Tax Administration
Changes to IRS's Schedule K-1 Document Matching Program Burdened Compliant Taxpayers Gao ID: GAO-03-667 May 30, 2003About $1 trillion in income was distributed in 2001 by flow-through entities such as partnerships and trusts. These entities do not pay taxes on flow-through income. They report it to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on a Schedule K-1 and their partners or beneficiaries pay any tax. Concerned about underreporting, IRS began matching the flow-through income reported on Schedule K-1s with that reported on individuals' returns. In 2002, IRS began sending notices to taxpayers about suspected noncompliance. After complaints that many notices were going to compliant taxpayers, IRS stopped sending notices. Concerned about the burden, Congress asked GAO to, among other things, (1) describe the burden caused by the notices and IRS's rationale for stopping them, (2) assess IRS's management of the program, and (3) describe the steps IRS will take to address any problems.
IRS stopped issuing Schedule K-1 notices after complaints about the burden the program imposed on compliant taxpayers. Originally, IRS intended to focus the program on two categories of income--interest and dividends--wherein matching was straightforward, and therefore the number of notices sent to compliant taxpayers could be minimized. However IRS changed the matching program to cover additional categories of flow-through income without clearly informing taxpayers and tax preparers. Matching these additional categories of income was less straightforward. As a result, IRS sent notices about suspected noncompliance to more compliant taxpayers than it intended. In fact, about two-thirds of the notices were sent to taxpayers later determined to be compliant. After taxpayers complained, and after sending out about 70 percent of the planned notices, IRS responded by stopping the notices. IRS has assessed about $41.4 million in additional tax from the notices that were sent and approximately $26.9 million was directly attributable to Schedule K-1 underreporting. IRS did not timely implement two parts of the plans for managing the Schedule K-1 matching program. First, IRS did not test the feasibility of focusing the program on interest and dividend income until after recommending such a focus and communicating the recommendation to taxpayers, preparers, and other stakeholders. Second, after changing the plan, IRS did not clearly communicate the changes. IRS is taking steps to improve communications and reduce the burden on compliant taxpayers. However, neither IRS nor GAO knows whether these changes will improve communications and reduce burden while maintaining the effectiveness of the Schedule K-1 matching program as a compliance tool.
GAO-03-667, Tax Administration: Changes to IRS's Schedule K-1 Document Matching Program Burdened Compliant Taxpayers
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-667
entitled 'Tax Administration: Changes to IRS's Schedule K-1 Document
Matching Program Burdened Compliant Taxpayers' which was released on
July 09, 2003.
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:
May 2003:
Tax Administration:
Changes to IRS's Schedule K-1 Document Matching Program Burdened
Compliant Taxpayers:
GAO-03-667:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-667, a report to the Committee on Business and
Entrepreneurship, United States Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
About $1 trillion in income was distributed in 2001 by flow-through
entities such as partnerships and trusts. As shown below, these
entities do not pay taxes on flow-through income. They report it to
IRS on a Schedule K-1 and their partners or beneficiaries pay any tax.
Concerned about underreporting, IRS began matching the flow-through
income reported on Schedule K-1s with that reported on individuals‘
returns. In 2002, IRS began sending notices to taxpayers about
suspected noncompliance. After complaints that many notices were going
to compliant taxpayers, IRS stopped sending notices.
Concerned about the burden, the committee asked GAO to, among other
things, (1) describe the burden caused by the notices and IRS‘s
rationale for stopping them, (2) assess IRS‘s management of the
program, and (3) describe the steps IRS will take to address any
problems.
What GAO Found:
IRS stopped issuing Schedule K-1 notices after complaints about the
burden the program imposed on compliant taxpayers. Originally, IRS
intended to focus the program on two categories of income--interest
and dividends--wherein matching was straightforward, and therefore the
number of notices sent to compliant taxpayers could be minimized.
However IRS changed the matching program to cover additional
categories of flow-through income without clearly informing taxpayers
and tax preparers. Matching these additional categories of income was
less straightforward. As a result, IRS sent notices about suspected
noncompliance to more compliant taxpayers than it intended. In fact,
about two-thirds of the notices were sent to taxpayers later
determined to be compliant. After taxpayers complained, and after
sending out about 70 percent of the planned notices, IRS responded by
stopping the notices. IRS has assessed about $41.4 million in
additional tax from the notices that were sent and approximately $26.9
million was directly attributable to Schedule K-1 underreporting.
