AQMS results are not, under any circumstances, used to measure the individual performance of Appeals employees. AQMS is designed and intended as a useful tool for executive and top level managers to use in determining strengths and weaknesses of the quality of the Appeals process.

Any feedback or other work products generated from AQMS are not used as a substitute for case reviews, case file reviews, on the job visits and workload reviews.

Closed cases are selected for AQMS review by a random sampling process that is statistically valid to the Area/Campus level for an annual period. The case sampling system is designed to ensure a representative number of cases are selected from each Appeals Area.

The criteria used in selecting the representative case samples are case source and type.

In addition to randomly selected cases, Closed Case Reviews may be conducted on certain types of cases at the request of Appeals Executive Management.

AQMSSELECT is the indicator automatically set when the case is selected for AQMS review based on programmed criteria.

When a case is selected for AQMS review, ACDS generates a partially completed form for the selected case which is completed by the APS function closing the case and attached to the case file. Upon closing the case, APS ensures documents identified on the form are included in the case file. APS then forwards the selected closed case to the appropriate AQMS reviewer/office as identified on the form.

The AQMS rating system provides an objective, consistent, and equitable scoring system for selected cases, and emphasizes Standards identified as key factors for ensuring an acceptable quality Appeals process.

The AQMS rating system consists of eight key Standards for Non-Collection Appeals cases and six key Standards for Collection Appeals cases.

Quality Standards provide objective criteria upon which case quality is evaluated. Each one provides concise statements of Appeals' expectations of a quality work product.

Each Quality Standard contains one or more Attributes that define the prerequisite of a quality case and reflect Appeals' goals.

Some Attributes have Reason Codes. Reason Codes are specific examples of actions or tasks that are contrary to Appeals goals.

Each Attribute is worded as a question. When rating aspects of cases relevant to an Attribute, the AQMS Reviewer assigns an answer of " Met" or "Not Met" to each applicable Attribute. For an Attribute with Reason Codes, the rating of the Attribute is determined based on whether any of the Reason Codes for the Attribute are selected.

Reason Codes provide detailed information used for analytical purposes. The Reason Codes are used as a management tool to identify the cause(s) of a missed Attribute.

A narrative comment is required for some Reason Codes and Attributes. A narrative comment is a brief summary of the Reviewer’s observations about a given Attribute or Reason Code. They are used to explain the reasons Attributes are rated Not Met and to further explain why a Reason Code was selected. They are also used to provide favorable comments.

The rating assigned to an Attribute by the AQMS Reviewer is a component of the overall score of the related Standard.

The AQMS Review Check Sheet is a form outlining the Quality Standards, Attributes, and Reason Codes. AQMS Reviewers use the check sheet to systematically score each case.

The check sheet outlines the criteria for rating each Standard and includes a comment section for each Standard, Attribute, and Reason Code.

When completing the check sheet, Reviewers take into account the significance of both positive and negative aspects of the case file and their respective impact on the Standards, Attributes, and/or Reason Codes.

For many of the Attributes or Reason Codes, Reviewers are required to use the comment section to discuss NOT MET ratings on any Attribute or Reason Codes, and they are asked to share favorable comments regarding Standards and Attributes. Reviewers must ensure their comments are meaningful, clear and easily understood.

To provide statistically valid data on case quality for Appeals, it is important to have consistency among the members of the Review Staff in evaluating cases and to have a procedure in place to evaluate consistency.

Consistency checks are performed by having Reviewers independently evaluate the same case and comparing the consistency of the ratings for each Attribute and the selection of Reason Codes.

Group meetings are held by the AQMS Review Staff to discuss specific aspects of the consistency reviews and methods to ensure consistency in the review of cases.

Each year AQMS issues a report containing the statistical findings for Non-Collection case reviews and for Collection case reviews. Recommendations for each Appeals Organizational Function are included in the report.

The AQMS Reviewer’s Guides should be used when interpreting or analyzing the AQMS reports. The AQMS Reviewer’s Guides, check sheets, and the AQMS Reports are posted on the AQMS web site.

This report lists cases selected for AQMS review according to parameters selected by the user. The reports are created for the prior work day, prior work week, prior work month, or a specific period identified by entering a beginning and ending report date.

This is an optional report available for use as determined on a local basis.

Standard 1 measures whether Appeals -

The IRS is committed to providing Taxpayers with customer service that facilitates easier interactions with the IRS, provides assistance with Taxpayers' needs as necessary, and delivers professional treatment. This requires that Appeals keep Taxpayers appropriately informed throughout the Appeals process, and give them sufficient time to present their case.

Respecting Taxpayers’ rights involves both advising them of their rights and observing those rights in Appeals' actions. Appeals must always keep the Taxpayers’ rights as the top priority.

For Standard 1 to be rated at the maximum allowable score, the following actions must be taken on the case:

To keep the Taxpayer and/or Representative informed about the status of the case, contact should generally be initiated timely and continue throughout the Appeals process.

Standard 2 measures whether the Appeals settlement is supported by a well-reasoned analysis of facts and law. Issues referred to Appeals are controversial and rest upon judgment and opinion on which reasonable people may hold divergent views. Resolving these issues requires consideration of all relevant facts and law.

The AQMS Reviewer will not substitute personal preference for the judgment of the Appeals/Settlement Officer when the decision is fairly supported by facts and applicable law.

Standard 2 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the following occurs:

Standard 3 measures the accuracy of the tax and penalty computations prepared by the AOs, ATCLs, etc. who do their own computations and whether correct closing information was provided for the computation of interest.

