IRS's Budget Justification
Options for Structure and Content Gao ID: GAO-02-711R July 8, 2002The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) submits an annual congressional justification for the funds and number of staff positions requested. For fiscal year 2002, IRS asked for $9.4 billion and 101,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff positions. Congress expressed concerns about the information in IRS's justification and asserted that other types of information and presentations would better help Congress evaluate IRS's budget. In the context of Department of the Treasury and Office of Management and Budget guidance, IRS has the flexibility to present more information than it included in the fiscal year 2002 justification and to display it in different ways. Congressional Justifications typically vary in form and content, reflecting the ongoing relationship between each agency and appropriations subcommittee. The main purpose of Congressional Justifications is to give the subcommittees more details about agency programs and their relationship to appropriation requests than the President's budget documents provide. IRS's fiscal year 2002 justification had a summary section and a section on each of IRS's five appropriations. The summary section explained the foundation of IRS's budget request and summarized the dollars and FTE staff positions being requested for specific appropriations.
GAO-02-711R, IRS's Budget Justification: Options for Structure and Content
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-711R
entitled 'IRS‘s Budget Justification: Options for Structure and
Content' which was released on July 8, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-02-711R:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 8, 2002:
The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: IRS‘s Budget Justification: Options for Structure and Content:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Each year, as part of the Department of the Treasury‘s (Treasury)
budget request, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) submits to the
Congress a congressional justification (CJ), a document justifying the
dollars and number of staff positions that it is requesting. For fiscal
year 2002, IRS asked for about $9.4 billion and about 101,000 full-time-
equivalent (FTE) staff positions.
The House Committee on Appropriations‘ July 23, 2001, report on
Treasury‘s fiscal year 2002 budget request expressed concern about the
information in IRS‘s CJ and asserted that other types of information
and presentations would better help the committee evaluate IRS‘s
budget. [Footnote 1] In that light, you asked us to identify ways to
improve the usefulness of IRS‘s CJ information. As agreed with your
office, our objectives were to (1) determine whether Treasury and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance allow flexibility in the
structure and content of IRS‘s CJ and (2) identify a range of options
to display IRS‘s appropriation request and additional data that can be
included in the CJ, or in a supplement to it, that would help
congressional decision makers consider IRS‘s request.
As described below, within the context of Treasury and OMB guidance,
IRS has the flexibility to present more information than it included in
the fiscal year 2002 CJ and to display it in different ways. This
report describes various options for exercising that flexibility. In
commenting on a draft of the report, Treasury orally expressed a
preference for some types of options over others, and IRS wrote that it
found no problems with what we said about improving the CJ‘s content
and format.
Background:
According to a Congressional Research Service analysis, federal
agencies‘ CJs typically vary in form and content, reflecting the on-
going relationship between each agency and appropriations subcommittee.
[Footnote 2] The main purpose of CJs is to give the subcommittees more
details about agency programs and their relationship to appropriation
requests than the President‘s budget documents provide.
IRS‘s fiscal year 2002 CJ had a summary section and a section on each
of IRS‘s five appropriations. [Footnote 3] The summary section
explained the foundation of IRS‘s budget request and summarized the
dollars and FTE staff positions being requested for specific
appropriations. Each appropriation section presented, among other things
and where applicable, the budget activities within the appropriation, a
list of the programs or projects within each budget activity, the
requested dollar and staffing levels for each budget activity and
program, and related measures. [Footnote 4]
IRS‘s fiscal year 2002 CJ was its first CJ submitted after a recent
major IRS reorganization took effect and after the IRS Oversight Board
began operating. Aimed at meeting the unique needs of specific taxpayer
groups, the reorganization resulted in four operating divisions”Wage
and Investment, Small Business and Self-Employed, Large and Mid-Size
Business, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities. The new
organizational structure officially ’stood up“ on October 1, 2000. At
about the same time, the IRS Oversight Board held its first meeting.
According to the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, the board‘s
responsibilities include reviewing and approving the IRS budget request
prepared by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, submitting it to the
Secretary of the Treasury, and ensuring that it supports IRS‘s
strategic plans. [Footnote 5]
As OMB Circular A-11 states, OMB intends that an agency‘s budget
request be integrated with its annual performance plan [Footnote 6]
required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993.
[Footnote 7] OMB guidance builds upon both GPRA and the Chief Financial
Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, [Footnote 8] as amended. Among their
complementary purposes, both acts seek to improve congressional
decisionmaking by providing information on the relative effectiveness
and efficiency of federal programs and spending, and to help federal
managers improve service delivery by providing them with information
about program results, cost, and service quality.
Many agencies, including IRS, use the CJ as a vehicle to integrate
their performance plan and budget request, an approach that OMB
supports.
IRS Has Flexibility in the Context of Treasury and OMB Guidance:
IRS operates under both Treasury and OMB guidance in producing its CJ,
but it retains flexibility in what it may present. According to
Treasury officials, after periodically consulting with its
congressional appropriations subcommittees on the CJ‘s general
structure, Treasury prescribes the format for a specific year‘s CJ to
ensure consistency among its many bureaus, including IRS. This format
appears in detailed instructions that Treasury provides its bureaus,
and for fiscal year 2002, it included detailed outlines to be followed
and tables to be completed. OMB Circular A-11 also supplies guidance
binding on agencies, including direction on how an agency budget should
directly link to the agency‘s annual performance plan mandated by GPRA.
IRS‘s CJ is to be prepared in accordance with the guidance, and
Treasury and OMB must clear everything in the CJ before it can be sent
to the Congress.
When preparing its CJ, IRS has flexibility in the context of Treasury
and OMB guidance. Although the appropriation subcommittees decide the
content they want in the CJ, and Treasury prescribes the format, IRS
develops the budget narrative. Also, because OMB is more concerned with
enforcing consistency between the CJ and the policy and funding
requests in the president‘s budget than it is with format, IRS has some
leeway. This leeway could take the form of the CJ including displays or
information beyond what Treasury prescribes or OMB needs.
Options for Displaying IRS CJ Information and Providing Additional
Data:
The following are some general options for displaying IRS‘s request
that differ from the presentation in IRS‘s fiscal year 2002 CJ:
* focusing more on budget activities and programs and easy-to-follow
linkages to measures, both performance measures and workload
indicators;
* relating the request to IRS‘s organizational structure;
* relating the request to IRS‘s organizational structure and to
measures;
* highlighting IRS-wide goals; and;
* analyzing more than net changes to the previous year‘s appropriation
(referred to here as the budget base).
Enclosures I through V discuss these options, respectively, and any
pros and cons for adopting them. On the basis of our interviews of IRS,
Treasury, and OMB officials who prepare, review, and clear the CJ, as
well as of staff members of various congressional committees
responsible for IRS who might be expected to use the CJ, we believe
that options involving displays of budget activities and programs,
links to measures, and selected measures themselves could make the CJ
clearer and easier to analyze, with fewer disadvantages, than would
options highlighting organizational units or IRS-wide goals. Options
involving displays of budget activities and programs, links to
measures, and selected measures are also in the spirit of recent federal
government initiatives involving GPRA and the CFO Act that seek better
alignment of budgeting, performance, and financial statement
information. According to officials whom we interviewed, the options
highlighting organizational units or IRS-wide goals could be less
attractive than the others, because these options call for greater
levels of detail, emphasize stove-piped organizations, or face
practical difficulties, such as allocating extensive IRS activities
among goals. The additional detail, however, could provide specific
information by organizational unit, including data on programs and
measures, and better linkages among IRS activities, performance goals,
and IRS-wide goals would be consistent with the requirements of GPRA
and OMB. In its fiscal year 2003 CJ, IRS provided more information than
previously on reductions within IRS‘s budget, but the information was
not summarized in a way that showed at a glance the trade-offs being
made among different IRS programs.
Unless placed in the CJ‘s opening section covering all of IRS as
opposed to individual IRS appropriations, any of the options in the
enclosures might have to supplement rather than replace the current CJ.
A supplement could be a separate submission to the Congress and could
be in a format agreed to by the appropriation subcommittees, Treasury,
and IRS.
Concluding Observations:
If the appropriation subcommittees want a certain kind of information
in IRS‘s CJ, and if Treasury and OMB clear the information, IRS may
include additional displays or data in the CJ beyond what it included
previously. There are many ways for IRS to present current or other
information either in the CJ or in supplements to it. Because of
disagreements among the people whom we interviewed over the
advisability of the different options discussed in this report, it is
unlikely that all concerned parties will agree on the ’right“ ways. Any
ideas adopted would need to meet congressional needs and minimize the
burden to IRS in producing new presentations or information. Only the
parties themselves can engage in the dialogue needed to decide what
fulfills their respective needs.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Treasury and
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for comment. Treasury‘s Director
of the Office of Performance Budgeting provided oral comments on June
18, 2002. He said our analysis was timely and necessary, and our
report, presenting a thorough review of options for structuring the IRS
budget, would help focus discussions with IRS over a future budget
structure. Further, our report would add structure to Treasury‘s
ongoing efforts to merge its budget formulation and oversight functions
with its performance evaluation and monitoring functions.