IRS did not timely implement two parts of the plans for managing the
Schedule K-1 matching program. First, IRS did not test the feasibility
of focusing the program on interest and dividend income until after
recommending such a focus and communicating the recommendation to
taxpayers, preparers, and other stakeholders. Second, after changing
the plan, IRS did not clearly communicate the changes.
IRS is taking steps to improve communications and reduce the burden on
compliant taxpayers. However, neither IRS nor GAO knows whether these
changes will improve communications and reduce burden while
maintaining the effectiveness of the Schedule K-1 matching program as
a compliance tool.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is not making any recommendations, but the uncertainty about the
effectiveness of the steps IRS is taking to improve the program
highlight the importance of IRS continuing to monitor the impact of
the program on compliant taxpayers. In ongoing work, requested by the
Senate Committee on Finance, GAO is assessing the effectiveness of the
program.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-667.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact James R. White at (202)
512-9110 or whitej@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results In Brief:
Background:
Scope and Methodology:
IRS Stopped Issuing Schedule K-1 Notices after Complaints about Burden
Imposed by Program Changes:
IRS Did Not Timely Test Its Plans or Communicate Plan Changes to
Stakeholders:
IRS Is Taking Steps Intended to Improve the Schedule K-1 Matching
Program in 2003:
Conclusion:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Illustration of the Taxation of Income That Flows through
Partnerships, S-corporations, Estates and Trusts:
Figure 2: General Underreporter Matching Process:
Figure 3: The Number of Schedule K-1 Underreporter Notices Sent to
Taxpayers:
Figure 4: Chronology of Key Events in IRS Implementation of the
Schedule K-1 Matching Program:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 30, 2003:
The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe
Chair
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
United States Senate:
Dear Madame Chair:
Approximately $1 trillion in income was distributed for tax year 2001,
according to Internal Revenue Service (IRS), by flow-through entities
such as partnerships, S-corporations, estates, and trusts. These
entities, many of which are small businesses, do not pay taxes on
income they pass through, whether or not the income is actually
distributed to their partners, shareholders, or beneficiaries. The
partners, shareholders, or beneficiaries report the income or losses
received on their individual tax returns and pay any applicable tax.
To facilitate compliance, the tax law requires flow-through entities to
report the income passed through on Schedule K-1 and to send one copy
of the schedule to IRS and another to partners, shareholders, or
beneficiaries. While the law requires such reporting of flow-through
income, IRS estimates that between 6 and 15 percent of such income is
not reported on individuals' returns.
Because of the significant amount of income being distributed and the
estimated noncompliance, IRS began in 2001 to match the tax year 2000
Schedule K-1 information provided by flow-through entities against the
flow-through income reported on individuals' tax returns. IRS began
notifying taxpayers of potential discrepancies between income reported
on K-1 and individual tax returns in April 2002. However, after
receiving complaints that notices were being sent to compliant
taxpayers, IRS stopped sending notices in August 2002.
Because of concerns about the burden the Schedule K-1 matching program
was imposing on compliant taxpayers, including the time and expense of
responding to the notices, you asked us to review IRS's implementation
of the program and determine what happened and why. Specifically, as
agreed with your office, our objectives were to (1) describe the
implementation of the Schedule K-1 matching program, the extent of the
burden caused by the notices, IRS's rationale for stopping the notices,
and any results the program achieved, (2) assess IRS's management of
the Schedule K-1 matching program, and (3) describe the steps IRS is
planning to take to address any identified problems and improve
Schedule K-1 reporting and matching.
To describe IRS's Schedule K-1 matching program implementation, the
burden caused by the notices, IRS's rationale for suspending the
program, and any results, we interviewed IRS officials and analyzed IRS
data. To assess IRS's management of the program, we compared IRS's
management plan to what was implemented. Finally, to describe the steps
IRS plans to take to improve the program, we reviewed IRS's plans for
continuing the program in 2003 and reducing the burden on compliant
taxpayers.
Results In Brief:
IRS stopped issuing Schedule K-1 notices after complaints about the
burden imposed by program changes on compliant taxpayers. Originally,
IRS intended the Schedule K-1 matching program to focus on two
categories of income--interest and dividends--that are easily
identified on tax returns and would minimize the number of notices sent
to compliant taxpayers. However, IRS learned during testing that it
could not separate underreported K-1 interest and dividend income from
the other underreported interest and dividend income such as that paid
by banks.