Standard 3 includes a review of the following:

The Reviewer uses reasonable judgment to determine what is considered an error. The Reviewer clearly demonstrates an error causing an incorrect tax or penalty, not merely a "possible" or " potential" error.

Standard 3 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the following occurs:

Standard 4 measures whether the Appeals Case Memorandum (ACM) adequately explains and documents the rationale and merits of each settlement or unagreed disposition. The ACM is the written record prepared by the Appeals Officer and Appeals Team Case Leader that provides the principal support for the case conclusion and/or report.

The ACM must adequately explain the conclusions reached in the Appeals process as well as reflect the significant and relevant information gathered during the process.

The ACM is the document used to assist management in reviewing the case decision as well as providing feedback on the case settlement to Compliance.

Standard 4 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the following occurs:

Standard 5 measures the timeliness of actions taken by the Appeals Officer (AO), Appeals Team Case Leader (ATCL) and the Tax Specialist (TS) during the time span required to complete the case, and the use of time relative to the complexity of the issues. This includes whether actions are initiated timely and continue throughout the Appeals Process.

Timeliness as a Standard is rated relative to the type and circumstances of each case.

The focus of this Standard is the overall time management of the case.

Standard 5 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the following occurs:

Standard 6 measures whether important procedural aspects of Appeals non-collection cases are performed. There are numerous procedural actions Appeals must comply with during the processing of a case.

Standard 6 is used by AQMS Reviewers to measure whether general procedural requirements of Appeals non-collection cases are followed, such as conducting a prompt preliminary review of the case; soliciting payment and offering payment options; and following the statute of limitation guidelines.

Special case procedures, such as those required for Joint Committee, TEFRA and penalty appeals cases, are also measured under Standard 6.

Standard 6 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the AO/ATCL/TS follows general and special case procedures relevant to the circumstances of the case.

Standard 7 measures the accuracy of the tax and penalty computations prepared by the Tax Computation Specialist (TCS), whether correct closing information is provided by the TCS for the computation of interest, and whether the TCS time span and time applied are appropriate.

This Standard includes consideration of the following:

The Reviewer uses reasonable judgment in determining what is considered an error. The Reviewer clearly demonstrates an error causing an incorrect tax or penalty, not merely a "possible" or " potential" error.

Standard 7 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the following occurs:

Standard 8 measures the following actions taken by Tax Examiners (TE) and Tax Specialists (TS):

This Standard includes consideration of the accuracy of interest computations, the presence of all necessary reports and agreement forms, the use of proper procedures relating to Restricted interest (Form 2285 Worksheet) and Form 2210/2220 Sequa Worksheets.

Both regular and restricted interest computations and the accuracy/timeliness of the assessments/abatements, etc., are considered as well as the time span and time applied by the TE and TS.

Standard 8 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the following occurs:

Standard 1 measures whether Appeals -

Appeals is required to keep Taxpayers appropriately informed throughout the Appeals process, address the taxpayers' needs and give them sufficient time to present their case.

Respecting Taxpayers’ rights involves both advising them of their rights and observing those rights in Appeals actions. Appeals must always keep the Taxpayers’ rights as the top priority.

For Standard 1 to be rated at the maximum allowable score, the following actions must be taken on the case:

To keep the Taxpayer and/or Representative informed about the status of the case, contact should generally be initiated timely and continue throughout the Appeals process.

Standard 2 measures whether the Appeals settlement is supported by a well-reasoned analysis of facts and law. Issues referred to Appeals require consideration of all relevant facts and law.

The AQMS Reviewer will not substitute personal preference for the judgment of the Appeals/Settlement Officer when the decision is fairly supported by facts and applicable law.

Standard 2 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the case file reflects a quality decision.

Standard 3 measures the accuracy of the tax, penalty, interest and other computations. This Standard includes:

Standard 3 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the AQMS Reviewer determines the relevant computations are correct.

Standard 4 measures whether the Appeals Case Memorandum (ACM) adequately explains and documents the rationale and merits of each settlement or unagreed disposition. The ACM is the written record prepared by the Appeals Officer/Settlement Officer that provides the principal support for the case conclusion and/or report.

The ACM must adequately explain the conclusions reached in the Appeals process as well as reflect the significant and relevant information gathered during the process.

The ACM is the document used to assist management in reviewing the case decision as well as providing feedback on the case settlement to Compliance.

Standard 4 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the following occurs:

Standard 5 measures the timeliness of actions taken by the Appeals Officer/Settlement Officer/Appeals Account Resolution Specialist during the time span required to complete the case, and the use of time relative to the complexity of the issues. Once a case is received by the AO/SO/AARS, subsequent actions should be initiated timely throughout the Appeals Process.

Timeliness as a Standard is rated relative to the type and circumstances of each case. The focus of this Standard is the overall time management of the case.

Standard 5 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the time span is appropriate for the actions taken, time applied is commensurate with the work performed, and the case kept moving throughout the Appeals process.

There are numerous procedural actions Appeals must comply with during the processing of a case. Standard 6 measures whether important procedural aspects of Appeals Collection cases are performed.

Special Appeals Collection case procedures, such as those required for Collection Due Process, Offer in Compromise, Collection Appeals Program and Trust Fund Recovery Penalty cases, are also measured under this Standard.

Standard 6 is rated at the maximum allowable score when the Appeals Officer/Settlement Officer/AARS follows general and special case procedures relevant to the circumstances of the case.