TD P 15-71
The Collection Inventory Replacement Initiative Was
Generally Effective; However, Additional Attention Is Needed
June 2003
Reference
Number: 2003-30-113
TD P 15-71
June
6, 2003
MEMORANDUM FOR
COMMISSIONER, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED DIVISION
FROM: Gordon C. Milbourn
III /s/ Gordon C. Milbourn III
Acting
Deputy Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: Final Audit Report - The
Collection Inventory Replacement Initiative Was Generally Effective; However,
Additional Attention Is Needed (Audit #
200230020)
This report presents the results of our review of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Collection revenue officer inventory replacement initiative. The overall objective of this review was to determine whether the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division’s Compliance function has taken effective steps to implement the revenue officer inventory replacement phase of the Collection reengineering blueprint.[1]
In
summary, the revenue officer inventory replacement initiative was generally
effective. The IRS removed approximately
33,000 lower risk cases from active inventories. This should allow revenue officers to
concentrate their efforts on cases with a higher likelihood of collection.
However,
several changes and/or refinements would increase the effectiveness of the
Collection revenue officer inventory replacement initiative. First, approximately 3,700 higher risk cases
were also included in the shelved cases.
This occurred because there was confusion about the criteria for
shelving some higher risk cases. A
judgmental sample[2]
of 74 of these higher risk cases identified 22 cases (30 percent) that
should not have been shelved. Second, an
analysis of shelved cases in excess of ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** identified 7 cases with
various risk codes, which were also shelved.
Finally, some lower risk cases were shelved that later met higher risk
definitions due to timing issues and risk code definition changes; however,
there was no systemic method to reclassify a case once assigned to a revenue
officer.
We
recommended that the Director, Compliance Policy, SB/SE Division, establish
more effective procedures for communicating with field personnel. We also recommended that the Director,
Workload and Selection Development, SB/SE Division, re-assign to revenue
officers cases we identified that were inappropriately shelved, have the field
review shelved cases in which the taxpayer requested assistance, and consider
permitting systemic or procedural risk-code changes after case assignment to
revenue officers to account for recent tax modules.[3]
Management’s Response: IRS
management generally agreed with our findings.
They agreed to establish a single channel of communications to better
convey directives involving large and complex initiatives and maintain
communication and feedback. They also
agreed to reactivate some cases and to initiate a systems change request to
ensure that the compliance risk of an assigned case is updated to reflect new
or changed data that increases its score.
However, they did not agree to have their field staff review 1,739
shelved high risk code cases and apply their September 19, 2002 memorandum's
procedures to their disposition because of existing problems with erroneous
high risk code case assignments and the “labor-intensive requirement to
research these cases.” While we continue
to believe our recommendation is worthwhile, we do not intend to elevate our
disagreement concerning this issue to the Department of the Treasury for
resolution. In addition, although
management took issue with the measurable impact of our recommendations, they
did not disagree with the gross amount of tax due from the identified
erroneously shelved cases. They
concurred with our assessment that the net amount collectable is in question
due to a variety of reasons. Management’s
response to the draft report is included as
Appendix VI.
IRS management has requested
that this report be designated as “Limited Official Use”, because they believe
that public knowledge of their procedures for working certain cases, while
shelving other cases, could negatively affect collection efforts.
The Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has also designated this report as
Limited Official Use (LOU) pursuant to Treasury Directive TD P-71-10, Chapter
III, Section 2, “Limited Official Use Information and Other Legends” of the
Department of Treasury Security Manual.
Because this document has been designated LOU, it may only be made
available to those officials who have a need to know the information contained
within this report in the performance of their official duties. This report must be safeguarded and protected
from unauthorized disclosure; therefore, all requests for disclosure of this
report must be referred to the Disclosure Unit within the TIGTA’s Office of
Chief Counsel.
Copies
of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers who are affected by the
report recommendations. Please contact
me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Richard Dagliolo, Acting
Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Small Business and Corporate Programs),
at (631) 654-6028.