After the test, IRS expanded the Schedule K-1 matching program to cover
additional categories of income, including flow-through income from
trade or business activities. This created a burden for compliant
taxpayers. About two-thirds of the 69,097 notices sent to taxpayers
under the program were sent to taxpayers whom IRS later determined to
be compliant. Compounding the problem, the expansion of the program was
not clearly communicated to taxpayers or tax preparers. After
complaints from taxpayers and after sending out about 70 percent of the
notices intended, IRS stopped sending notices. IRS followed up on
notices that were sent and has resolved about 92 percent of those
cases. About 62 percent of the cases were resolved with no change to
the taxpayer's liability. In the other 38 percent of the cases, an
additional $41.4 million in taxes was assessed, of which $26.9 million
was directly attributable to K-1 underreporting.
While detailed plans for managing the Schedule K-1 matching program
were developed, IRS did not timely implement two parts of the plans.
First, IRS did not test the feasibility of focusing the program on
interest and dividend income until after recommending such a focus and
communicating the recommendation to taxpayers, tax preparers, and other
stakeholders. Second, after changing the plan, IRS did not clearly
communicate with taxpayers, tax preparers, and other stakeholders about
the changes.
For 2003, the focus of the program will be on the same categories of
income as in 2002. IRS is taking several steps intended to improve the
K-1 matching program. IRS has been meeting with tax preparers and
stakeholder groups in an effort to reestablish communication. Further,
IRS has identified several program changes intended to reduce taxpayer
burden by reducing the number of "no-change" notices sent to compliant
taxpayers. Examples of these changes are more stringent screening
criteria before notices can be sent and revisions to clarify forms and
schedules. Neither IRS nor we know whether these changes will reduce
the burden on compliant taxpayers while maintaining the effectiveness
of the Schedule K-1 matching program as a compliance tool. We are not
making recommendations in this report, but for the Senate Committee on
Finance, we are assessing the program's ability to detect and prevent
noncompliance. IRS has a tracking system that should provide it
information about the effectiveness of the changes before all the
notices are sent out.
We asked IRS to provide comments on our report but did not receive a
response in time to include it with this report. However, IRS officials
responsible for the program told us that they agree with the facts
presented in this report.
Background:
Partnerships, S-corporations, trusts, and estates are collectively
known as "flow-through entities," because they have the legal capacity
to pass net income or loss through to their partners, shareholders, and
beneficiaries untaxed. As shown in figure 1, these flow-through
entities file tax returns with IRS that report the entities' income and
expenses with schedules showing all partners', shareholders', or
beneficiaries' shares of net income or loss. Flow-through entities also
are required to provide each partner, shareholder, or beneficiary with
a Schedule K-1 stating the individual share of net income or loss to be
reported. These partners, shareholders, or beneficiaries are then
responsible for reporting this income or loss on their individual
income tax returns and paying any tax. According to IRS in tax year
2001, over 9 million flow-through entities reported passing through
$998 billion to approximately 24 million partners, shareholders, or
beneficiaries.
Figure 1: Illustration of the Taxation of Income That Flows through
Partnerships, S-corporations, Estates and Trusts:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
For reporting purposes flow-through income is broken into several
categories. These include income or loss from trade and business
activities, rental real estate, other rental activities, interest,
dividends, royalties and capital gains.
The purpose of the Schedule K-1 matching program is to compare the
information provided by flow-through entities to that reported by
individuals on their tax returns in order to ensure compliance. The
Schedule K-1 matching program is part of IRS's general matching
program, the underreporter program. As shown in figure 2, the
underreporter program identifies potentially noncompliant taxpayers
using information from two primary data sources:
* income reported to IRS by taxpayers on their individual tax returns
and:
* income reported to IRS from third parties, such as employers, banks
and other financial institutions, partnerships, S-corporations,
estates, and trusts on forms such as the W-2, 1099, and Schedule K-1.
Figure 2: General Underreporter Matching Process:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The third party data is matched with the individual taxpayer's return
data to verify that all income is reported. In fiscal year 2002, the
matching process identified approximately 14 million cases where
individual tax return information did not match income information
reported to IRS from third party sources.
IRS does not follow up on all of these potential underreporter cases.
In 2002, IRS selected 3 million of the 14 million potential
underreporter cases for further review. After the cases are selected
from this inventory, tax examiners perform a manual review, called
"screening" of tax returns to determine if the income or deductions in
question can be identified on the actual tax return. If so, the case is
closed; however, if reasonable doubt remains, the taxpayer is sent an
underreporter notice.[Footnote 1] At this point, taxpayers can choose
to agree with the additional assessment, disagree and provide reasons,
or ask for an appeal.
