funding requirements of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) place
limits on the addition of new liabilities to a tax-qualified plan.
[Footnote 10]
* QSERPs are one of a variety of arrangements that plan sponsors may
use to provide additional qualified benefits to HCEs within the
constraints of the nondiscrimination rules.
* Potential QSERP implications may in some instances include a reduced
federal income tax liability for plan sponsors and a higher and more
secure qualified benefit amount for HCEs. Any effect on the benefit
security of NHCEs is uncertain. PPA requirements reduce the likelihood
that a QSERP could be added to a plan that did not have sufficient
funding to pay promised benefits. It is uncertain what effect, if any,
a QSERP arrangement would have on PBGC.[Footnote 11]
Agency Comments:
We provided copies of this draft report to the Secretary of the
Treasury, Secretary of Labor, IRS Commissioner, and PBGC Director for
review and comment. Each of the agencies provided technical comments,
which we incorporated into the draft, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the appropriate congressional committees and other interested
parties. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. The following GAO staff
members made key contributions to this report: David Lehrer, Jonathan
McMurray, Sherwin Chapman, and Chad Williams contributed to all
aspects of this report; Roger Thomas provided legal support; Frank
Todisco provided actuarial support; and David Chrisinger assisted with
report development.
Signed by:
Charles Jeszeck:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Enclosure: Briefing Slides:
Qualified Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans:
Briefing for Congressional Staff:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
March 28, 2011:
For more information, contact Charles Jeszeck, jeszeckc@gao.gov.
Background:
To promote retirement savings, federal law provides tax incentives for
pension contributions and earnings.
Private firms can claim a tax deduction for contributions made to
pension plans.
Employees are not required to pay taxes on benefits until receipt.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that tax expenditures for
contributions to defined benefit (DB) pension plans and their
associated earnings will total almost $52 billion in fiscal year 2011.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) insures participant
benefits in qualified single-employer DB plans up to a maximum
guarantee amount of $54,000 (in 2011) per year for a retiree at age 65.
The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) contains provisions designed to limit
tax-deferred benefits available to highly compensated employees (HCE)
in a qualified plan.
For example, the IRC:
* limits the amount of annual compensation that can be used to
calculate the benefit amount ($245,000 in 2011), and;
* limits individual annual qualified pension plan benefits ($195,000
in 2011).
Under IRC and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, qualified
defined benefit plans must not significantly discriminate in favor of
HCEs.
Specifically, an employer must:
* make plan benefits available in a nondiscriminatory manner,
* not discriminate in plan benefit amounts, and,
* not discriminate when amending a plan.
IRS has specific tests for each of these three types of discrimination
that employers can use to demonstrate that a plan is nondiscriminatory.
What is a `QSERP?'
To increase executive retirement benefit amounts beyond the IRC
limitations, some private sponsors of qualified retirement plans
provide additional nonqualified supplemental benefits to HCEs in what
are called Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERP). These
benefits do not enjoy the tax advantages conferred upon qualified
plans. In addition, any assets backing these benefits remain company
assets and, depending on the funding arrangement, could be withdrawn
or made available to creditors in the case of a sponsor bankruptcy.
Using flexibilities in nondiscrimination testing, some plan sponsors
have increased the benefits under the qualified plan, with an
offsetting reduction in the benefits under the nonqualified plan, to
make use of plan surplus funds and realize additional tax benefits.
These arrangements, commonly referred to as Qualified Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plans (QSERP), are generally associated with
large defined benefit plans, but small plans also employ similar
arrangements.
Research Questions:
* (Q1) What is known about the prevalence and design of QSERP
arrangements and to what extent have recent economic conditions
influenced plan sponsors implementing these arrangements?
* (Q2) What are the key regulatory and statutory issues associated
with these arrangements?
* (Q3) What are the implications of these arrangements for involved
parties, including PBGC?
Methodology: General Approach:
* Reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations.
* Reviewed available literature on plan designs but did not review any
individual DB plan designs.
* Identified and interviewed:
- professional pension experts,
- consultants and practitioners, and,
- cognizant federal officials.
Methodology: Data and Related Limitations:
Comprehensive quantitative data on the prevalence or design of
QSERP arrangements in the U.S. private pension system are not
available.
While IRS maintains a database that tracks plan sponsors' voluntary
requests for an IRS determination on the acceptability of pension plan
amendments, the database does not capture data on amendments specific
to QSERPs.
After consulting with experts, we were unable to identify or locate
any other private or public sector data on the prevalence or design of
these arrangements.
We interviewed 21 pension experts and consultants and conducted a
comprehensive review of academic pension literature and found that:
* there were few experts on QSERP arrangements, and,
* research on QSERP arrangements was not extensive.
We are conducting this work in accordance with all sections of GAO's
Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The
framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain
sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and
to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the
information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a
reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this product.
Q1: QSERP Prevalence and Design:
The overall prevalence of QSERP arrangements is unknown.
Recent economic conditions, which contributed to decline in the
overall funding of many plans, may have made the implementation of new
QSERP arrangements less likely.
Other factors, such as current funding requirements, may make it less
likely that the number of QSERP arrangements will increase as economic
conditions improve.
Plan sponsors employ numerous techniques to pass the nondiscrimination
tests while providing additional qualified benefits to HCEs. These
techniques can include:
* treating defined contribution plans as DB plans,
* using different methods to value benefits,
* grouping of employees, and,
* aggregating or disaggregating plans.
Q2: Key Regulatory and Statutory Issues:
Plans cannot discriminate significantly in favor of HCEs in terms of
coverage or benefit amounts.