TD P 15-71
Many Higher Risk and Large Dollar Cases Were Also
Shelved
Appendix I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix III – Report Distribution List
Appendix IV – Outcome Measures
Appendix V – Cases Shelved Data By Month
Appendix VI – Management’s Response to the Draft Report
TD P 15-71
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has indicated that it has
been dealing with a significant and on-going imbalance between the Compliance
Collection inventory and the resources available to work that inventory. The IRS has also indicated that in some field
offices, large hold files[4]
existed and low-priority[5]
work was assigned to revenue officers.
To help alleviate this imbalance and to concentrate the efforts of approximately 3,500 revenue officers on the most potentially productive casework, the IRS initiated a study of how the Collection function operates and sought ways to improve its effectiveness.
As part of the reengineering blueprint – Phase I, the Deputy Director, Compliance Policy, issued guidelines on November 1, 2001, for replacing non-productive case inventory. This case inventory exchange is referred to as the revenue officer inventory replacement initiative. The objective of the revenue officer inventory replacement initiative was to exchange low-priority Collection cases in active inventory with more productive cases, thus putting available resources to their most productive use. As part of the overall reengineering effort, new risk codes were developed for Collection cases that refer to the likelihood of collection for each case if the taxpayer is not contacted quickly.
The revenue officer inventory replacement initiative instructions specify that any Collection case meeting the higher risk designations of ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** will remain in active inventory. The remainder of the inventory should be shelved.[6]
Implementation of the revenue
officer inventory replacement initiative was originally scheduled to begin
October 31, 2001, and conclude December 14, 2001, but was extended
until January 31, 2002. However, as of
September 19, 2002, the ability to shelve cases had not yet been
systematically blocked on the Integrated Collection System (ICS).[7] Approximately 37,000 cases were shelved
by June 17, 2002, with the majority of cases (approximately 90 percent)
shelved by the end of January 2002. See
Appendix V for more details.
We conducted this review at the Small Business/Self-Employed
(SB/SE) Division Headquarters, New Carrollton, Maryland; and the
The Revenue Officer Inventory Replacement Initiative Reduced the Volume of Lower Risk Cases in the Active Collection Case Inventory
The revenue officer inventory replacement initiative resulted in the shelving of approximately 33,000 lower risk cases ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** within revenue officers’ and managers’ hold file inventories between October 2001 and June 2002. As part of this process, Collection Field function (CFf) personnel were directed to review all cases coded as ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** in active inventory and shelve those cases with low collection potential.
Procedures allowed the CFf to keep lower priority cases in
their inventory if they met certain criteria.
We reviewed a sample of 121 lower risk cases still in inventory
within the 2 area offices and found that overall, they met 1 or more of
the criteria for retaining lower risk cases within their assigned
inventories. The criteria included
reasons such as the case was: near resolution, affiliated with 1 or more
higher risk cases ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***, or a high profile case.
Many Higher Risk and Large Dollar Cases Were Also Shelved
Although lower risk cases were removed from inventory when appropriate, higher risk and large dollar cases were sometimes inappropriately removed. As a result, the IRS may not be able to collect the taxes due on these accounts. We identified 3,749 higher risk cases ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***that were shelved from October 2001 through June 2002. According to management’s directives, these cases were to remain in active inventory, and the authority to shelve cases expired January 31, 2002. Inappropriate shelving mostly occurred in ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** cases. Out of the 3,749 nationwide higher risk cases shelved, 1,739 (46 percent) cases, representing approximately $73.12 million, were ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***.
Some CFf group managers believed the authorizing memorandum allowed them to use their individual judgment regarding the shelving of cases, while others followed its direction verbatim. CFf personnel stated that they were uncertain how to handle some unique situations and that the many methods of communication (memorandums, E-mails, Website, and voice messaging system) used throughout the process added to their confusion.
Collection management and CFf personnel acknowledged that communication was confusing during the revenue officer inventory replacement initiative, which apparently led to the inappropriate and inadvertent shelving of cases. As a result, Collection management issued several memoranda[8] near the conclusion of our fieldwork, providing more specific instructions to field personnel for handling Collection cases within their inventories. Because of this confusion, and as identified in separate analyses by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the IRS, a significant number of cases were inappropriately shelved.
