According to the 2014 DOL audit quality study, what percentage of benefit plan audits had unacceptable major deficiencies?

According to the 2014 DOL audit quality study, what percentage of benefit plan audits had unacceptable major deficiencies?

• A. 25%
• B. 40%
• C. 60%
• D. 15%

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is how often benefit plan audits were found to have serious quality problems by the Department of Labor in the 2014 audit quality study. The study reported that about 40% of benefit plan audits contained major deficiencies that were considered unacceptable. This means that in roughly four out of ten audits, there were significant issues in the auditor’s work—problems strong enough that the audit could not be relied upon to provide an accurate or complete view of the plan’s financial statements and ERISA compliance. A major deficiency is a substantial weakness in the audit that could undermine the auditor’s opinion or the usefulness of the audit evidence. When such deficiencies are deemed unacceptable, it signals gaps in how the audit was planned, executed, or reported—often due to insufficient testing, inadequate evidence, or improper application of auditing standards. The implication is clear: improving audit quality in plan audits is essential, which has driven calls for stronger training, better supervision, and tighter quality controls in the auditing process.

The idea being tested is how often benefit plan audits were found to have serious quality problems by the Department of Labor in the 2014 audit quality study. The study reported that about 40% of benefit plan audits contained major deficiencies that were considered unacceptable. This means that in roughly four out of ten audits, there were significant issues in the auditor’s work—problems strong enough that the audit could not be relied upon to provide an accurate or complete view of the plan’s financial statements and ERISA compliance.

A major deficiency is a substantial weakness in the audit that could undermine the auditor’s opinion or the usefulness of the audit evidence. When such deficiencies are deemed unacceptable, it signals gaps in how the audit was planned, executed, or reported—often due to insufficient testing, inadequate evidence, or improper application of auditing standards. The implication is clear: improving audit quality in plan audits is essential, which has driven calls for stronger training, better supervision, and tighter quality controls in the auditing process.