 |
13.2.2.3
(07-16-2009)
Advocacy Submission Processing
-
The SAMS Program Manager will review and prioritize the issue submissions and refer them to the DII (Director Immediate Intervention).
The DII then makes an initial assessment as to whether the issue should become a project. Each submission is considered for
potential advocacy project (AP) status using a series of factors and detailed process steps. See Exhibit 13.2.2-1, SAMS Issue Evaluation and Project Creation Process.
-
The SAMS Program Managers initially rank submissions utilizing ranking questions. The questions fall into five categories:
-
Scope;
-
Interest/Visibility/Sensitivity;
-
Taxpayer Burden;
-
Taxpayer Rights; and
-
Ability to Effect Change.
13.2.2.3.1
(07-16-2009)
Scope
-
The following three factors help determine how widespread the problem may be.
-
Potential Volume of Taxpayers Affected Within the Identified Segment - Of the taxpaying population within the identified segment (Individuals, Small Business, etc.) how many could be impacted by
this issue? Designate as a high, medium, or low number relative to the overall segment. For example, a problem with Line 5
on Schedule D would affect a relatively low number of people, because out of 127 million individual filers, approximately
25 million file Schedule D and only a portion of that group fills in Line 5.
-
Geographic Scope - Does the issue impact taxpayers across the nation (national), in clustered areas (area, region, or campus), or only in certain
places (local)?
-
Issue Frequency - Does the issue happen on a recurring or cyclical basis, on a limited or sporadic basis or only one time?
13.2.2.3.2
(07-16-2009)
Interest/Visibility/Sensitivity
-
The following three factors help determine the amount of interest, visibility, and or sensitivity associated with the problem.
-
Congressional Interest/Support - How much support or interest has Congress expressed concerning this issue? Did the support or interest come from one member’s
office or is it widespread in the House or Senate (high, moderate, or low)?
-
Community/External Stakeholder Interest/Support - How much support or interest have external stakeholders expressed concerning this issue? Was the support from one specific
group (American Bar Association (ABA), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), etc.) or is it spread across various
sectors such as accountants, lawyers, and other special interest groups (high, moderate, or low)?
-
Media Interest/Publicity - How much interest has the media shown in this issue? What level of coverage does this issue rate (high, moderate, or low)?
13.2.2.3.3
(07-16-2009)
Taxpayer Burden
-
Four factors help determine the level of burden placed on the taxpayer trying to resolve the issue. Always consider burden
from the taxpayer's or stakeholder’s point of view.
-
How long to resolve - How long does it take to resolve this issue (from the taxpayer's perspective)? The choices range from "Less than three months"
to " Greater than one year."
The longer it takes, the more points are awarded.
-
Effort - How much effort is required to resolve this issue (again, from the taxpayer's or other stakeholder’s perspective) -- minimal,
moderate or significant? The more effort it takes to resolve the issue, the more points are awarded.
-
Financial - What is the financial impact on the taxpayer (excluding tax, penalties and interest) -- minimal, moderate or significant?
Factors include issues such as the cost of representation and the taxpayer's ability to pay for this representation, and the
cost of repeated photocopies or express mail for documentation, etc.
-
Fairness - Is this taxpayer treated disparately compared to other taxpayers? If the taxpayer is treated fairly, the issue is not awarded
criteria points; if not treated fairly the issue is awarded points.
13.2.2.3.4
(07-16-2009)
Taxpayer Rights
-
Two factors help determine how the problem affects taxpayers' rights.
-
Denial of Taxpayer Rights - Did the taxpayer have the opportunity to exercise a right or was the taxpayer denied something (privacy, collection, appeal,
etc.) that the taxpayer had the right to? If taxpayers' rights are violated, award criteria points; otherwise do not award
points.
-
Enhancement of Taxpayer Rights - Does this issue enhance taxpayers' rights? If so, award criteria points; otherwise do not award points.
13.2.2.3.5
(07-16-2009)
Ability to Effect Change
-
Two factors help identify issues that may not be resolved without TAS intervention.
-
Likelihood of Independent IRS Action - How likely is it that the OD or function will fix the problem without TAS intervention? The higher the likelihood of independent
action, the fewer criteria points are awarded.
-
TAS Ability to Influence Change - How likely is it that TAS will be able to influence the OD or function to address the issue? The higher the likelihood of
TAS influencing change, the more criteria points are awarded.