The Director strongly recommended that when drawing conclusions from our
analysis, we stress options focusing on performance, rather than on a
detailed, operational break-out. We believe that this position is
consistent with our earlier statement that options involving displays
of budget activities and programs, links to measures, and selected
measures themselves could make the CJ clearer and easier to analyze,
with fewer disadvantages, than would options highlighting organizational
units or IRS-wide goals. Still, the involved congressional and
executive parties themselves need to agree on what best suits their
needs.
In providing written comments on our draft, the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue found no problems with what we said about improving
the content and format of IRS‘s CJ. Given OMB‘s and Treasury‘s roles in
the CJ process, he said IRS would share our report with them for their
consideration. The full text of the Commissioner‘s comments is
reprinted in enclosure VI.
Scope and Methodology:
To accomplish our objectives, we (1) analyzed IRS‘s fiscal year 2002
CJ, which was the most current CJ when we began our work; (2) reviewed
OMB Circular A-11 and Treasury‘s fiscal year 2002 instructions
governing budget submissions; (3) studied IRS budget, planning, and
performance management background materials; (4) interviewed IRS,
Treasury, and OMB officials knowledgeable about IRS‘s CJ, as well as
staff members of congressional appropriation and authorization
committees responsible for IRS; (5) analyzed IRS presentations to the
IRS Oversight Board on IRS‘s fiscal year 2002 budget request; (6) used
the fiscal year 2002 CJ, background materials, interviews, and
Oversight Board presentations to develop ideas for other ways to
display IRS‘s appropriation request and other data that might be useful
in the CJ or a supplement; and (7) analyzed IRS‘s fiscal year 2003 CJ
to see if there were any changes to the CJ‘s structure or content that
affected our results. In developing our ideas, we kept in mind the
possibility of using material that IRS already had available or might
already be using for other purposes. We did not update the tables and
figures in this report to reflect the numbers in the fiscal year 2003
CJ, because our purpose was to illustrate formats and ideas and not to
dwell on numbers. We did our review in Washington, D.C., from August
2001 through March 2002 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies to the
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government, House Committee on Appropriations; the Chairmen and
Ranking Minority Members of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Senate Subcommittee on Treasury and General
Government; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House
Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance; the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue; the Secretary of the Treasury; and
other interested parties. We also will make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact David Attianese or me on (202) 512-9110. Lawrence Korb was a
key contributor to the report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
James R. White:
Director, Tax Issues:
[End of correspondence]
Enclosure I:
Focusing IRS‘s Appropriation Request on Programs and Links to Measures:
This enclosure presents ideas for displaying IRS‘s appropriation
request in ways that better focus on budget activities and programs and
easy-to-follow linkages to measures. Many of the executive branch and
congressional officials whom we interviewed thought that the tables in
this enclosure could be helpful. Table 1 summarizes the lead schedules
of all IRS appropriations and includes all budget activities in one
place, not spread over many pages as in the fiscal years 2002 and 2003
congressional justifications (CJ). Although the table covers only
dollar amounts and 2 years, it could be reformatted to cover full-time-
equivalent (FTE) staff positions and more years.
Table 1: Total IRS Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002 Budget Authority by Budget
Activity (Dollars in millions):
Budget activity: Prefiling services;
FY 2001 amount: $548;
FY 2002 amount: $591;
Change: $42.
Budget activity: Filing and account services;
FY 2001 amount: $1,452;
FY 2002 amount: $1,532;
Change: $80.
Budget activity: Shared support services;
FY 2001 amount: $1,010;
FY 2002 amount: $1,018;
Change: $8.
Budget activity: General management and administration;
FY 2001 amount: $683;
FY 2002 amount: $643;
Change: ($410).
Budget activity: Processing, assistance, and management appropriation;
FY 2001 amount: $3,694;
FY 2002 amount: $3,783;
Change: $89.
Budget activity: Compliance services;
FY 2001 amount: $3,294;
FY 2002 amount: $3,443;
Change: $149.
Budget activity: Research and Statistics of Income;
FY 2001 amount: $88;
FY 2002 amount: $90;
Change: $3.
Budget activity: Tax law enforcement appropriation;
FY 2001 amount: $3,382;
FY 2002 amount: $3,533;
Change: $152.
Budget activity: Information systems improvement programs;
FY 2001 amount: $40;
FY 2002 amount: $40;
Change: 0.
Budget activity: Information services;
FY 2001 amount: $1,509;
FY 2002 amount: $1,523;
Change: $14.
Budget activity: Information systems appropriation;
FY 2001 amount: $1,549;
FY 2002 amount: $1,563;
Change: $14.
Budget activity: Business systems modernization appropriation;
FY 2001 amount: $72;
FY 2002 amount: $397;
Change: $325.
Budget activity: Earned income tax credit appropriation;
FY 2001 amount: $145;
FY 2002 amount: $146;
Change: $1.
Total IRS appropriation:
FY 2001 amount: $8,841;
FY 2002 amount: $9,422;
Change: $582.
Legend: FY = fiscal year.
Note: Numbers in columns do not always add to the totals because of
rounding. Fiscal year 2001 and 2002 numbers are proposed operating
level amounts and requested amounts, respectively.
Source: IRS‘s fiscal year 2002 congressional justification.
{End of table]
Figure 1 shows how IRS presented its budget at a similar level of
aggregation in a July 2001 presentation to the IRS Oversight Board,
after the CJ numbers had been refined somewhat as fiscal year 2002 drew
closer. Figure 1‘s main structural difference from table 1 is that
there is a separate line item for submission processing and information
reporting, differentiating between tax administration programs that
involve contact with taxpayers and those that do not. Another
difference is the absence of the earned income tax credit
appropriation, which was outside certain spending caps. [Footnote 9]
Still, the figure allows the reader to see the percentage of the
operations budget accounted for by postfiling compliance services”38.8
percent”a feature similar to one that IRS highlighted in its budget in
brief but not in its CJ. The figure also better highlights the
prefiling, filing, and postfiling service categories that IRS‘s fiscal
year 2003 CJ says form a central theme for organizing IRS‘s strategy
and program plans, budgets, financial plans and reports, and accounting
systems.
Figure 1: IRS Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Authority, by Budget Activity, as
Presented to the IRS Oversight Board (Dollars in thousands):
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the IRS Fiscal Year 2002 Budget
Authority. The following data is depicted:
Budget by Program: Tax Administration Programs;
FY 2002: FTE: 80,761;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 82.8%;
FY 2002: Amount: $5,595,566;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 62.8%;
FY 2002: Percentage of Tax Administration: 100.0%.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs;
FY 2002: FTE: 66,498;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 68.2%;
FY 2002: Amount: $4,918,587;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 55.2%;
FY 2002: Percentage of Tax Administration: 87.9%.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Pre-filing Services;
FY 2002: FTE: 3,712;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 3.8%;
FY 2002: Amount: $590,872;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 6.6%;
FY 2002: Percentage of Tax Administration: 10.6%.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Filing and Account
Services;
FY 2002: FTE: 17,018;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 17.4%;
FY 2002: Amount: $871,924;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 9.8%;
FY 2002: Percentage of Tax Administration: 15.6%.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-filing - Compliance
Services;
FY 2002: FTE: 45,768;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 46.9%;
FY 2002: Amount: $3,455,791;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 38.8%;
FY 2002: Percentage of Tax Administration: 61.8%.
Budget by Program: Submission Processing/Information Reporting;
FY 2002: FTE: 14,263;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 14.6%;
FY 2002: Amount: $676,979;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 7.6%;
FY 2002: Percentage of Tax Administration: 12.1%.
Budget by Program: Shared Services Programs;
FY 2002: FTE: 4,775;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 4.9%;
FY 2002: Amount: $1,072,037;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 12.0%.
Budget by Program: Information Systems Programs;
FY 2002: FTE: 7,477;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 7.7%;
FY 2002: Amount: $1,549,596;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 17.4%.
Budget by Program: Information Systems Programs: Operations (includes
all operations tiers);
FY 2002: FTE: 5,637;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 5.8%;
FY 2002: Amount: $1,192,734;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 13.4%.
Budget by Program: Information Systems Programs: Applications Support;
FY 2002: FTE: 1,840;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 1.9%;
FY 2002: Amount: $356,862;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 4.0%.
Budget by Program: Research and Statistics of Income;
FY 2002: FTE: 918;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 0.9%;
FY 2002: Amount: $97,167;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 1.1%.
Budget by Program: General Management and Administration;
FY 2002: FTE: 3,631;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 3.7%;
FY 2002: Amount: $595,563;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 6.7%.
Total Operations Budget:
FY 2002: FTE: 97,562;
FY 2002: FTE Percentage of Total Budget: 100%;
FY 2002: Amount: $8,909,929;
FY 2002: Percentage of Total Budget: 100.0%.
Tier B -- Business Line Investment:
FY 2002: Amount: $39,865.
Tier A -- Information Technology Investment Account:
FY 2002: Amount: $396,593.
Total Budget:
FY 2002: FTE: 97,562;
FY 2002: Amount: $9,346,387.
Less: User Fees: (70,000)
FY 2002: Amount: ($70,000).
Current Financial Plan:
FY 2002: FTE: 97,562;
FY 2002: Amount: $9,276,387.
Legend: FY = fiscal year; FTE = full-time equivalent.