In order for K-1 data to be used in the matching process, IRS had to
input or transcribe data from K-1 information returns filed on paper
into its information systems. For tax year 2000, 14.3 million paper K-
1s were filed with IRS and another 5 million were filed electronically.
Until it began transcription in 2001, IRS had not transcribed paper K-
1 return information since 1995.
Because IRS had not transcribed Schedule K-1 information since 1995,
the agency suspected noncompliance among K-1 taxpayers was significant.
Based on a small study conducted in July 2000, IRS estimated that
between 6 and 15 percent of the Schedule K-1 returns attached to flow-
through returns are omitted from individual tax returns. Therefore, to
identify the taxpayers who were potentially noncompliant and collect
additional tax, IRS began planning in 2000 to (1) match Schedule K-1
income information from partnerships, etc., against income information
on individual tax returns to identify potential discrepancies and (2)
send underreporter notices to taxpayers suspected of noncompliance.
In 2000, Congress funded the Staffing Tax Administration for Balance
and Equity (STABLE) Initiative that provided funding for transcription
and matching of K-1 information. IRS told us funding provided for K-1
transcription was 378 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, but
transcription rates were higher than planned and 485 FTEs were actually
expended. IRS pulled funding from other programs to cover the
shortfall. The approximate cost of the K-1 transcription was about $20
million. STABLE also included 69 FTEs and about $3 million for
screening of matched K-1 cases.
IRS had two primary goals for the K-1 matching program. The first goal
was to increase voluntary reporting of flow-through income by
taxpayers. Although the program will bring in some revenue directly
from notices sent to taxpayers who underreported, IRS believes that the
indirect effect on voluntary reporting could be more important. IRS
believes that the knowledge that K-1s are being matched will have a
positive impact on self-reporting of flow-through income.
IRS's other primary goal was to target K-1 related underreporter
notices on noncompliant taxpayers to the extent possible. Responding to
notices is burdensome for compliant taxpayers. Taxpayers and preparers
are required to collect, organize, and submit information to IRS either
by telephone or in writing to explain any discrepancy cited in the
notice. Resolving notices sent to compliant taxpayers also forces IRS
to divert scarce enforcement staff away from noncompliant taxpayers.
Scope and Methodology:
In order to describe IRS's implementation of its Schedule K-1 matching
program, reasons for suspending the issuance of notices, impact/burden
on taxpayers, and results of the program, we:
* reviewed and analyzed IRS management plans, risk assessments, and
other discussions of how the matching program would operate, including
work group meeting minutes;
* interviewed IRS officials regarding the efforts required to plan and
implement the program, including preliminary program testing, early
plans for the program, changes made in program plans, problems with
stakeholder communication, and the suspension of notices related to
Schedule K-1 income;
* reviewed documents issued by external parties regarding concerns with
the Schedule K-1 matching program;
* interviewed stakeholders from outside IRS, including enrolled agents
and members of professional organizations, IRS advisory committees;
and:
* reviewed data and statistics resulting from the Schedule K-1 matching
program, including number of taxpayers sent notices and tax revenue
assessed.
We assessed IRS's management of the Schedule K-1 matching program by
reviewing the plans and risk assessment developed by IRS and then
comparing IRS's implementation of the program to these plans.
To describe the steps IRS is taking to reduce burden and improve the
matching program, we:
* interviewed IRS officials regarding the changes being implemented for
continuation of the Schedule K-1 matching program, including changes to
reduce taxpayer burden;
* reviewed external stakeholder documents that offered suggestions for
the future of the Schedule K-1 matching program;
* interviewed stakeholders from outside IRS regarding their suggestions
for the Schedule K-1 matching program;
* observed a public meeting of the Information Reporting Program
Advisory Committee (IRPAC); and:
* observed a working group session of IRS and external program
stakeholders.
The underreporter data presented in this report was produced by IRS,
and we did not independently verify its accuracy. However, we have used
underreporter program data in past reports and have found underreporter
summary statistics of the type used in this report to be reasonably
accurate. We performed our work from June 2002 through May 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
IRS Stopped Issuing Schedule K-1 Notices after Complaints about Burden
Imposed by Program Changes:
In its original plan for the Schedule K-1 matching program, IRS
intended to focus on two categories of income: interest and dividends.