-
After the issues are ranked, recommendations are forwarded to the DII. The DII decides whether the issue requires immediate
intervention (II). Immediate intervention determinations are made considering the following factors.
-
Is the harm such that multiple stakeholders need to be involved immediately?
-
What is the underlying cause of the problem?
-
Are the right stakeholders involved?
-
What is the scope of the problem?
-
What is the impact on one or more of the balanced measures (customer service, employee satisfaction, and business results)?
-
What are the possible short and long term solutions?
-
Will the issue need long-term project analysis?
Example:
Notice 54 mailed with refund checks: A POA had notified Systemic Advocacy that Notice 54 was being included with the mailed
refund checks that IRS mailed. Notice 54 states, "The amount of the enclosed refund check is different than the amount shown
on your return. You should be receiving a notice in a few days that explains why the amount of the check is different and
what additional information, if any, you need to provide to the IRS."
In actuality the refund issued agreed with the refund requested by the taxpayer on their return, and no additional notice
explaining why the check amount was different was scheduled by IRS to be sent, as there was not a discrepancy.
This notice was generating taxpayer confusion, and increased phone calls and correspondence from taxpayers requesting clarification.
Notice 54 was generating from the Fresno Service Center. Math error notices were not sent and it appeared the only item generating
the notice was the interest amount paid with the refund for the telephone tax credit.
Within this project, research indicated that CI-Refund Crimes, SB/SE Compliance, the Fresno Campus Manual Refund Unit, IRS
Application Development, Notice Gatekeeper, Financial Management Service (FMS), and the W&I Program Office all needed to be
contacted as critical stakeholders. Procedures in FSC required that Notice 54 be sent when a paper refund was issued, including
EITC. This procedure began over six years ago to address concerns addressed by FMS when working EITC fraud cases. The confusion
regarding the generation of Notice 54 when TETR interest was involved also had an impact on the actual coding of the error
file. Traditionally, this notice is issued when a math error adjustment has been made, adjusting the amount of refund the
taxpayer may be expecting. However in this case no math error adjustment was involved and the refund had not been adjusted.
Systemic Advocacy coordinated the fact-finding and the stakeholders' interest to secure agreement regarding a systemic programming
change. This issue had the potential for nationwide impact and significant burden to numerous taxpayers. The resolution of
the project was systemic programming.
Example:
Disaster Relief Denied Part of Maine was proclaimed a disaster area due to storms April 14 through 18, 2007. As a result of the disaster declaration,
taxpayers were given until June 25, 2007, to file and pay the tax due on or after the incident date. The problem stems from
the FEMA declaration that the incident date was April 18, 2007. Because the Form 1040 was due April 17, 2007, IRS disaster
units were taking the position that Maine taxpayers were not eligible for penalty or interest relief. Maine zip codes were
not included in the systemic S freeze for disaster. However, the IRS news release and the local IRS press release, ME- 2007-22,
stated "Deadline for affected taxpayers to file returns, pay taxes and perform other time-sensitive acts falling on or after
April 14, 2007, and on or before June 25, 2007, have been postponed to June 25, 2007."
Maine taxpayers and preparers relied on information supplied via the IRS press release and website, and were receiving bills
for penalty and interest. Systemic Advocacy determined the underlying cause of the problem to be that the IRS did not realize
there had been an amendment of the FEMA dates on the declaration for the state of Maine. Upon notification of key stakeholders,
the MITS programing was revised. The resolution was confirmed within 3 days of the SAMS review of the issue.
-
If the issue is determined not to be an Immediate Intervention, the DII and DAP will determine whether the issue should be
an advocacy project. The consideration of issues for advocacy project selection includes a series of factors listed below.
-
Whether the issue is statutory (Internal Revenue Code), covered by the Treasury Regulations or addressed in the IRM?
-
Whether the issue has been previously addressed in the Annual Report to Congress, and if so how long ago and what was the
outcome? If the issue was addressed recently, the submission may not be selected for a new project unless the IRS has failed
to take an action it agreed to take. The issue may be made into a project if a significant period of time has lapsed since
the issue was addressed. To the extent the issue has not been previously addressed in the annual report, the creation of a
project may be warranted.