Note: An IRS footnote pointed out that the FTEs reflected the financial
plan as of July 2001, but the dollar amounts reflected the President‘s
budget.
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
Table 2 expands on table 1 to include in one place all programs and
their corresponding measures instead of having them scattered
throughout the CJ. In this way, for instance, the program dollars for
taxpayer communication and education can be shown together with their
relevant measures. To the extent that the linkage between a program and
a measure is not perfect or that a dollar change merely reflected
inflation”both of which are concerns that we heard”the table could say
so. Or the table could replace dollar amounts with FTEs, a change that
an IRS budget official said would be a better way of comparing resource
changes with changes in performance and workload. Either way, the table
would allow amounts used for different activities”for instance, for
education and various types of compliance”to be seen together, but at
the cost of adding length to the CJ. Versions of table 2 could display
programs, budget amounts or FTEs, and measures, by IRS organizational
unit, making the CJ somewhat longer still. Rather than show all program
categories, IRS could highlight some. For instance, IRS could focus on
program categories with the largest absolute or percentage increases
from the previous year, excluding cost-of-living or inflation
adjustments. In any case, placing measures closer to related dollar
amounts is in the spirit of recent federal government initiatives to
better align budget, performance, and financial statement information
and to achieve a closer link between requested resources and expected
results.
Table 2: Budget Authority and Measures for All IRS Programs, Fiscal
Years 2001 and 2002 (Dollars in million):
Program and budget activity: Management;
FY 2001: $11;
FY 2002: $12;
Change: $0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Tax law interpretation and guidance;
FY 2001: $16;
FY 2002: $16;
Change: $1;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Taxpayer communication and education;
FY 2001: $363;
FY 2002: $399;
Change: $36;
Corresponding measure: Workshops;
FY 2001: 371;
FY 2002: 408;
Corresponding measure: Volunteer locations;
FY 2001: 17,472;
FY 2002: 18,693;
Corresponding measure: Volunteer hours reported (millions);
FY 2001: 2.3;
FY 2002: 3.0;
Corresponding measure: Education and outreach staff years;
FY 2001: 829;
FY 2002: 1,555,
Program and budget activity: Rulings and agreements;
FY 2001: $118;
FY 2002: $123;
Change: $5;
Corresponding measure: Education and outreach staff years;
FY 2001: 245;
FY 2002: 216;
Corresponding measure: Employee plans/exempt organizations
determination letters;
FY 2001: 121,000
FY 2002: 257,600;
Corresponding measure: Private letter rulings completed;
FY 2001: 1,920;
FY 2002: 1,930.
Corresponding measure: Advance pricing and prefiling agreements;
FY 2001: 202;
FY 2002: 338;
Corresponding measure: Small business agreements;
FY 2001: 3,000;
FY 2002: 3,300.
Program and budget activity: Electronic tax administration;
FY 2001: $35;
FY 2002: $36;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: Form 1040 series electronic primary returns filed
(millions);
FY 2001: 42.3;
FY 2002: 50.1;
Corresponding measure: Business electronic primary returns filed
(millions);
FY 2001: 3.7;
FY 2002: 4.3;
Corresponding measure: Percent of individual returns filed
electronically;
FY 2001: 32.6%;
FY 2002: 38.0%.
Corresponding measure: Electronic tax payment transactions (millions);
FY 2001: 67.5;
FY 2002: 72.1;
Corresponding measure: Debit/credit card transactions (millions);
FY 2001: 1.0;
FY 2002: 1.8;
Corresponding measure: Hits to IRS Web site (billions);
FY 2001: 2.0;
FY 2002: 2.5.
Program and budget activity: Taxpayer advocacy;
FY 2001: $5;
FY 2002: $5;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: Taxpayer advocacy projects;
FY 2001: 88;
FY 2002: 88.
Program and budget activity: Prefiling services budget activity;
FY 2001: $548;
FY 2002: $591;
Change: $42;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Management;
FY 2001: $34;
FY 2002: $33;
Change: ($1);
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Submission processing;
FY 2001: $593;
FY 2002: $615;
Change: $22;
Corresponding measure: Form 1040 series paper primary returns processed
(millions);
FY 2001: 87.9;
FY 2002: 82.1;
Corresponding measure: Business paper primary returns processed
(millions);
FY 2001: 81.5;
FY 2002: 82.4.
Program and budget activity: Electronic/correspondence account
management and assistance;
FY 2001: $695;
FY 2002: $725;
Change: $30;
Corresponding measure: Electronic tax questions received;
FY 2001: 310,050;
FY 2002: 434,070;
Corresponding measure: Customer account correspondence (millions);
FY 2001: 17.1;
FY 2002: 17.4;
Corresponding measure: Teletax and toll-free automated calls
(millions);
FY 2001: 67.8;
FY 2002: 67.8;
Corresponding measure: Assistor calls answered (millions);
FY 2001: 32.7;
FY 2002: 33.4;
Corresponding measure: Toll-free customer satisfaction (4-point scale);
FY 2001: 3.58;
FY 2002: 3.69;
Corresponding measure: Toll-free level of service;
FY 2001: 63.4%;
FY 2002: 71.1%;
Corresponding measure: Toll-free tax law quality score;
FY 2001: 74.0%;
FY 2002: 76.0%;
Corresponding measure: Toll-free account quality score;
FY 2001: 63.0%;
FY 2002: 65.0%.
Program and budget activity: Field account management and assistance;
FY 2001: $99;
FY 2002: $125;
Change: $27;
Corresponding measure: Walk-in customer satisfaction (7-point scale);
FY 2001: 6.50;
FY 2002: 6.55;
Corresponding measure: Walk-in returns prepared (millions);
FY 2001: 1.1;
FY 2002: 1.1;
Corresponding measure: Geographic coverage (projection);
FY 2001: 72%;
FY 2002: 75%.
Program and budget activity: Information reporting;
FY 2001: $32;
FY 2002: $34;
Change: $1;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Filing and account services budget
activity;
FY 2001: $1,452;
FY 2002: $1,532;
Change: $80;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Facilities services;
FY 2001: $126;
FY 2002: $127;
Change: $1;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Personnel;
FY 2001: $134;
FY 2002: $139;
Change: $5;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Procurement;
FY 2001: $46;
FY 2002: $47;
Change: $2;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Equal employment opportunity field
operations;
FY 2001: $16;
FY 2002: $16;
Change: $1;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Rent;
FY 2001: $574;
FY 2002: $574;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Space and housing for nonautomated data
processing equipment;
FY 2001: $109;
FY 2002: $109;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Learning delivery;
FY 2001: $1;
FY 2002: 0;
Change: ($1);
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Administrative services;
FY 2001: $5;
FY 2002: $5;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Treasury complaint centers;
FY 2001: $1;
FY 2002: $1;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Shared support;
FY 2001: $0;
FY 2002: $0;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Shared support services budget
activity;
FY 2001: $1,010;
FY 2002: $1,018;
Change: $8;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Unit management and administration (M&A);
FY 2001: $199;
FY 2002: $205;
Change: $6.
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Headquarters M&A;
FY 2001: $352;
FY 2002: $299;
Change: ($53);
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Communication and liaison;
FY 2001: $57;
FY 2002: $59;
Change: $2;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: General legal services;
FY 2001: $10;
FY 2002: $10;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Benefit payments;
FY 2001: $66;
FY 2002: $69;
Change: $3;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: General M&A budget activity;
FY 2001: $683;
FY 2002: $643;
Change: ($41);
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Management;
FY 2001: $92;
FY 2002: $95;
Change: $3;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
FY 2001:
FY 2002:
Change:
Corresponding measure:
FY 2001:
FY 2002:
Program and budget activity: Payment compliance”electronic/
correspondence collection;
FY 2001: $252;
FY 2002: $274;
Change: $23;
Corresponding measure: Automated collection system customer
satisfaction (4-point scale);
FY 2001: 3.50;
FY 2002: 3.60;
Corresponding measure: Automated collection system closures”taxpayer
delinquent accounts (millions);
FY 2001: 1.7;
FY 2002: 1.9;
Corresponding measure: Automated collection system closures”taxpayer
delinquency investigations (millions);
FY 2001: 0.8;
FY 2002: 0.7;
Corresponding measure: Automated collection system level of service;
FY 2001: 80.0%;
FY 2002: 81.0%.
Program and budget activity: Payment compliance”field collection;
FY 2001: $572;
FY 2002: $593;
Change: $21;
Corresponding measure: Field collection customer satisfaction (7-point
scale);
FY 2001: 4.94;
FY 2002: 5.04;
Corresponding measure: Closures”taxpayer delinquent accounts
(millions);
FY 2001: 0.8;
FY 2002: 0.9;
Corresponding measure: Closures”taxpayer delinquency investigations
(millions);
FY 2001: 0.1;
FY 2002: 0.2;
Corresponding measure: Field collection quality score;
FY 2001: 86.4%;
FY 2002: 89.0%;
Corresponding measure: Offers in compromise processed;
FY 2001: 73,068;
FY 2002: 77,470;
Corresponding measure: Offers in compromise processed within 6 months
[shaded];
FY 2001: 37.7%;
FY 2002: 39.6%.