Almost 30 percent
of the cases reviewed were improperly shelved
We reviewed a judgmental
sample[9] of 74 out
of approximately 570 higher risk cases ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** shelved within 2
area offices. The sample was comprised
of a judgmental selection of cases that we selected and a sample that
Collection management previously reviewed.
We determined that 22
(30 percent) of these 74 cases, representing approximately $1.25 million,
should not have been shelved. For
example, ***(b)(3): 26 U.S.C. 6103, (b)(7)(C)***. In
addition, revenue officers did not always conduct sufficient research before
shelving cases. CFf personnel re-opened
20 of the 22 cases during the course of our review, leaving
***(b)(3): 26 U.S.C. 6103, (b)(7)(C)***. The remaining 52
cases from our sample either did not meet established exceptions to shelving
criteria, or did not demonstrate reasonable collection potential.
Of the 74 higher risk
cases ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** shelved within 2 area offices, 50 (68 percent)
were risk code ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***; 14 (28 percent) of the 50 should not have been
shelved. CFf personnel regarded many
***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** not to be higher risk cases due to
***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***. The Deputy
Director, Compliance Policy, was aware that there were problems with cases
being erroneously transferred from the Automated Collection System[11] to the field and issued a policy memorandum on
September 19, 2002, that re-emphasized the importance of all taxpayer requests
for assistance and gave the field specific instructions for the disposition of
such cases.
A separate
Internal Revenue Service analysis showed that 14 percent of higher risk
cases were improperly shelved
Collection management
also conducted a separate analysis during early 2002 and determined that 15 (14 percent) out of a sample of 111 higher risk cases were improperly shelved. CFf personnel re-opened 9 of the 15 cases,
representing $576,869. Six of these
cases, representing approximately $2.46 million, have not yet been re-opened.
One possible reason for the different percentages between our analysis (30 percent) and the IRS’ analysis (14 percent) might have been because management’s analysis only covered 1 month, while ours covered almost 8 months. However, both reviews indicated that some higher risk cases were inappropriately shelved.
Large dollar cases were shelved
In a separate judgmental sample from the 2 area offices, we reviewed 40 large dollar cases (aggregate balance due ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***) out of approximately 300 such cases. We determined that 10 (25 percent) of the 40 cases, representing approximately $4.6 million, should not have been shelved for various reasons, ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***. CFf personnel re-opened 5 of the 10 cases identified during our review, representing approximately $1.75 million. In an August 2, 2002, memorandum from the Deputy Director, Compliance Policy, all cases with a balance due over ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** that were in the Queue,[12] regardless of risk code, were to be assigned to revenue officers’ active inventories.
Using computer analysis of nationwide data provided by the IRS of cases shelved during October 2001 to June 2002, we identified 7 large dollar cases with balances due greater than ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***that were shelved. ***(b)(3): 26 U.S.C. 6103, (b)(7)(C)***. The 6 remaining shelved cases represented $104,710,301, as of April 15, 2003. We did not have case files to determine if these cases were inappropriately shelved, as we did during our case reviews in the area offices; therefore, we have included them to be re-assigned in our recommendation. The November 2001 authorizing memorandum did not preclude the shelving of large dollar cases. However, using only minimal resources, the IRS could assign the remaining 6 cases to revenue officers to ensure that cases over ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** do, in fact, have a low potential for collection.
In summary, 1,753 cases representing $180 million[13] are possibly at risk if the IRS does not take action to ensure that potentially collectible revenues are pursued. However, we realize that not all of the balances due will likely be collected because some taxpayers may not be able to pay the full amount due. Twenty-six cases, representing $8.9 million, have already been re-opened. Finally, cases that were inadvertently closed, although the taxpayer may have requested contact, can result in negative taxpayer relations, which is inconsistent with the IRS’ goal of improved customer service.
Management’s Response: The Deputy Director, Compliance Policy, will establish a single channel of communications to better convey directives involving large and complex initiatives and maintain communication and feedback.
