| TIMELINESS (T) – 6 Attributes |
|
| T1 |
Did IMD Support Staff enter the review on SAMS and notify the IMD Analyst & IMD/ SPOC in a timely manner? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09)
|
For new reviews, once the new review is received in the *TAS IMD SPOC mailbox, it must be entered on SAMS and the IMD Analyst
& IMD/SPOC must be notified of the new review so that pre-screening may begin.
• IMD - 2 business days from the email received date - "Actual Start Date"
• OTHER - 3 business days from the "Actual Start Date"
|
This attribute is applicable to all IMD Reviews and OTHER: SPOC Reviews. This attribute is rated as N/A in the following situations:
• The review is recalled or a duplicate
|
| T2 |
Did IMD Analyst perform the abbreviated review, including responding to the submitter if no response or limited response,
and notify the IMD/SPOC and IMD Support staff in a timely manner? IRM 13.2.1 5 (07–09)
|
For both IMD and SPOC comprehensive reviews, a decision that a review is comprehensive, shown by the posting of the review
to SAMS and the assignment of reviewers to the review, must be made within 4 business days. If the decision is that an abbreviated review is sufficient, the review must be completed with a response
to the submitter within 30 calendar days unless the submitter agrees that contact dates may be lengthened or shortened.
|
This attribute is applicable to all IMD Reviews and SPOC Reviews. This attribute is rated as N/A in the following situations:
• The review is submitted for closure within 30 days of the initial contact, or
• No contact information is available
|
| T3 |
Did the IMD Analyst post the comprehensive review to the SAMS site and notify all reviewers of the review in a timely manner?
IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09)
|
The first step in working a comprehensive IMD or SPOC Review is notifying the reviewers of the review assignment and the
due date for responding. The review is posted to the SAMS site and Case Advocacy managers, Technical Liaisons. etc., assigned.
Non-SAMS users, receive the review via email from the *TAS IMD SPOC mailbox. This must be done within 4 business days of the initial receipt of the review.
|
This attribute is applicable in all comprehensive IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| T4 |
Did the reviewers forward their completed reviews to the IMD staff in a timely manner? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09) |
Action dates will be revised as needed to ensure resolution of the issues of the review. Revised action dates will be documented
by analyst on SAMS Task. Tasks for IMD and SPOC reviews are dates when:
(1) the review is due to the IMD/SPOC and
(2) the dates when the review is due to the originator (the Operating Division author, usually).
The general rule is that the review must be completed by the reviewer with a response to the IMD/SPOC within 14 days of their business unit being notified of the review by being posted on the SAMS site or by email from IMD staff unless
the submitter agrees that contact dates may be lengthened or shortened.
• If a review is sent expedite with a shortened timeframe noted, that timeframe should be used.
• If additional time is needed, the IMD/SPOC should notify the originator and obtain approval.
|
This attribute is applicable for all IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| T5 |
Did the IMD/ SPOC prepare the finalized consolidated review in a timely manner? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09) |
IMD/SPOC is required to prepare a signed Form 2061 and a consolidated, edited version of the reviews received from the various
reviewers within 7 days of receipt all completed reviews. If the consolidated review contains elevated criteria, the IMD/SPOC has 9 days from receiving the completed reviews to elevate the proposed response via email to manager. At that time, the IMD/SPOC
needs to either
• Ensure that 5-10 calendar days are left on the due date, or
• Request an extension from the originator, beyond the original 30 calendar days normally provided. .
|
This attribute is applicable in most IMD and SPOC reviews. However, circumstances may exist under which one or both of the
documents are not required. If the review is elevated, the Form 2061 would not be required until final approval is given by
the Director, II.
This exception would result in a rating of N/A for the Form 2061 portion of this attribute.
|
| T6 |
Were all substantive actions taken on the review in such a way to progressively move it toward resolution? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09)
.
|
A review must be worked with no unnecessary delays or periods of inactivity.
Responsibilities for IMD/SPOC and/or staff members include:
• Monitoring the progress of the review,
• Monitoring the progress of the review to ensure that deadlines are met and completing tasks by these established deadlines,
• Communication with IMD staff and reviewers on progress of work,
• Coordinating activities of IMD staff.
Management officials should be monitoring SAMS to give appropriate guidance and thus help move the review along to resolution.
IMD Staff is normally allowed 30 days to complete each review, as necessary; however, reviews may be shortened or lengthened
with originators consent.
|
This attribute is applicable in all IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| ACCURACY (A) – 5 Attributes |
|
| A1 |
Did the Reviewer fill out the IMD review template correctly and completely? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09) . |
The IMD Review template must include the following items:
• The number and title of the document
• The date of review,
• the time spent on the review,
• the name of the reviewer.