Plans may use either a nondiscriminatory safe harbor/preapproved plan
or an individually designed plan, which must pass general
nondiscrimination tests.
Nondiscrimination testing offers flexibility in how to demonstrate
compliance with this requirement.
The timing of all plan amendments, including QSERP arrangements, must
be deemed nondiscriminatory by IRS on a "facts and circumstances"
basis.
Q3: Implications of QSERP for Involved Parties:
Plan sponsors may have a reduced federal income tax liability and
could make use of any plan overfunding.
HCEs would have a more secure benefit, a greater qualified benefit
amount, and a larger stake in the DB plan.
Any effect on the benefit security of NHCEs is uncertain.
It is also uncertain what effect, if any, a QSERP arrangement would
have on PBGC.
Concluding Observations:
Little is known about the prevalence and design of QSERP arrangements
because there is a lack of data and few experts.
As a result, we cannot estimate:
* the number or proportion of DB plans that have utilized these
arrangements,
* the amount of money invested in them, or,
* the extent to which recent economic conditions have influenced their
use.
IRS cannot identify requests for determinations that explicitly
pertain to QSERP amendments.
GAO can only report the statements and opinions of a selective sample
of pension experts and practitioners who were recommended to GAO and
willing to be interviewed.
Their statements and opinions may not be independent or represent the
spectrum of opinions regarding QSERP arrangements.
GAO cannot evaluate the accuracy or validity of these experts' views
or whether the potential QSERP designs they discussed are legally
valid, used frequently, or represent the range of techniques available
to plans.
[End of briefing slides]
Footnotes:
[1] A DB plan is a qualified plan where the plan sponsor provides a
guaranteed benefit generally expressed as a monthly benefit based on a
formula that generally combines salary and years of service to the
company.
[2] This estimate reflects tax laws in effect through December 15,
2010. The tax expenditure is measured as the income tax revenue that
the government does not currently collect on contributions and
earnings amounts, offset by the taxes paid on pensions by those who
are currently receiving retirement benefits.
[3] For 2011, the IRC defines an HCE as an employee who earns in
excess of $110,000 per year.
[4] IRS preapproved plans generally provide uniform benefits to all
employees.
[5] For example, to demonstrate that a plan is nondiscriminatory in
terms of employee coverage, a plan sponsor can use the "ratio test" to
demonstrate that the percentage of NHCEs who benefit under a plan is
at least 70 percent of the percentage of HCEs who benefit under the
plan.
[6] Special restrictions apply under 26 U.S.C.§ 409A(b).
[7] According to a Department of the Treasury official, QSERP
techniques are one of a variety of analytical techniques (e.g.,
involving statistical modeling) that can be applied to plan-specific
data. Depending on the content of such data, such techniques may
identify discrete opportunities to enhance HCE benefits that, in turn,
are reflected in the plan by an amendment increasing benefits. Thus,
while an employer cannot directly transfer nonqualified deferred
compensation liability to a qualified plan, various steps can be taken
that indirectly have that effect. For example, if the terms of the
nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement provide for that
compensation to be reduced by the value of the benefit provided by the
qualified plan, that effect could result from a benefit increase in
the qualified plan, which might range from an increase for named
individuals or a specified class of employees (i.e., salaried workers
at a specified location)--where the increase takes advantage of the
room available to the plan under the general nondiscrimination in
benefits testing--to an across-the-board increase in benefits for all
participants. Further, the benefit increase might be accompanied by an
independent change in benefits to improve nondiscrimination testing
results. In addition to the limits set forth under the
nondiscrimination rules, the IRC limits on annual benefits and annual
compensation constrain the amount of allowable benefit increase.
[8] PBGC is a federal corporation that insures the pension benefits of
participants in qualified DB pension plans. PBGC takes over terminated
plans that have insufficient assets to pay the benefits promised to
employees and is responsible for paying those benefits up to certain
limits set by law. For 2011, the maximum annual benefit amount is
$54,000 for workers who begin receiving payments from PBGC at age 65.
[9] Experts indicated that QSERPs were likely more prevalent before
the economic downturn when plan sponsors implemented QSERPs to make
use of surplus funds. While the likelihood of new QSERP arrangements
may have decreased, QSERP arrangements that were implemented in the
past are likely still in force. Moreover, in the past, there were
fewer restrictions to prevent plan sponsors from adding QSERP
arrangements to underfunded plans.
[10] PPA prohibits a plan sponsor from putting amendments into effect
that add new liabilities to a plan that is not at least 80 percent
funded (after taking the amendment into account) unless the sponsor
makes additional contributions to the plan. Also, PPA requires plan
sponsors to amortize any unfunded liabilities that are added to a plan
over a 7-year period. Prior to PPA, such liabilities could be
amortized over longer periods and, as a result, sponsors could amend
their plans to increase HCE benefits through a QSERP arrangement
without regard to the amendment's potential effect on the plan's long-
term viability.
[11] The financial effects of a QSERP arrangement can create some
atypical benefit outcomes given PBGC rules governing benefit payouts.
For example, by law PBGC must allocate plan assets in accordance with
priority categories. These categories require PBGC to pay benefits
above the guaranteed limit to a participant that retired or became
eligible for retirement within 3 years of plan termination. Thus, it
is possible that an HCE would receive benefits in excess of the PBGC
limits, while active NHCE employees ineligible for retirement would
not. Specifically, if plan assets were insufficient to cover all plan
benefits, and the plan had been amended to include a QSERP at least 5
years prior to termination, a retired HCE with a QSERP might receive
benefits in excess of the guarantee, while NHCEs and HCEs whose
benefits were above the PBGC guarantee limit and who are not
retirement eligible would not.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