-
Whether the issue has been submitted multiple times, indicating additional consideration, as an emerging issue that warrants
development. See Exhibit 13.2.2-1, SAMS Issue Evaluation and Project Creation Process.
Example:
Bulk Filing - P&I The IRS has charged penalties and interest due to late filing on bulk paper filings. Upon review, it appeared the decision
to charge late filing penalties and interest was based on the "date of receipt"
instead of the "date mailed"
on the tax returns. To support the claim, the submitter enclosed copies of the stamped certified mail receipt and transmittal
letters showing that the returns were timely filed on April 17, 2006. The submitter received notices from three different
IRS offices for the same issue, adding additional confusion. A minimum of two SA projects were selected and worked regarding
this issue coordinating the research and input from both the internal and external stakeholder. The data gathered and analyzed
supported the project recommendation to establish a national team. The recommendation was accepted by the Office of Taxpayer
Burden Reduction as a featured Taxpayer Burden Reduction Project. Campus locations implemented several of the team's suggestions.
Example:
Incorrect ES Penalty when disaster freeze present Interest, FTP and FTF penalties were correctly adjusting on accounts when the Disaster Extensions are input; however, the
Estimated Tax Penalty was not always adjusting correctly when taxpayers self-identify as being affected by the hurricane disasters.
Command Code PIEST shows the ES penalty on several TAS cases. If the Disaster freeze had a revised date and posted to Masterfile
before the return posted, the ES penalty, FTF, FTP and interest were computed correctly. However, if a disaster freeze was input
after the return posted, the program recomputed interest, FTF or FTP penalties, but did not recompute the ES penalty.
Systemic Advocacy project efforts included the validation of the root cause. Individual Master File account taxpayers who
were granted disaster relief but overpaid their estimated tax payments were impacted when the -O freeze was manually set on
accounts where a return has already posted for tax years 2004, 2005 and 2006, for specified FEMA declarations, resulting in
an incorrect computation. Systemic Advocacy coordinated communication with the IRS Disaster Coordinator and MITS, to conduct
a systemic recovery to adjust the accounts, abating the inappropriate assessment of penalties and related interest, and notify
effected taxpayers of the corrections to their accounts.
-
The SAMS program managers will systemically notify the submitter when a decision regarding project selection status is made.
-
Submissions not selected for an AP will be considered for other appropriate action, including referral to the other TAS HQ
program staff; such as Portfolio Advisors, Technical Analysis and Guidance (TAG), Attorney Advisors, Internal Technical Advisory
Program (ITAP), Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP), Communications & Liaison (C&L), and Low Income Taxpayer Clinic (LITC). The
submissions will be forwarded for their consideration and written response to the submitter, generally within 30 days of issue
receipt. Program staff members are required to provide copies of the closing response to the SAMS program managers. A signed
(electronic or copy signature) of the Closing Letter or email will be included in the project file at closing and an electronic
copy should be attached to the project on SAMS. Responses to internal submitters may be via email. Responses to external submitters
often require a formal letter, including the employee's job title and identifying number.
Note:
Most external submissions are received by IRS.gov and may only have an email response address. Additional actions may be necessary
to secure appropriate submitter contact information when a formal response is required. Recommended email language: " You
contacted Systemic Advocacy via IRS.gov. for information or assistance. We have been unable to reach you. If you would like
to communicate with us, please call XXX-XXXX."
Note:
When appropriate, consult with the office of the Special Counsel to the NTA.
-
Submissions that warrant action by another IRS organization, e.g., the IRS suggestion program, should be ranked "Not Accepted"
and SAMS will automatically deliver a systemic notification to the submitter.
-
Duplicate issues will not be ranked and will be closed on SAMS by placing them in Duplicate status and associating them to the corresponding duplicate issue.
-
Related issues will be associated with other like issues (and all work types) and generally be closed if there is an open
or recently closed project on the same topic. The SAMS Program Manager will contact the submitter and add him or her as a
stakeholder on any open related project. Project Leads will update the submitter of the related issue on the status of the
project and will include the submitter on closing correspondence. SAMS Program Managers will be responsible for adding the
related issues on the projects as "associations,"
and notifying Project Leads and their managers of the association. When ranking issues, SAMS Program Managers and their
delegates will consider the expanded scope of a topic when several related issues are received and there is not an open project
on the topic. This information will be elevated to the DII and DAP for project consideration.
|
|
|