Program and budget activity: Tax reporting compliance”document
matching;
FY 2001: $61;
FY 2002: $69;
Change: $9;
Corresponding measure: Automated underreporter closures (millions);
FY 2001: 2.9;
FY 2002: 3.3;
Corresponding measure: Automated underreporter quality score;
FY 2001: 94%;
FY 2002: 94%.
Program and budget activity: Tax reporting compliance”electronic/
correspondence examination;
FY 2001: $125;
FY 2002: $130;
Change: $5;
Corresponding measure: Service center examination customer satisfaction
(7-point scale);
FY 2001: 4.30;
FY 2002: 4.45;
Corresponding measure: Correspondence returns examined;
FY 2001: 558,655;
FY 2002: 519,664;
Corresponding measure: Service center examination quality score;
FY 2001: 72.0%;
FY 2002: 78.0%;
Corresponding measure: Innocent spouse modules closed;
FY 2001: 57,659;
FY 2002: 62,133.
Program and budget activity: Tax reporting compliance”field
examination;
FY 2001: $1,408;
FY 2002: $1,466;
Change: $58;
Corresponding measure: Field examination customer satisfaction (7-point
scale);
FY 2001: 4.6;
FY 2002: 4.9;
Corresponding measure: Individual returns examinations greater than
$100,000;
FY 2001: 113,699;
FY 2002: 167,282;
Corresponding measure: Individual returns examinations less than
$100,000;
FY 2001: 152,964;
FY 2002: 173,855;
Corresponding measure: Individual returns examined;
FY 2001: 266,663;
FY 2002: 341,137;
Corresponding measure: Field examination case quality score;
FY 2001: 60%;
FY 2002: 62%;
Corresponding measure: Business and general industry returns examined;
FY 2001: 142,441;
FY 2002: 168,712;
Corresponding measure: Large cases examined;
FY 2001: 475;
FY 2002: 475;
Corresponding measure: Large case returns closed;
FY 2001: 3,831;
FY 2002: 3,356;
Corresponding measure: Employee plans/exempt organizations examination
customer satisfaction (7-point scale);
FY 2001: 5.7;
FY 2002: 5.8;
Corresponding measure: Employee plans/exempt organizations examination
cases closed;
FY 2001: 19,300;
FY 2002: 11,000;
Corresponding measure: Employee plans/exempt organizations examination
quality score;
FY 2001: 83%;
FY 2002: 85%.
Program and budget activity: Criminal investigations;
FY 2001: $351;
FY 2002: $365;
Change: $14;
Corresponding measure: Subject criminal investigations initiated;
FY 2001: 3,320;
FY 2002: 3,368.
Program and budget activity: Currency transaction reporting;
FY 2001: $18;
FY 2002: $19;
Change: $1;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Appeals;
FY 2001: $149;
FY 2002: $156;
Change: $7;
Corresponding measure: Appeals cases closed;
FY 2001: 73,013;
FY 2002: 72,842.
Program and budget activity: Litigation;
FY 2001: $144;
FY 2002: $149;
Change: $5;
Corresponding measure: Tax Court cases;
FY 2001: 12,000;
FY 2002: 11,000.
Program and budget activity: Taxpayer advocate case processing;
FY 2001: $122;
FY 2002: $127;
Change: $4;
Corresponding measure: Taxpayer advocate cases closed;
FY 2001: 244,941;
FY 2002: 252,289;
Corresponding measure: Taxpayer advocate quality index;
FY 2001: 68.3%;
FY 2002: 69.7%.
Program and budget activity: Compliance services budget activity;
FY 2001: $3,294;
FY 2002: $3,443;
Change: $149;
Corresponding measure: Enforcement revenue (billions);
FY 2001: $34.0;
FY 2002: $34.9.
Program and budget activity: Research;
FY 2001: $58;
FY 2002: $60;
Change: $2;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Statistics of Income;
FY 2001: $29;
FY 2002: $30;
Change: $1;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Research and Statistics of Income
budget activity;
FY 2001: $88;
FY 2002: $90;
Change: $3;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Information systems improvement
programs budget activity;
FY 2001: $40;
FY 2002: $40;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Unit management;
FY 2001: $105;
FY 2002: $107;
Change: $2;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Applications support;
FY 2001: $392;
FY 2002: $367;
Change: ($26);
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Operations and maintenance (O&M)
infrastructure management;
FY 2001: $21;
FY 2002: $21;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: O&M enterprise systems and assets
management;
FY 2001: $13;
FY 2002: $13;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: O&M telecommunications;
FY 2001: $304;
FY 2002: $304;
Change: $1;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: O&M enterprise operations;
FY 2001: $286;
FY 2002: $291;
Change: $5;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: O&M field desktop support;
FY 2001: $234;
FY 2002: $243;
Change: $8;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: O&M desktop management;
FY 2001: $93;
FY 2002: $93;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Rulings and agreements;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Electronic tax administration;
FY 2001: $1;
FY 2002: $1;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Submission processing;
FY 2001: $3;
FY 2002: $3;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Account management and assistance;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Facilities services;
FY 2001: $3;
FY 2002: $4;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Personnel;
FY 2001: $32;
FY 2002: $32;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Procurement;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Unit general M&A;
FY 2001: $8;
FY 2002: $8;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Headquarters M&A;
FY 2001: $10;
FY 2002: $32;
Change: $23;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Communications and liaison;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Payment compliance”electronic
correspondence;
FY 2001: $1;
FY 2002: $1;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Payment compliance”field collection;
FY 2001: $1;
FY 2002: $1;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Tax reporting compliance”field
examination;
FY 2001: $1;
FY 2002: $1;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Research;
FY 2001: $1;
FY 2002: $2;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Statistics of Income;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Information services budget activity;
FY 2001: $1,509;
FY 2002: $1,523;
Change: $14;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Business systems modernization business
activity;
FY 2001: $72;
FY 2002: $397;
Change: $325;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Taxpayer communication and education;
FY 2001: $3;
FY 2002: $4;
Change: $1;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Rulings and agreements;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Electronic tax administration;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Submission processing;
FY 2001: $19;
FY 2002: $19;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Account management and
assistance”electronic;
FY 2001: $3;
FY 2002: $3;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Account management and assistance”field;
FY 2001: $5;
FY 2002: $5;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Communications and liaison;
FY 2001: $1;
FY 2002: $1;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Tax reporting compliance”electronic;
FY 2001: $40;
FY 2002: $40;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Tax reporting compliance”field;
FY 2001: $31;
FY 2002: $31;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Criminal investigations;
FY 2001: $23;
FY 2002: $23;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Appeals;
FY 2001: $2;
FY 2002: $2;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Litigation;
FY 2001: $1;
FY 2002: $1;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Taxpayer advocate case processing;
FY 2001: $2;
FY 2002: $2;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Research;
FY 2001: $4;
FY 2002: $4;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Applications support”9B;
FY 2001: $10;
FY 2002: $10;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Applications support”9E;
FY 2001: $2;
FY 2002: $2;
Change: 0;
Corresponding measure: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty].
Program and budget activity: Earned income tax credit budget activity;
145 146 1
FY 2001: $145;
FY 2002: $146;
Change: $1;
Corresponding measure: Earned income tax credit coverage [shaded];
FY 2001: 0.16%;
FY 2002: 0.15%.
Program and budget activity: Total IRS;
FY 2001: $8,841;
FY 2002: $9,422;
Change: $582;
Corresponding measure: Primary returns processed (millions);
FY 2001: 215.4;
FY 2002: 219.0;
Corresponding measure: Agencywide employee satisfaction;
FY 2001: 60.0%;
FY 2002: 62.0%;
Corresponding measure: Other education and outreach staff years;
FY 2001: 694;
FY 2002: 1,338;
Corresponding measure: Full-time equivalents (including earned
income tax credit) (thousands);
FY 2001: 100;
FY 2002: 101;
Corresponding measure: Full-time equivalents in taxpayer contact
programs (including earned income tax credit);
FY 2001: 67,852;
FY 2002: 69,965;
Corresponding measure: Full-time equivalents per billion dollars of
real gross domestic product;
FY 2001: 10.42;
FY 2002: 10.12.
Legend: FY = fiscal year.
Notes: (1) The shared support services, general M&A, research and
Statistics of Income, information systems improvement programs,
information services, business systems modernization, and earned income
tax credit activities did not have specific measures. According to IRS,
the resources for these activities contributed to meeting the targets
for measures reported in the prefiling services, filing and account
services, and compliance services budget activities. (2) A table like
this could be created for each IRS organizational unit. (3) Shading
denotes a measure that is not found in the budget justification but
that exemplifies what was included in IRS‘s draft Summary of Balanced
Measures and Workload Indicators from Program Plans, which we obtained
in October 2000, before the CJ was prepared. (4) The numbers for the
measures are not necessarily the entire numbers for the measures; they
are only the numbers relating to the individual program. (5) To shorten
the table, some of the measures could be combined. (6) The numbers do
not always add to the totals because of rounding. (7) According to an
IRS budget official, replacing the dollar amounts in the table with
FTEs would provide a more meaningful comparison of resource changes
with changes in performance and workload.
Sources: Except for note 3, IRS‘s fiscal year 2002 CJ; the
Commissioner‘s May 7, 2001, fiscal year 2003 strategic planning
guidance memo, attachment 4 within attachment c; and a knowledgeable
IRS official.