Management’s Response: The Director, Centralized Workload Selection
and Delivery, has reviewed and will reactivate cases with assessed values
consistent with their current policy that have not already been re-activated.
Management’s Response: IRS management disagreed with this recommendation to re-open these cases. Management believes the risk that the taxpayer actually requested assistance may be “relativity low” due to existing problems of erroneous ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** case assignments, that many taxpayers would have already reestablished contact with the IRS, and that the effort to research these cases would be labor-intensive.
Office of Audit Comment: While we agree that researching these cases
would be time consuming, these are cases in which IRS records indicated that
the taxpayer needs assistance. Not
attempting to contact them is inconsistent with the IRS’ goal of improved customer
service.
Some Shelved Lower Risk Cases Now Meet Higher Risk Definitions Due to Timing Issues and Risk Code Definition Changes
Using computer analysis, we reviewed nationwide data provided by the IRS of cases shelved during the period October 2001 to June 2002. We identified 75 out of approximately 3,500 ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** cases shelved that later met the higher risk ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** definitions. These 75 cases represented approximately $4.6 million. The revenue officer inventory replacement initiative instructions specify that any Collection case meeting the higher risk designations of ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** will remain in active inventory. The shelving criteria allowed cases designated as ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** to be shelved.
This problem exists because Entity risk codes could not be changed either systemically or manually once cases were assigned to revenue officers. Cases were locked at the lower risk code numbers, although other tax modules posted afterward. For example, if a case was assigned to a revenue officer during October 2001, that case may have appropriately been assigned a ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** at that time. However, ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** will not change even if another tax module[15] was subsequently issued that would have otherwise increased this case’s ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***.
We also determined that 106 of approximately 2,600 ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***shelved[16] later met the***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***, which were to be retained in inventory according to management’s directives. These cases represent approximately $34 million. Collection management indicated that the ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***had changed during the shelving period. This change may have contributed to the inconsistency in risk classification. However, we did not independently verify this as a cause of the misclassification.
When higher risk cases are not properly identified and assigned to revenue officers, the CFf is not working the accounts that they have determined to be the most in need of collection action and is inadvertently shelving cases with collection potential.
4. The Director, Centralized Workload and Selection Development, SB/SE Division, who is responsible for the routing of Collection work, should consider permitting risk codes to be systematically or manually upgraded after having been assigned to a revenue officer to prevent higher risk cases from being improperly shelved.
Management’s Response: The Director, Centralized Workload Selection
and Delivery, will initiate a systems change request to ensure that the
compliance risk of an assigned case is updated to reflect new or changed data
that would increase its score.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective,
Scope, and Methodology
The overall objective of this review was to determine whether the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division’s Compliance function has taken effective steps to implement the revenue officer inventory replacement phase of the Collection reengineering blueprint. [17]
Scope and Limitations of Case Reviews:
A portion of our audit involved taxpayer case reviews. Due to the length of time initially required
by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to gather data of cases shelved
nationwide and our desire to provide results to the IRS as quickly as possible,
we elected to use judgmental samples of cases shelved and cases remaining in
active inventory from the
In order to accomplish our overall objective, we completed the following sub-objectives and performed the following tests:
I.
Determined whether Collection function
management took effective steps to ensure that non-priority cases within the
active inventory were identified and closed, and that priority cases were
retained.
A.
Interviewed selected field office personnel to
determine how the inventory replacement was implemented.
B.
Evaluated the population of shelved cases during
October 2001 through June 2002 and determined whether they met the criteria for
this closing action. We accepted the
data provided by the IRS as the entire universe of cases shelved in accordance
with this initiative. We used computer analysis to review the 37,141
cases that were shelved from October 27, 2001, to June 17, 2002. We also performed case analysis on judgmental
samples[18]
of 74 of 569 higher risk cases and 40 of 296 large dollar (aggregate balance
due ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***) cases from the 2 area offices.
C.
Determined whether lower risk cases remained in
active inventory and the reasons they were retained. We reviewed a judgmental sample of 121 lower
risk cases still in inventory.
D.
Interviewed the management review team assigned
to review Collection inventory levels beginning February 2002.
II.