IRS officials believed that such a focus would enable IRS to minimize
the number of notices sent to compliant taxpayers. However, information
system limitations, along with a desire to direct resources towards K-
1 underreporter cases, caused IRS to expand this focus and include more
categories of income in the program. This change was not clearly
communicated to taxpayers or preparers and led to more compliant
taxpayers receiving underreporter notices. In the face of complaints
about the burden imposed on compliant taxpayers, IRS stopped sending K-
1 underreporter notices.
The Types of Income Covered by the Schedule K-1 Matching Program
Changed from IRS's Original Plan:
Originally, IRS planned the Schedule K-1 matching program to focus on
two categories of flow-through income: interest and dividends. The plan
called for identifying underreporter cases with discrepancies between
interest and dividend income reported on a K-1 and what was reported on
an individual's tax return.[Footnote 2] Notices would then be sent to
the taxpayers asking them to explain the discrepancies or pay the
additional tax.
IRS chose to focus the Schedule K-1 matching program on interest and
dividend income to minimize the chances of compliant taxpayers
receiving notices about K-1 discrepancies. IRS based its decision on a
risk matrix that summarized the risk of sending a notice to a compliant
taxpayer for the various categories of flow-through income. Interest
and dividend income were identified as low risk because they are easily
identified on individuals' tax returns. Short and long-term capital
gains and royalties were considered a moderate risk because the K-1
information was less likely to be accurate or the income could be
harder to locate on individuals' returns. Income from trade or business
activities, rental real estate, other rental activities, and guaranteed
payments was considered high risk because it could be much harder to
isolate on individuals' returns. For example, some taxpayers would
reduce or net their flow-through income in these four categories by
subtracting carryover losses or expenses. Although IRS's tax form
instructions caution against such netting, some taxpayers still do so,
which can make flow-through income appear to be underreported.
Starting in 2001, IRS began briefing representatives from stakeholder
groups on its plan for the Schedule K-1 matching program. IRS met with
two of its advisory committees, composed primarily of tax
practitioners, the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Committee (IRSAC)
and the Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC), and
other practitioner groups. During these discussions with stakeholders,
IRS informed them that underreported K-1 interest and dividend income
would be the focus of the K-1 matching program.
In October of 2001, IRS discovered during testing that the
underreporter computer system could not distinguish underreported K-1
interest and dividend income from other interest and dividend income
reported on information returns such as Form 1099s. Because of a desire
to direct the 69 FTEs allocated for screening K-1 underreporter cases
to K-1 cases, IRS decided to expand the focus of the K-1 matching
program. IRS officials told us they had wanted to direct the resources
to K-1 cases exclusively in order to be able to determine the results
achieved with those resources. The revised program included flow-
through income from trade or business activities, rental real estate,
other rental activities, and guaranteed payments. These four categories
contained K-1 reported income exclusively. As will be discussed in more
detail later, IRS did not clearly communicate the change to taxpayers,
tax preparers, and other stakeholders.
Under the revised matching program, IRS selected for screening by the
69 dedicated FTEs a total of 141,000 underreporter cases that appeared
to have only underreported K-1 income from the four categories as shown
in figure 3. In addition IRS selected another 237,000 cases that
appeared to have both underreported K-1 income and underreported income
from other sources. After manual screening, IRS determined that 97,200
cases raised sufficient questions about the accuracy of the amount
reported on the individual tax returns to merit sending a notice of the
potential discrepancy to the taxpayers. IRS began sending notices about
the discrepancies to taxpayers in April 2002.
The Revised Schedule K-1 Matching Program Burdened More Compliant
Taxpayers Than Originally Intended:
Because of the change in focus of the program, more compliant taxpayers
received underreporter notices than IRS had originally intended. As
shown in figure 3, of the over 63,000 cases closed through March 2003,
about 62 percent or 39,153 were closed with no change to the tax
liability. The compliant taxpayers or their preparers who responded to
the notices were required to submit information to IRS in writing or
via telephone that explained how they reported the flow-through income
on their tax return.
Figure 3: The Number of Schedule K-1 Underreporter Notices Sent to
Taxpayers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Some of these compliant taxpayers were burdened because they improperly
reported net amounts on their returns. As discussed previously, IRS
instructions tell taxpayers to list K-1 income without netting.
Nevertheless, according to IRS, many taxpayers reported net amounts,
making it appear that they had underreported. After the discrepancies
were explained to IRS, about 62 percent of the notices resulted in no
change in the tax liability.