[End of table]
As indicated by the shading in table 2, we included in the table two
IRS measures that were not among the 65 measures that IRS chose to put
in its fiscal year 2002 CJ. One of the shaded measures was for the $146
million earned income tax credit appropriation, for which the CJ
provided no measures. The other was for the offer in compromise program
that IRS uses to collect part of the delinquent taxes it is owed. For
this program, the CJ mentioned improving the timeliness of offer in
compromise processing without clearly showing how the improvement would
be measured. Other topics similarly lacked measures in the CJ. Although
the CJ noted that audit coverage was expected to increase by 0.05
percentage points, and although the President‘s budget called coverage
a critical performance measure, the CJ included no measures for it.
Likewise, the CJ had no measure for the 350-FTE initiative it described
as matching information returns against trust and partnership return
filings with $500 billion in pass-through income.
Trade-offs would be involved in revising the CJ to include measures in
all these areas. The Congress would have more information at its
disposal to flesh out information that it had been given, such as the
0.05 percentage point increase in audit coverage, but the level of
detail might become too great. As figure 2 shows, IRS featured programs
in a November 2000 presentation to the IRS Oversight Board.
Figure 2: Excerpts from an IRS November 2000 Presentation to the IRS
Oversight Board, Showing FTE Information by Program:
[See PDF for image}
This figure is an illustration of excerpts from an IRS November 2000
presentation to the IRS Oversight Board, showing FTE information by
program. The following data is depicted:
Budget by Program: Tax Administration Programs;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 80,120;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 82,960;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 85,766.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 65,415;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 68,267;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 72,256;
Percent change, 2000 to 2002: 10%.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Pre-Filing Services;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 2,826;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 3,692;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 4,731;
Percent change, 2000 to 2002: 67%.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Pre-Filing Services: 1A
Pre-Filing Management;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 171.09;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 224.28;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 223.15.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Pre-Filing Services: 1B
Tax Law Interpretation;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 169.32;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 172.80;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 221.79.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Pre-Filing Services: 1C
Taxpayer Education & Communication;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,081.84;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,767.99;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 2,751.90.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Pre-Filing Services: 1E
Rulings & Agreements;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,222.76;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,308.70;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,312.94.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Pre-Filing Services: 1H
Electronic Tax Administration;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 145.89;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 165.00;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 167.97.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Pre-Filing Services: 1J
Taxpayer Advocacy;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 34.68;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 53.59;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 53.26.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Filing and Account
Services;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 15,973;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 16,619;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 18,204;
Percent change, 2000 to 2002: 14%.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Filing and Account
Services: 2A Filing Management;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 378.74;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 375.82;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 374.77.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Filing and Account
Services: 2C Accounts Mgmt - Elec. Assistance;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 14,094.42;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 14,207.43;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 15,158.87.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Filing and Account
Services: 2D Account Mgmt - Field Assistance;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,499.98;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 2,035.63; 728.40; 31,855.77;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 2,670.49.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 46,617;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 47,956;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 49,321;
Percent change, 2000 to 2002: 6%.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7A Post-Filing Management;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,079.89;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,018.75;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,013.13.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7C Payment Compliance - Remote Collection;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 4,890.34;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 5,063.01;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 5,736.46.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7D Field Collection, Revenue Officer;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 5,607.53;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 5,993.01;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 6,089.40.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7D Field Collection, Field Clerical/Other;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 2,712.50;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 3,022.22;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 2,975.99.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7E Tax Reporting Compliance - Doc Matching;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,214.87;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,510.06;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,687.16.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7F Tax Reporting Compliance - Corr. Exam;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 3,219.32;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 3,266.35;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 3,358.57.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7G Field Examination, Revenue Agent;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 12,773.18;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 12,654.12;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 12,827.37.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7G Field Examination, Tax Auditor/Tax Compliance Officer;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,688.44;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,760.20;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,923.14.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7G Field Examination, Clerical/Other;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 4,832.06;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 4,384.48;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 4,347.77.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7H Criminal Investigations, Special Agents;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 2,408.67;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 2,467.40;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 2,569.39.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7H Criminal Investigations, Other Staff;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,152.68;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,133.70;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,169.20.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7J Currency Transaction Reporting;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 314.00;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 314.00;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 312.07.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7K Appeals;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,974.07;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,895.93;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,884.50.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7K Appeals, Appeals Officer;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,075.89;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,046.89;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,040.60.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7K Appeals, Other;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 898.18;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 849.04;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 843.90.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7L Counsel;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,459.41;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,478.11;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,444.15.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7L Counsel, Attorneys;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 857.25;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 870.79;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 865.67.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7L Counsel, Other;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 602.16;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 607.32;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 578.48.
Budget by Program: Taxpayer Contact Programs: Post-Filing - Compliance
Services: 7M Taxpayer Advocate Case Processing;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 1,289.72;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,994.51;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 1,982.43.
Submission Proc. & Information Reporting:
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 14,705;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 14,693;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 13,510;
Percent change, 2000 to 2002: -8%.
Submission Proc. & Information Reporting: 2B Returns Processing;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 14,281.72;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 13,964.52;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 12,605.80.
Submission Proc. & Information Reporting: 2E Information Reporting;
FY 2000, Actuals, FTE: 422.93;
FY 2001, Financial Plan, FTE: 728.40;
FY 2002, Financial Plan, FTE: 904.14.
Legend: FY = fiscal year;
FTE = full-time equivalent;
Mgmt = Management;
Elec. = Electronic;
Coll. = Collection;
Doc. = Document;
Corr. Exam = Correspondence Examination;
Proc. = Processing;
Rept. = Reporting.
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
The excerpts in figure 3 show how IRS used measures in an easy-to-read
format in that same November 2000 presentation to the Oversight Board.
The format facilitates analysis of the changes occurring from year to
year. However, it does not show the corresponding changes in budget
dollars that we showed in table 2. [Footnote 10]
Figure 3: Excerpts Showing Measures, from an IRS November 2000
Presentation to the IRS Oversight Board:
[See PDF for image}
The following information is presented in the figure:
Summary of Expected Results - Performance Measures for FY2001 and
FY2002:
Pre-Filing Programs -- Assisting Taxpayers in Understanding their Tax
Responsibilities and Preparing Accurate Returns:
Education and Outreach Staff-Years: 56% 154%
FY 2000: 1,081.84;
FY 2001: 1,767.99;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: 63%;
FY 2002: 2,751.90;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 56%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 154%.
Volunteers Helping Taxpayers, Volunteer Hours Reported:
FY 2000: 2,274,732;
FY 2001: 2,297,700;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: 1%;
FY 2002: 3,005,400;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 31%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 32%.
Volunteers Helping Taxpayers, Number Volunteer Locations;
FY 2000: 18,207;
FY 2001: 17,472;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: -4%;
FY 2002: 18,693;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 7%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 3%.
Small Business Products Disseminated (Workshops):
FY 2000: 334;
FY 2001: 371;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: 11%;
FY 2002: 408;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 10%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 22%.
Rulings and Agreements, EP/EO Determination Letters:
FY 2000: 109,461;
FY 2001: 134,500;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: 23%;
FY 2002: 257,600;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 92%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 135%.
Rulings and Agreements, Private Letter Rulings Issued;
FY 2000: 1,913;
FY 2001: 1,920;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: 0%;
FY 2002: 1,930;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 1%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 1%.
Rulings and Agreements, APA's and Pre-Filing Agreements;
FY 2000: 67;
FY 2001: 202;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: 201%;
FY 2002: 338;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 67%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 404%.
Rulings and Agreements, Small Business Agreements;
FY 2000: 2,700;
FY 2001: 3,000;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: 11%;
FY 2002: 3,300;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 10%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 22%.
Electronic Tax Law Questions Received;
FY 2000: 303,758;
FY 2001: 310,050;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: 2%;
FY 2002: 434,070;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 40%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 43%.
Taxpayer Advocacy Projects:
FY 2000: 76;
FY 2001: 80;
Change, FY 00-FY 01: 5%;
FY 2002: 80;
Change, FY 01-FY 02: 0%;
Change, FY 00-FY 02: 5%.
Legend: FY = fiscal year;
EP/EO = employee plans/exempt organizations;
APA = advance pricing agreement.
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
Table 3 aligns a few IRS measures with various factors throughout the
CJ that contribute to the measures‘ changing between years. As opposed
to table 2, which starts with specific changes in budget dollars and
relates them to changes in measures, table 3 starts with changes in a
few measures and relates them to budget dollars and statements in
various parts of the CJ. The Congress and IRS could agree on who would
select the measures to be displayed and on what basis they would be
selected.
Table 3: Examples of IRS Measures That Are Affected by Many Factors:
Measure changing from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002: Percentage
of returns filed electronically increased from 32.6 percent to 38
percent (p. PAM-15 of CJ);
Factors contributing to the change:
* Increase of about $400,000 in electronic tax administration
budget (PAM-10);
* Implementation of the e-Services project, included in the BSM
budget for $26 million and designed to induce tax preparers to file
electronically on behalf of their clients (SD-8, BSM-11).