Ascertained whether Collection function
management had effective controls to ensure that work assigned to the SB/SE
Division’s Collection function, during and subsequent to the inventory
replacement, met the higher risk definitions as set forth in Compliance
Policy’s memorandum dated November 1, 2001, regarding revenue officer
inventory replacement.
A.
Interviewed appropriate Collection personnel at
all levels to ascertain management’s appraisal of the overall effectiveness of
the inventory replacement effort.
B.
Determined whether work assigned to the SB/SE
Division’s Collection function, subsequent to the inventory replacement, met
the higher risk definitions and whether cases were being closed using
Transaction Code (TC) 530, Closing Code (cc) 39 or TC 598, cc 57.
TD P 15-71
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This
Report
Richard J.
Dagliolo, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Small Business and
Corporate Programs)
Parker F.
Pearson, Director
Gary Swilley, Audit
Manager
Joseph Cooney, Senior Auditor
Cynthia Dozier, Senior
Auditor
Philip A. Smith,
Senior Auditor
Rashme Sawhney,
Auditor
Jeffrey
Williams, Computer Specialist
Appendix III
Commissioner N:C
Deputy Commissioner N:DC
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division S
Director, Compliance, Small Business/Self-Employed Division S:C
Deputy Director, Compliance Policy, Small Business/Self-Employed Division S:CP
Director, Centralized Workload and Selection Development, Small Business/Self-Employed Division S:C:CS
Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Treasury
Audit Liaison:
Commissioner, Small
Business/Self-Employed Division S
TD P 15-71
Appendix IV
This appendix presents detailed information on the
measurable impact that our recommended corrective actions will have on tax
administration. We realize that not all
of the balances due will likely be collected because some taxpayers may be
unable to pay the full amount due. These
benefits will be incorporated into our Semiannual Report to the Congress.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Rights and Entitlements – Potential; $73,123,555;[19] 1,739 taxpayer accounts (see page 3).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
Using a database program, we sorted national Entity[20]
data provided by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of cases shelved during the
period October 2001 to June 2002, by risk codes, to isolate the ***(b)(2),
(b)(7)(E)***
cases shelved with their balances due.
Out of the 3,749 nationwide higher risk cases shelved, 1,739 cases representing
$73,123,555 were***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)***.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Increased Revenue – Potential; $1,248,148; 22 taxpayer accounts (see page 3).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
We reviewed a combined judgmental sample of 74 higher risk
cases shelved ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** of approximately 570 higher risk cases
shelved from the Nashville, Tennessee, and Los Angeles, California, Area
Offices. We chose 30 of 62 cases shelved
by 1 group manager whom we interviewed during the week of April 8, 2002, from a
list provided by an IRS analyst in
Using Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN), we researched each case’s history on the Integrated Collection System (ICS) [21] and each case’s balance due on the Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS).[22] We reviewed the revenue officer comments on the ICS for indicators about each case, ***(b)(2), (b)(3): 26 U.S.C. 6103***. We reviewed the command codes on the IDRS that indicated when cases were shelved, ***(b)(2), (b)(3): 26 U.S.C. 6103***. We determined that 22 of these 74 cases, representing $1,248,148, should not have been shelved.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Increased Revenue – Potential; $2,460,618; 6 taxpayer accounts (see page 3).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
Collection function management determined that 15 case shelvings were inappropriate or without explanation (and therefore improper). Management already re-opened 9 of these 15 cases, leaving 6 cases needing to be re-opened. We reviewed these cases August 22, 2002, on IDRS for their balances due and for their status as re-opened or not.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Increased Revenue – Potential; $1,750,680; 5 taxpayer accounts (see page 3).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
We reviewed a combined
sample of 40 of 296 large dollar cases shelved from the
Using TINs, we researched each case’s history on ICS and each case’s balance due on IDRS. We reviewed the revenue officer comments on ICS for indicators about each case, ***(b)(2), (b)(3): 26 U.S.C. 6103***.