Because of Taxpayer Complaints, IRS Stopped Sending Schedule K-1
Underreporter Notices:
Taxpayers, tax preparers, and various external stakeholder groups
complained about the notices for two reasons. First, as discussed
previously, the notices imposed a burden on compliant taxpayers. Though
some of these taxpayers may have improperly reported net amounts on
their returns, the taxpayers argued that they had been filling out
their returns this way for years without incident. Second, they were
not expecting underreporter notices related to flow-through income
about trade or business activities, rental real estate, other rental
activities, and guaranteed payments.
IRS responded by stopping the K-1 matching program notices as of August
1, 2002. As shown in figure 3, IRS sent 69,097 notices to taxpayers
before that date.
IRS Followed Up on Schedule K-1 Program Notices Sent to Taxpayers:
As of March 2003, IRS data shows that nearly 92 percent or 63,084 of
the Schedule K-1 notices issued were closed, or resolved to IRS's
satisfaction, as shown in figure 3. In nearly 38 percent or 23,931 of
the closed cases, taxpayers agreed that the notices were correct, that
the Schedule K-1 income was misreported, and that they owed more taxes.
These cases resulted in about $41.4 million of additional taxes
assessed of which $26.9 million related exclusively to Schedule K-1
income. IRS estimates that about 90 percent of the assessed tax will be
collected.
In addition to the revenue resulting directly from the notices, IRS
expects that K-1 matching will have a psychological impact on
taxpayers, encouraging voluntary compliance. IRS did not have data at
the time the program was being planned to allow it to estimate the
likely impact on voluntary compliance. Nor does IRS have any data on
the actual impact on voluntary compliance. IRS did project that a one
percent improvement in K-1 reporting levels would result in
approximately $1.7 billion in additional tax reported.
IRS Did Not Timely Test Its Plans or Communicate Plan Changes to
Stakeholders:
IRS developed a plan for the Schedule K-1 matching program that,
according to IRS, relied on established project management principles.
However, IRS did not timely implement two parts of the plan. First, IRS
did not test the feasibility of focusing the program on interest and
dividend income until after recommending such a focus and communicating
the recommendation to taxpayers, tax preparers, and other stakeholders.
Second, after changing the plan, IRS did not clearly communicate with
taxpayers, tax preparers or other stakeholders about the changes.
Failure to timely implement these two parts of the plan led to
compliant taxpayers being surprised and burdened by the notices they
received and ultimately resulted in IRS halting the Schedule K-1
notification process before all 97,200 notices were sent to taxpayers.
IRS Developed Plans for Testing and Communicating about the Schedule K-
1 Matching Program:
In planning the Schedule K-1 matching program, IRS officials said they
relied on established principles from its Enterprise Life Cycle (ELC)
project management approach, the same strategy IRS has used for
planning and implementing its ongoing information systems modernization
efforts. IRS developed a series of K-1 matching program management
plans including those covering transcription and compliance management,
risk management, and internal and external stakeholder communications.
The K-1 compliance management plan called for performing two tests
before selecting cases for the K-1 matching program. The first test was
of underreporter program procedures and was intended to determine needs
such as computer system and training updates in order to accommodate
Schedule K-1 data. The second test was a review of underreporter
program processes more generally. The K-1 communication plan called for
communicating with internal and external stakeholders about the project
status in order to address questions and concerns and manage
expectations.
IRS Did Not Test the Schedule K-1 Case Selection Process before
Recommending It:
IRS did not test whether its original case selection process, focused
on interest and dividend income, was feasible before recommending it.
As shown in figure 4, IRS began planning the Schedule K-1 matching
program in January 2001. As previously discussed, in July 2001, IRS
recommended selecting for review by tax examiners all underreporter
cases with K-1 interest and dividend income. An IRS official told us
that internal discussions led IRS to believe that this was possible--
that the underreporter computer system could distinguish cases with
interest and dividend income reported on K-1s from that reported on
other information returns. Consequently, the feasibility of focusing
the K-1 program on interest and dividend income was not tested before
the recommendation was made.
Figure 4: Chronology of Key Events in IRS Implementation of the
Schedule K-1 Matching Program:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The second test in IRS's plan was conducted in October 2001[Footnote 3]
and revealed that system limitations would prevent IRS from focusing
the K-1 program on interest and dividend income. IRS discovered that
the underreporter computer system could not distinguish K-1 interest
and dividend income from interest and dividend income reported on other
information returns such as Form 1099s. As a result, the focus of the
Schedule K-1 matching program was changed. As discussed earlier, the
revised program covered underreported trade or business, rental real
estate, other rental activity, and guaranteed payment flow-through
income.