Measure changing from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002: Toll-free
level of service (rate at which taxpayers who called IRS toll-free
actually got through and received service) increased from 63.4 percent
to 71.1 percent (PAM-16);
Factors contributing to the change:
* Increase of $30 million in electronic/correspondence account
management and assistance budget (PAM-14);
* Implementation of the Customer Communications 2001 business systems
modernization project to improve the level of service without
commensurate increases in the number of FTEs handling calls (SD-8);
* Possible negative effect on productivity owing to attrition among
senior front-line staff (SD-6);
* Improvement in level of access as a result of telephone assistors
being helped to do more (PAM-6).
Measure changing from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002: Number of
offers in compromise processed increased from 73,068 to 77,470 (TLE-
12);
Factors contributing to the change:
* Increase of $21 million in payment compliance (field collection)
budget (TLE-9);
* Expected improvement in timeliness due to centralization of offer
case processing (SD-6).
Measure changing from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002: Number of
individual returns examined increased from 266,663 to 341,137 (TLE-12);
Factors contributing to the change:
* Increase of $58 million in tax reporting compliance (field
examination) budget (TLE-10);
* Expected increase of audit coverage by 0.05 percentage points, owing
to reduced diversion of revenue agents, tax auditors, and revenue
officers to customer service activities (SD-6).
Source: Table 2 and various pages of the CJ, as noted.
[End of table]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure II:
Relating IRS‘s Appropriation Request to IRS‘s Organizational Structure:
This enclosure presents a way to relate IRS‘s appropriation request to
IRS‘s organizational units. Table 4 expands on table 1 by adding
information on individual IRS organizational units that was taken from
an internal fiscal year 2002 IRS spreadsheet that had information on
many more units than are included here. The fiscal year 2002
congressional justification (CJ) did not include unit information.
Table 4: IRS Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Authority, by Organizational Unit
(Dollars in millions):
Budget activity: Prefiling services;
Total: $591;
Wage and Investment: $378;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $50;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $31;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: $60;
Subtotal: $519;
Other: $71.
Budget activity: Filing and account services;
Total: $1,532;
Wage and Investment: $997;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $516;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $7;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: $10;
Subtotal: $1,530;
Other: $2.
Budget activity: Shared support services;
Total: $1,018;
Wage and Investment: 0;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: 0;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: 0;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: 0;
Subtotal: 0;
Other: $1,018.
Budget activity: General management and administration;
Total: $643;
Wage and Investment: $16;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $57;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $15;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: $20;
Subtotal: $108;
Other: $534.
Budget activity: Processing, assistance, and management;
Total: $3,783;
Wage and Investment: $1,391;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $623;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $53;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: $89;
Subtotal: $2,158;
Other: $1,626.
Budget activity: Compliance services;
Total: $3,443;
Wage and Investment: $246;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $1,672;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $586;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: $105;
Subtotal: $2,608;
Other: $834.
Budget activity: Research and Statistics of Income;
Total: $90;
Wage and Investment: $6;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $14;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $6;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: 0;
Subtotal: $24;
Other: $64.
Budget activity: Tax law enforcement;
Total: $3,533;
Wage and Investment: $251;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $1,686;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $592;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: $105;
Subtotal: $2,634;
Other: $899.
Budget activity: Information systems improvement programs;
Total: $40;
Wage and Investment: 0;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: 0;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: 0;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: 0;
Subtotal: 0;
Other: $40.
Budget activity: Information services;
Total: $1,523;
Wage and Investment: $5;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $2;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $2;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: 0;
Subtotal: $10;
Other: $1,514.
Information systems;
Total: $1,563;
Wage and Investment: $5;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $2;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $2;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: 0;
Subtotal: $10;
Other: $1,554.
Budget activity: Business systems modernization;
Total: $397;
Wage and Investment: 0;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: 0;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: 0;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: 0;
Subtotal: 0;
Other: $397.
Budget activity: Earned income tax credit;
Total: $146;
Wage and Investment: $74;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $31;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: 0;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: 0;
Subtotal: $105;
Other: $41.
Budget activity: Total IRS;
Total: $9,422;
Wage and Investment: $1,721;
Unit: Small Business and Self-Employed: $2,343;
Unit: Large and Mid-Size Business: $647;
Unit: Tax Exempt and Government Entities: $195;
Subtotal: $4,906;
Other: $4,516.
Note: The numbers do not always add to the totals because of rounding.
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office, Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request
for the Internal Revenue Service, GAO-01-698R (Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2001).
[End of table]
Some executive branch and congressional officials whom we interviewed
favored displaying IRS‘s appropriation by organizational unit.
According to them, an organizational break-out allows individuals to be
held accountable for large pieces of the budget and is useful as
background.
However, an organizational break-out also creates concerns for some
agency and congressional officials. The following concerns were cited:
* At the time a CJ is prepared, IRS has not allocated all amounts, such
as training, to specific organizational units, making the units‘ dollar
totals incomplete.
* IRS has not considered evolving operational factors such as how a
filing season will go or how hiring efforts will work out, and,
consequently, IRS organizational heads might be locked into untenable
published budget numbers for their units. [Footnote 11]
* If an organizational break-out were presented, inappropriate
comparisons might be made among organizations serving different
segments of taxpayers. [Footnote 12]
* The budget focus might be on stove-piped units, not on IRS as an
integrated organization. This could lead to particular interest groups
focusing on the budgets for particular units, undermining the trade-
offs that need to be made within the entire organization and among all
types of taxpayers.
Figure 4 shows excerpts of the formatted grids that IRS already uses to
collect 3 years of program information for each organizational unit on
table 4. If they desired, congressional parties could collect these
grids from IRS for selected units. In a further refinement, they could
receive them or the CJ spreadsheet electronically, allowing for staff
analysis and presentation at different levels of detail. Presenting
program information in the CJ would provide a greater level of detail
than currently exists but would also allow for more analysis than is
currently possible.
Figure 4: Excerpt from IRS Grid for Collecting Program Information, by
Organizational Unit:
Org Unit Resource Matrix (dollars in thousands):
Business Unit: BAC 21 - Pre-filing Services:
FY 2001, FTE: 0;
FY 2001, Dollars: 0;
FY 2002, FTE: 0;
FY 2002, Dollars: 0;
Business Unit: BAC 21 - Pre-filing Services: 1A - Pre-filing Services
Management;
Business Unit: BAC 21 - Pre-filing Services: 1B - Published Guidance
Preparation;
Business Unit: BAC 21 - Pre-filing Services: 1C - Taxpayer Comm. &
Education;
Business Unit: BAC 21 - Pre-filing Services: 1E - Rulings and
Agreements;
Business Unit: BAC 21 - Pre-filing Services: 1H - Electronic Tax
Administration;
Business Unit: BAC 21 - Pre-filing Services: 1J - Taxpayer Advocacy;
Business Unit: BAC 22 - Filing and Account Services:
FY 2001, FTE: 0;
FY 2001, Dollars: 0;
FY 2002, FTE: 0;
FY 2002, Dollars: 0;
Business Unit: BAC 22 - Filing and Account Services: 2A - Filing and
Account Services Mgmnt;
Business Unit: BAC 22 - Filing and Account Services: 2B - Submissions
Processing;
Business Unit: BAC 22 - Filing and Account Services: 2C - Account Mgmt
and Assist. (Elec/Corr);
Business Unit: BAC 22 - Filing and Account Services: 2D - Account Mgmt
and Assist. (Field);
Business Unit: BAC 22 - Filing and Account Services: 2E - Information
Reporting;
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services:
FY 2001, FTE: 0;
FY 2001, Dollars: 0;
FY 2002, FTE: 0;
FY 2002, Dollars: 0;
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7A - Compliance Services
Management;
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7C - Payment Compliance
(Elec/Corr Collect.);
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7D - Payment Compliance
(Field Collect.);
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7E - Tax Reporting
Compliance - Doc. Match.
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7F - Tax Reporting
Compliance - Elec/Corr Exam;
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7G - Tax Reporting
Compliance - Field Exam;
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7H - Criminal
Investigation;
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7J - Currency Transaction
Reporting;
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7K - Appeals;
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7L - Litigation;
Business Unit: BAC 37 - Compliance Services: 7M - Taxpayer Advocate
Case Processing;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:
FY 2001, FTE: 0;
FY 2001, Dollars: 0;
FY 2002, FTE: 0;
FY 2002, Dollars: 0;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:1C - Taxpayer Comm. & Education;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:1E - Rulings and Agreements;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:1H - Electronic Tax Administration;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:2B - Submissions Processing;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:2C - Account Mgmt and Assist. (Elec/Corr);
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:2D - Account Mgmt and Assist. (Field);
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:5C - Communications & Liaison;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:7F - Tax Reporting Compliance - Elec/Corr
Exam;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:7G - Tax Reporting Compliance - Field
Exam;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:7H - Criminal Investigation;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:7K - Appeals;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:7L - Litigation;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:7M - Taxpayer Advocate Case Processing;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:8A - Research;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:9B - Applications Support;
Business Unit: BAC 80 - EITC:9E - OM - Telecommunications;
Business Unit: BAC 25 - General Management and Administration:
FY 2001, FTE: 0;
FY 2001, Dollars: 0;
FY 2002, FTE: 0;
FY 2002, Dollars: 0;
Business Unit: BAC 25 - General Management and Administration: 5A -
Unit General Mgmnt & Admin.