We reviewed the command codes on IDRS that indicate when cases were shelved, when ***(b)(2), (b)(3): 26 U.S.C. 6103***. Collection Field function personnel re-opened 5 (representing $1,750,680) of the 10 cases identified during our review.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Increased Revenue – Potential; $110,609,500; 7 taxpayer accounts (see page 3).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
Using a database program, we sorted national Entity data provided by Collection function management of cases shelved during the period October 2001 to June 2002 by balances due. We identified 7 large dollar cases with balances due ***(b)(2), (b)(7)(E)*** that were shelved representing $110,609,500. We reviewed the command codes on IDRS that indicate when ***(b)(2), (b)(3): 26 U.S.C. 6103***. ***(b)(2), (b)(3): 26 U.S.C. 6103***. The 6 remaining shelved cases represented $104,710,301, as of April 15, 2003.
The following schedule
provides a reconciliation of the number of taxpayer accounts and balances due
included within the outcome measures and contained within the report.
The chart was removed due to
its size. To see the chart, please go to
the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Appendix V
The chart was removed due to its
size. To see the chart, please go to the
Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.[23]
Number Percent
of Cases of Total
Cases Shelved from October 27, 2001, to end of month: 189 .5%
Cases Shelved During November 2001: 4,485 12.1%
Cases Shelved During December 2001: 22,759 61.3%
Cases Shelved During January 2002: 6,056 16.3%
Cases Shelved During February 2002: 1,414 3.8%
Cases Shelved During March 2002:
766 2.1%
Cases Shelved During April 2002: 759 2.0%
Cases Shelved During May 2002: 368 1.0%
Cases Shelved during June, to June 17, 2002: 243 .7%
No shelving date provided:
102 .3%
Totals 37,141 100%
TD P 15-71
Appendix
VI
The response was removed due to its size. To see the response, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
TD P 15-71
[1] The IRS initiated a study of how the Collection function operates and sought ways to improve its effectiveness.
[2] A judgmental sample does not allow any inference to the entire universe of cases.
[3] Part of a taxpayer’s account, which reflects the tax data for one tax class and one tax period.
[4] Hold files are for cases that cannot be assigned in less than 30 days.
[5] Low-Priority Cases: Cases that are deemed to have a low likelihood of collection.
[6] Shelved cases are cases closed and no longer in active inventory.
[7] A computer system that is used for Collection case inventory processing.
[8] Memoranda dated July 31, 2002, August 2, 2002, and September 19, 2002, from the Deputy Director, Compliance Policy regarding: revenue officer inventory replacement, treatment of taxpayers requesting assistance, and Federal Employee/Retiree Delinquency Initiative (FERDI) cases.
[9] A judgmental sample does not allow any inference to the entire universe of cases.
[10] An Offer-In-Compromise is an agreement between the IRS and the taxpayer to settle their tax liability for a lesser amount in return for payment or an agreed payment schedule.
[11] A telephone contact system where telephone assistors collect unpaid taxes and secure tax returns from delinquent taxpayers who have not complied with previous notices.
[12] An automated holding file of unresolved cases.
[13] See Recommendations 2 (14 cases, $107.2 million) and 3 (1,739 cases, $73.1 million), as well as Appendix IV, for more detail.
[14] The 14 cases are identified as follows: 2 higher risk cases (page 4), 6 IRS analysis cases (page 5), and 6 large dollar cases (page 5).
[15] Part of a taxpayer’s account, which reflects the tax data for one tax class and one tax period.
[16] Source: Nationwide Entity data provided by the IRS.
[17] The Internal Revenue Service initiated a study of how the Collection function operates and sought ways to improve its effectiveness.
[18] A judgmental sample does not allow any inference to the entire universe of cases.
[19] Dollars associated with taxpayer rights and entitlements outcome measures are not included in the total potential increased tax revenue estimate of $116,068,946. Also see the schedule on page 16 for more detail.
[20] The Entity management system is a computer system that is used for managing the Collection case inventory.
[21] A computer system that is used for Collection case inventory processing.
[22] IRS computer system capable of retrieving or updating stored information; works in conjunction with a taxpayer’s account records.
[23] The Entity management system is a computer system that is used for managing the Collection case inventory.