IRS Did Not Communicate Matching Program Changes to Taxpayers and
External Stakeholders:
Although the program communication plan called for communicating with
internal and external stakeholders, IRS failed to inform taxpayers, tax
preparers, and other stakeholders of the changes it made to the
matching program and the potential for the changes to increase burden
on compliant taxpayers. An IRS official responsible for the K-1 program
stated that a communication breakdown resulted in mixed messages being
shared with stakeholders about the type of cases that would be selected
for the K-1 matching program. IRS officials were unable to show us any
documentation in which they communicated the changes to the plan. An
IRSAC member told us they only became aware of the change to the
program after taxpayers began receiving notices.
Tax preparers and stakeholders were critical of the fact that IRS
failed to inform them of the changes made in the Schedule K-1 matching
program and the effect those changes would have on compliant taxpayers.
They believed compliant taxpayers were unfairly burdened by having to
respond to K-1 notices since, according to an IRSAC member, preparers
had not been required to submit any explanatory documents with their
tax returns in the past.
IRS Is Taking Steps Intended to Improve the Schedule K-1 Matching
Program in 2003:
As was the case with the revised Schedule K-1 matching program in 2002,
for 2003, interest and dividend income reported on K-1s will be
included in the underreporter program; however, the 69 FTEs devoted to
K-1 matching will again focus on the four flow-through income
categories including income from trade or business activities, rental
real estate, other rental activities, and guaranteed payments. As of
April 2003, IRS has started issuing notices related to discrepancies in
tax year 2001. Also this year, IRS is taking steps intended to
reestablish communication with external stakeholders and reducing the
burden on compliant taxpayers. At this time, the effectiveness of these
steps is unknown.
IRS Is Working to Reestablish Communications with External
Stakeholders:
For 2003, the Schedule K-1 matching program will have the same focus as
the revised program in 2002. Therefore, during the 2003 Schedule K-1
matching effort, it is no longer necessary for IRS to test this case
selection approach in the underreporter system.
IRS is working to reestablish clear communications with external
stakeholders. Since notices were stopped in August 2002, IRS has kept
external stakeholders informed of program developments and held
meetings with these stakeholders to consider a number of suggestions
for improving the Schedule K-1 matching program. For example, in the 2
months following the notice stoppage, IRS briefed both IRSAC and its
own Oversight Board on reasons for notice suspension, data collected,
and plans for continuing the program with external stakeholder input.
IRS also held public meetings with IRSAC in October 2002 and IRPAC in
November 2002 during which it obtained the committees' comments and
suggestions for the Schedule K-1 matching program. In addition, IRS
held a meeting in December 2002 with representatives of various
practitioner and other stakeholder groups to discuss various aspects of
the program. In this meeting, IRS presented results of the case studies
it conducted after suspension of the notices and solicited from the
stakeholders ideas for improving the program in the areas of forms,
matching, education and outreach, tax preparation software, and
legislative changes.
IRS Is Taking Other Steps Intended to Reduce Taxpayer Burden:
At least in part as a result of the stakeholder meetings discussed
above, IRS has begun implementing steps intended to improve Schedule K-
1 matching and clarify reporting requirements. IRS has adopted a new
goal of eliminating as many no-change notices as possible and
increasing the overall effectiveness of the Schedule K-1 matching
program. IRS's strategy for reducing no-change notices relies on more
rigorous screening of cases by examiners before notices are sent. IRS
estimates that the program changes discussed below should reduce the
number of no-change notices by about 50 percent from the 2002 levels.
At this time, IRS does not have an estimate of the number of notices to
be sent out or of what it expects the no-change rate to be.
For 2003, IRS has adopted a revised set of standards for screening
cases for review in its Schedule K-1 matching program, with the intent
of minimizing taxpayer burden by reducing the number of no-change
notices sent. In particular, IRS will issue notices to taxpayers if K-
1 income information is completely missing from a return. Also, if a
taxpayer received a notice in 2002 for tax year 2000 K-1 items and
agreed with the changes proposed by that notice, the taxpayer will
receive a notice for any underreported K-1 income identified this year
in the tax year 2001 return. If income appears underreported for a
taxpayer who received a notice that resulted in a no-change last year,
that taxpayer will not receive a notice this year, with the possible
exception of particularly large discrepancies. In addition, if a
taxpayer received no notice last year or received a notice that
contained no K-1 items, this taxpayer will be sent a notice if a large
discrepancy is identified. The revised screening standards will be
applied to all K-1 flow-through income discrepancies.