Business Unit: BAC 25 - General Management and Administration: 5B -
National HQ Mgmnt & Admin;
Business Unit: BAC 25 - General Management and Administration: 5C -
Communications & Liaison;
Business Unit: BAC 25 - General Management and Administration: 5D -
General Legal Services;
Business Unit: BAC 25 - General Management and Administration: 5E -
Benefit Payments;
Business Unit: BAC 38 - Research and SOI:
FY 2001, FTE: 0;
FY 2001, Dollars: 0;
FY 2002, FTE: 0;
FY 2002, Dollars: 0;
Business Unit: 8A - Research;
Business Unit: 8B - SOI;
Business Unit: BAC 24 - Shared Support Services:
FY 2001, FTE: 0;
FY 2001, Dollars: 0;
FY 2002, FTE: 0;
FY 2002, Dollars: 0.
Legend: Org = Organizational;
FY = fiscal year;
FTE = full-time equivalent;
BAC = budget activity code;
Comm. = Communication;
Mgmnt = Management;
Assist. = Assistance;
Elec/Corr Collect. = Electronic/Correspondence Collection;
Doc. Match. = Document Matching;
Elec/Corr Exam = Electronic/Correspondence Examination;
EITC = earned income tax credit;
OM = Operations and Maintenance;
HQ = Headquarters;
SOI = Statistics of Income.
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure III:
Relating IRS‘s Appropriation Request to IRS‘s Organizational Structure
and Measures:
This enclosure presents ideas on how to relate IRS‘s appropriation
request to IRS‘s organizational structure and measures. Within
organizational units, table 5 shows examples of large or important
programs and selected related measures. The information comes from the
internal fiscal year 2002 IRS spreadsheet mentioned in enclosure II and
from other internal IRS sources. The level of detail in this enclosure
is greater than that in enclosure II; the potential for analysis is
also greater.
Table 5: Budget Authority for Selected Programs and Examples of
Corresponding Measures (Dollars in millions):
Budget activity and program: Prefiling services”taxpayer communication
and education;
IRS unit: Wage and Investment;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $340;
Measure: Education and outreach staff years;
Measure in FY 2001: 392;
Measure in FY 2002: 712;
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Prefiling services”electronic tax
administration;
IRS unit: Wage and Investment;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $35;
Measure: Percentage of individual returns filed electronically;
Measure in FY 2001: 32.6%;
Measure in FY 2002: 38.0%;
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Filing and account services”submission
processing;
IRS unit: Wage and Investment;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $486;
Measure: [Shaded] Timeliness of refunds to individuals filing paper
returns;
Measure in FY 2001: Baseline;
Measure in FY 2002: To be determined;
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Filing and account services”account
management and assistance (electronic, correspondence);
IRS unit: Wage and Investment;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $374;
Measure: Toll-free level of service,[B] [shaded] telephone timeliness,
and account quality;
Measure in FY 2001: 63.4%, 95%, and 63%;
Measure in FY 2002: 71.1%, 96%, and 65%;
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Filing and account services”account
management and assistance (electronic, correspondence);
IRS unit: Small Business and Self-Employed;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $345;
Measure: Toll-free level of service[B]; ;
Measure in FY 2001: 63.4%;
Measure in FY 2002: 71.1%;
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Compliance services”payment compliance
(field collection);
IRS unit: Small Business and Self-Employed;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $593;
Measure: [shaded] Percentage of offers in compromise processed within 6
months;
Measure in FY 2001: 37.7%;
Measure in FY 2002: 39.6%;
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Compliance services”tax reporting
compliance (field examination);
IRS unit: Small Business and Self-Employed
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $783;
Measure: [shaded] Percentage of field examination cases overage;
Measure in FY 2001: 40%;
Measure in FY 2002: 37%;
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Compliance services”tax reporting
compliance (field examination);
IRS unit: Large and Mid-Size Business;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $578;
Measure: [shaded] Industry cycle time in months;
Measure in FY 2001: 31.42;
Measure in FY 2002: 31.00;
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Compliance services”criminal
investigation;
IRS unit: Criminal Investigations;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $365;
Measure: Subject criminal investigations initiated;
Measure in FY 2001: 3,320;
Measure in FY 2002: 3,368;
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Shared support”rent;
IRS unit: Agencywide Shared Services;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $574;
Measure: None given;
Measure in FY 2001: [Empty];
Measure in FY 2002: [Empty];
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Information services”applications
support;
IRS unit: Chief Information Officer;
FY 2001 dollar amount[A]: [Empty];
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $367;
Measure: None given;
Measure in FY 2001: [Empty];
Measure in FY 2002: [Empty];
Long-term measure[C]: [Empty].
Budget activity and program: Total:
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $4,840.
IRS unit: All IRS:
FY 2002 requested dollar amount: $9,422.
Note: Measures selected are limited to those IRS had. Shading indicates
that the measure was not included in the 2002 CJ and that the values
associated with it predated the CJ and could have changed by the time
the CJ was issued.
[A] Dollar amounts for fiscal year 2001 did not appear in the materials
we reviewed.
[B] Toll-free level of service is the rate at which taxpayers who call
IRS toll-free actually get through and receive service.
[C] Long-term measures would be included only to the extent that they
exist. The fiscal year 2003 CJ mentioned long-term IRS-wide goals of 90
percent telephone level of service on taxpayer accounts and 85 percent
on tax law inquiries. It also noted the congressional goal of IRS‘s
receiving 80 percent of all tax and information returns electronically
by 2007.
Sources: IRS spreadsheet on fiscal year 2002 CJ; the Commissioner‘s May
7, 2001, fiscal year 2003 strategic planning guidance memo, attachment
4 within attachment c; format for the fiscal year 2001 Monthly Business
Performance Summary; and draft Summary of Balanced Measures and
Workload Indicators from Program Plans.
[End of table]
Figure 5 shows the formatted grid that IRS uses to collect information
on programs and measures for each IRS organizational unit. If they
desired, congressional parties could collect these grids from IRS for
selected organizational units and programs. To supplement either table
5 or figure 5, IRS could submit narrative program summaries already
prepared as part of IRS‘s strategic planning process.
Figure 5: IRS Grid for Collecting Information, by Program, Measure, and
Organizational Unit:
Business Unit:
BAC:
Appropriation:
PAC:
Resources Required:
Labor:
Employment Category:
2001 FTE:
2001 $:
2002 FTE:
2002 $:
2003 FTE:
2003 $:
Total FTE & Labor Costs:
Staff Disposition (only for Applicable employment categories):
Category: Direct:
2001 FTE:
2001 $:
2002 FTE:
2002 $:
2003 FTE:
2003 $:
Category: Indirect:
2001 FTE:
2001 $:
2002 FTE:
2002 $:
2003 FTE:
2003 $:
Category: Details Out/In (-/+):
2001 FTE:
2001 $:
2002 FTE:
2002 $:
2003 FTE:
2003 $:
Total FTE & Labor Costs:
Non-Labor:
Budget Line Item: ADP Operations:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Communications:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Enforcement Expenses:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Equipment, Non-ADP:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Land and Buildings:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Postage:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Printing:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Space and Housing:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Rent:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Services and Supplies:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Training:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Budget Line Item: Travel:
2001 $:
2002 $:
2003 $:
Total Labor and Non-Labor Costs:
Operational Support Contracts Summary:
Name of Contract:
FY 2001:
FY 2002:
FY 2003:
Total Funded Contracts:
Performance and/or Program Goals:
Critical Measures:
Measure:
FY 2001:
FY 2002:
FY 2003:
Key Workload/Performance Indicators (other than Critical Measures):
Indicator:
FY 2001:
FY 2002:
FY 2003:
Legend: FY = fiscal year;
BAC = budget activity code;
PAC = program activity code;
FTE = full-time equivalent;
ADP = automated data processing.
Note: ’Employment category“ includes such classifications as seasonal,
tax technician, and ’other full-time permanent“ employees.
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure IV: Highlighting IRS-Wide Goals:
This enclosure presents still another way to display IRS‘s
appropriation request”by relating it to IRS-wide goals. Table 6 shows
how the IRS Oversight Board roughly allocated IRS‘s operations budget
among IRS‘s three strategic goals. [Footnote 13] However, allocating
particular IRS activities, such as general management and
administration, to only one goal, such as productivity, might make
budgeting by goal problematic.
Table 6: IRS‘s Fiscal Year 2002 Operations Budget as Proposed by the
IRS Oversight Board, by IRS Strategic Goal (Dollars in millions):
Service category and strategic goal: Prefiling services;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $359.
Service category and strategic goal: Filing and account services;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $910.
Service category and strategic goal: Tax return processing and
information reporting;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $866.
Service category and strategic goal: Other;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $23.
Service category and strategic goal: Total service to each taxpayer;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $2,158
Service category and strategic goal: Payment, filing, and reporting
compliance;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $3,597.
Service category and strategic goal: Total service to all taxpayers;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $3,597.
Service category and strategic goal: Tax administration training;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $64.
Service category and strategic goal: Shared services programs;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $1,121.
Service category and strategic goal: Information systems programs;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $1,593.
Service category and strategic goal: General management and
administration;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $358.
Service category and strategic goal: Research and Statistics of Income;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $101.