• Identification of the subsection or paragraph being addressed, including the IRM page number,
• the current language in the draft document and
• the recommended change for that item.
|
This attribute is applicable in all IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| A2 |
Was SAMS updated appropriately by IMD staff as to status and tasks? By reviewer as to research (if a SAMS user)? If reviewer
was not a SAMS user, did they request the IMD staff do the update? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09)
|
Reviewers who are SAMS users should:
• Update the status of the review on SAMS from "Pending Assignment"
to "In Process"
• Update the work flow on SAMS to indicate their findings, providing the same information they provided on the IMD Review
Template (see A1 above).
Note: If the reviewer is not a SAMS user, they should forward the SAMS template to the *TAS IMD SPOC mailbox and request the IMD
Staff to do the input on SAMS until they can obtain their manager's approval on Form 5081 for SAMS access.
|
This attribute is applicable in all IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| A3 |
Did the consolidated response accurately capture the feedback provided by the reviewers? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09) . |
The IMD/SPOC Prog Mgr. should clarify any unclear feedback with the reviewer to confirm the content of the feedback and the
language to be used in consolidating the reviews. If differing positions are present, the IMD/SPOC should determine from the
facts presented the accurate TAS position.
|
This attribute is applicable in all IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| A4 |
Did the review disclose a systemic issue or was it related to an MSP or current Objective? Was it appropriately considered
for elevation? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09) .
|
A systemic issue impacts a segment of taxpayers locally, regionally, or nationally. These issues involve systems, processes,
policies, procedures, or legislation and require study, analysis, recommendations, and action to effect positive results.
Systemic issues involve protecting taxpayer rights, reducing or preventing taxpayer burden, ensuring equitable treatment of
taxpayers or providing essential services to taxpayers.
|
This attribute is applicable in all IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| A5 |
Were tax law and IRM/IRS procedures correctly applied and interpreted? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09) |
Proper application of statutes and administrative regulations to the facts and circumstances as well as the correct interpretation
of relevant internal guidelines.
|
This attribute is applicable for all IMD and SPOC reviews that involve tax law or procedural requirements. This attribute
is rated as "N/A"
for those with no tax law or procedural impact.
|
| COMMUNICATION (C) – 5 Attributes |
|
| C1 |
Did the reviewers provide timely, clear, logical and grammatically correct feedback in their review response? IRM 13.2.1.5
(07–09).
|
• Reviewer feedback should be grammatically correct and follow chronological progression relative to the document being reviewed.
• The contents should be clear and readily understandable.
• Timely feedback is necessary. See timeliness attributes above.
|
This attribute is applicable in all elevated IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| C2 |
Did the IMD staff provide a consolidated response to the OD that clearly relates TAS’s position on the issues? IRM 13.2.1.5
(07–09) .
|
• The IMD/SPOC Program Mgr. should make appropriate contacts to ensure that the position presented in the consolidated review
accurately portrays and communicates the TAS position of the issue.
|
This attribute is applicable in all elevated IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| C3 |
Was managerial concurrence of the elevated issue obtained and was managerial feedback timely? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07–09) . |
• This attribute measures both the managerial involvement AND the timeliness of the managerial action. Both components of
this attribute must be met in order for the attribute to be rated as met. Document review on SAMS.
• Review and feedback provided within 7 calendar days of notification of elevated issue availability re email to manager.
|
This attribute is applicable in all elevated IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| C4 |
Was there contact and coordination with the appropriate internal and external stakeholders as required by the review? IRM
13.2.1.5 (07–09) .
|
Individuals/teams may need to consult Attorney Advisors, LITC, TAP, CNTA, Sr. Advisor to NTA, Portfolio Advisors, TAG, C &
L, and TAS Research This list is not all inclusive.
|
This attribute is applicable on all IMD and SPOC reviews. |
| C5 |
Did the IMD staff take appropriate steps to relate issues that required actions to be taken? IRM 13.2.1.5 (07-09) . |
Finalization and resolution of a review may require that TAS (though Systemic Advocacy) provide education or communication
of changes or clarifications to various stakeholders. Appropriate channels include contacting NCAG for forms changes, contacting
SPDER for internal IRM issues and certain TAS interim guidance issues, seeking clearance of issues through headquarters, postings
to the TAS Homepage, www.irs.gov, items published in the Wednesday Weekly, etc.
|
This attribute is applicable on IMD Reviews, SPOC Reviews, or other program issues that require outreach/education or change
spearheaded by the IMD/SPOC program. This attribute is rated as "N/A"
on all other projects.
|