Service category and strategic goal: Total productivity through a high-
quality work environment;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $3,237.
Service category and strategic goal: Total proposed IRS operations
budget;
Fiscal year 2002 budget requirement: $8,992.
Note: We did not completely reconcile the numbers in this table with
other information that we saw.
Source: IRS Oversight Board, The IRS Budget Fiscal Year 2002: Analysis
and Recommendations (Interim Report) (Washington, D.C.: 2001).
[End of table]
Table 7 shows IRS‘s strategic measures, tied to its three strategic
goals, at the beginning of fiscal year 2002 that were in various stages
of development and should one day provide usable information in the
form of IRS-wide and division-specific measures of IRS performance. In
using these measures, IRS could show interim progress toward long-term
goals and also show staff and technology resources needed for continued
progress toward those goals‘ achievement. However, some of the evolving
strategic measures might have more severe limitations than others. Also,
because IRS did not link budget dollars to the strategic goals or
measures, how it would relate funds received or requested to strategic
goals or measures was unclear. The measures shown in table 2 and
elsewhere for fiscal year 2002 did not link to the strategic goals,
either. In its fiscal year 2003 annual performance plan, however, IRS
noted that the strategic measures it was developing would be supported
by operational measures.
Table 7: IRS Strategic Measures at the Beginning of Fiscal Year 2002:
IRS strategic goal: Service to each taxpayer;
Strategic measure: Customer satisfaction;
Brief description: An index showing customers‘ satisfaction with such
things as the clarity and usefulness of IRS‘s information, the
accessibility of information, and the courtesy and professionalism of
IRS representatives;
Level of reporting: IRS-wide, operating division;
Limitations: Only 3 IRS-related activities and 250 interviewees are
reflected, limiting analysis, providing only high-level guidance, and
requiring more study to gain actionable results. Some taxpayer segments
will only be added in future years.
IRS strategic goal: Service to each taxpayer;
Strategic measure: Customer satisfaction/public approval;
Brief description: The percentage of the public that has a favorable
opinion of IRS;
Level of reporting: IRS-wide;
Limitations: Survey respondents may or may not have had dealings with
IRS personnel. The responses cannot be used to measure the impact of
specific IRS programs or services.
IRS strategic goal: Service to each taxpayer;
Strategic measure: Taxpayer burden;
Brief description: Time and out-of-pocket dollars spent, by types of
taxpayers and types of activity;
Level of reporting: IRS-wide, operating division;
Limitations: Work to be finished in 2002 will be for wage and
investment and self-employed taxpayers only, with business and
employment tax burdens to come later. Separating IRS and tax code
burdens may not be possible.
IRS strategic goal: Service to all taxpayers;
Strategic measure: Payment compliance;
Brief description: The percentage of tax liability reported on timely-
filed returns that is paid by the return due date or to date;
Level of reporting: IRS-wide, operating division, type of tax;
Limitations: Factors outside IRS‘s control will have to be considered
in assessments of the effect of IRS activities. Complete data will not
be ready until more than a year after a tax year ends. The data source
was expected to be operational in fiscal year 2002.
IRS strategic goal: Service to all taxpayers;
Strategic measure: Filing compliance;
Brief description: The percentage of required individual returns that
are filed on time for a given year;
Level of reporting: IRS-wide;
Limitations: Factors outside IRS‘s control will have to be considered
in assessments of the effect of IRS activities. Complete data will not
be ready until more than a year after a tax year ends. Data are now
available for individuals only.
IRS strategic goal: Service to all taxpayers;
Strategic measure: Reporting compliance;
Brief description: The percentage of individual income tax liability
that is voluntarily reported on timely-filed returns for a given tax
year;
Level of reporting: IRS-wide; W&I, SB/SE individuals;
Limitations: Factors outside IRS‘s control will have to be considered
when assessing the effect of IRS activities. Data are available for
individuals only; the data are based on 1988 information and do not
reflect 1988 underreporting, which is thought to have been significant.
A more accurate measure will have to await the more current compliance
data that will be available in the future.
IRS strategic goal: Productivity through a quality work environment;
Strategic measure: Employee satisfaction;
Brief description: Survey questions of employees;
Level of reporting: IRS-wide, operating division, functional division,
work group;
Limitations: No limitations listed by IRS.
IRS strategic goal: Productivity through a quality work environment;
Strategic measure: Workload resource index;
Brief description: Percentage change in IRS workload and productivity
over time;
Level of reporting: IRS-wide, operating division, lower;
Limitations: This measure involves some questionable assumptions and
places greater weight on some of its component 62 measures than on
others.
Source: IRS, Data Dictionary for Strategic Measures.
[End of table]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure V: Analyzing More Than Net Changes to the Budget Base:
This enclosure presents a final way to display IRS appropriation
information, one that would facilitate analysis of more than net
changes to the budget base. For the first time, IRS‘s fiscal year 2003
congressional justification (CJ) showed resource reductions within the
base budget that were reallocated to high-priority areas. However, the
fiscal year 2003 CJ did not summarize the specifics of this information
in one place to show at a glance the trade-offs being made among
different IRS programs.
From IRS‘s strategic planning process, figures 6 and 7 show excerpts
from IRS formats for displaying what drives increases and decreases in
IRS resource needs. The formats differ from traditional incremental CJ
presentations by showing pluses and minuses before they are netted out.
In addition, they show break-outs by budget activity and could show
break-outs by organizational unit. The formats used in the planning
process allow IRS to show, for instance, how savings in the cost of
processing returns brought on by electronic filing can be reapplied to
such efforts as stabilizing audit rates and pursuing high-priority tax
collections. The formats could include, or be restricted to, columns
with totals for all of IRS. These columns would show how trade-offs are
made within IRS as a whole. Although figure 6 displays only dollar
amounts, it could include full-time-equivalent staff positions as well.
Figure 6: Excerpts from IRS Grid Showing Expected Increases and
Decreases in IRS Labor Costs, by Program:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a blank IRS grid depicting categories to be completed
for labor increases and labor savings.
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Excerpts from IRS Grid Showing Expected Increases and
Decreases in IRS Nonlabor Costs, by Program Category:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a blank IRS grid depicting categories to be completed
for non-labor increases and non-labor savings.
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure VI: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service:
Commissioner:
Department Of The Treasury:
Internal Revenue Service:
Washington, D.C. 20224:
June 18, 2002:
Mr. James R. White:
Director, Tax Issues
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. White:
We reviewed your draft report, "IRS's Budget Justification: Options for
Structure and Content" (GAO-02-711R). In general, we find no problems
with the GAO's recommendations for improving the content and format of
the IRS' congressional justification submission.
Our goal each year is to develop a presentation that best supports the
IRS' budget request and meets the needs of those who review it. The
Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Treasury provide
us guidance on the technical content and presentation of our
congressional justification. We will share this report with them for
their consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. If you have
any additional questions, please contact W. Todd Grams at (202) 622-
6400.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
[Illegible] for Charles O. Rossotti:
The following are GAO‘s comments on the Internal Revenue Service‘s
letter dated June 18, 2002.
GAO Comments:
Although the letter said that IRS found no problems with our
recommendations, our draft report contained no recommendations and
neither does the final report. According to an official with IRS‘s
Office of Legislative Affairs, IRS was saying that it agreed with the
content of our report.
[End of enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. House of Representatives, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2002, Report 107-152
(Washington, D.C.: 2001).
[2] Congressional Research Service, Agency Justification of the
President‘s Budget (updated, Washington, D.C.: 2001).
[3] The five appropriations”(1) processing, assistance, and management;
(2) tax law enforcement; (3) information systems; (4) business systems
modernization; and (5) the earned income tax credit compliance
initiative”remained the same in the fiscal year 2003 CJ.
[4] For example, prefiling taxpayer assistance and education was one of
the budget activities in the processing, assistance, and management
appropriation. Within that budget activity, two of the programs were
(1) tax law interpretation and public guidance and (2) taxpayer
communication and education.
[5] P.L. 105-206.
[6] OMB Circular A-11 also discusses the cascading relationship between
an agency‘s general goals in its strategic plan and performance goals
in its annual performance plan.
[7] P.L. 103-62.
[8] P.L. 101-576.
[9] The Information Technology Investment Account in figure 1 is the
equivalent of the Business Systems Modernization (BSM) appropriation in
table 1. Neither presentation has enough information to show full BSM
costs, since some of the costs are funded by the information systems
and other appropriations. According to IRS officials, IRS does not
isolate these costs, which are tracked after the fact, for budget
purposes. Also, the officials told us, because these costs are already
scrutinized before congressional approval of BSM expenditures,
isolating them for budget purposes is not needed. The business line
investment in figure 1 is equivalent to information systems improvement
programs in table 1.
[10] Because our aim is only to show different ways of displaying IRS‘s
appropriation request, we did not explore why some of the numbers in
figure 3 differed from those in table 2.
[11] It seems that this argument could also be applied to any
organization as a whole, because any allocation is subject to
adjustment as uncertainty diminishes.
[12] Of course, proper comparisons might be made as well.
[13] The goals are (1) top-quality service to each taxpayer in every
interaction, (2) top-quality service to all taxpayers through fair and
uniform application of the law, and (3) productivity through a high-
quality work environment.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