IRS is also trying to educate taxpayers and practitioners about the
proper way of reporting flow-through income, carryover losses, and
deductions in order to reduce the need to send notices to compliant
taxpayers about apparent mismatches. For example, in March 2003, IRS
issued a news release that provided tips and reminders for K-1 filing.
These tips covered topics such as proper reporting of Schedule K-1
income on individual returns, avoiding netting of income and expenses,
reporting losses carried forward, and steps for reporting income when
the Schedule K-1 has not yet been received.
Also in March 2003, an IRS official participated in a webcast program
geared to the practitioner community to discuss requirements of
Schedule K-1 reporting and field questions from practitioners. In
addition, the agency will present sessions on how to report flow-
through items at each of its tax forums during the summer of 2003. The
agency also seeks to further educate taxpayers through outreach
programs to be run by the Taxpayer Education and Communication unit, a
part of IRS's Small Business/Self-Employed operating division.
Further, IRS is changing certain forms and/or schedules in order to
make reporting compliance easier for the taxpayer. In a report issued
March 2003, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
(TIGTA) stated the lack of detailed information reported by taxpayers
and/or practitioners may have been a significant reason for the number
of K-1-related notices that were sent. TIGTA then recommended that IRS
revise Form 1040 Schedule E to classify and report flow-through income
in a manner that would allow an easier comparison with Schedule K-1. In
response, an IRS official has stated that, for the 2003 filing season,
the agency would issue a revised Form 1040 Schedule E that would alert
practitioners to pay special attention to the written instructions on
the reporting of certain losses and expenses. The desired effect of
this change is to make taxpayers less likely to improperly net income
and expenses being reported on Schedule E.
Finally, an IRS task force is studying the possibility of simplifying
the Schedule K-1 and its instructions for different tax situations. The
intent would be to reduce both pre-and postfiling burden. However, the
analysis needed for the form redesign will likely not be completed
until mid-2003, and it would take about 2 years total for the redesign
to actually be implemented.
By fiscal year 2005, through the outreach efforts and Form 1040
Schedule E revisions discussed in the previous paragraphs, IRS believes
that it can eliminate the need for the special screening procedures
instituted this year. In addition to the outreach efforts and form
changes mentioned above, IRS has also discussed other efforts that
could be used to help make the program more automated, such as working
with software vendors to make any necessary changes to electronic tax
preparation programs.
While IRS intends that these changes will reduce the number of no-
change notices regarding flow-through income, at this time the
effectiveness of the changes is unknown. More specifically, it is not
known how ambitious IRS's goal to reduce notices sent to compliant
taxpayers by at least 50 percent is nor is it known whether IRS can
reduce notices sent to compliant taxpayers while maintaining the
ability to act against noncompliant taxpayers.
For the K-1 matching notices being sent in 2003, IRS will be able to
track the number closed with no-change through tracking reports issued
every 2 weeks. These tracking reports also contain the number of
notices with an assessment that the taxpayer agreed to, unreported
income identified through notices, and additional taxes assessed
through the notices. The reports, which IRS has begun preparing for its
tax year 2001 K-1 data match, are prepared for IRS management.
Officials told us that they would also be made available to outside
stakeholders.
The tracking reports should give IRS management information before all
notices are sent out about the effectiveness of the changes made to the
program. With respect to the overall effectiveness of the K-1 matching
program, one IRS official told us that he sees the level of voluntary
compliance with K-1 reporting requirements as a key measure of the
program's effectiveness. This official also told us that IRS plans to
annually review the number of K-1 returns filed to determine if more K-
1 income is being reported. He said that more reporting of K-1 income
could be seen as a measure of program effectiveness. Our ongoing work
for the Senate Committee on Finance will assess IRS's efforts to detect
and address noncompliance by taxpayers receiving flow-through income.
Conclusion:
Better targeting the Schedule K-1 matching program notices on
noncompliant taxpayers matters for two reasons. Sending underreporter
notices to compliant taxpayers wastes taxpayers' time and money.
Similarly, IRS's scarce enforcement resources are wasted to the extent
they are used to resolve notices sent to compliant taxpayers.
While no compliance program can perfectly target noncompliant
taxpayers, IRS's goal of reducing the number of Schedule K-1 matching
program underreporter notices sent to compliant taxpayers is laudable.
However, at this time, no one--neither IRS nor external stakeholders--
knows how effective IRS's proposed actions will be. Consequently, IRS's
tracking of the no-change rate is very important, both for internal
management and congressional oversight. Because IRS has begun tracking
the no-change rate every 2 weeks, we are not making recommendations in
this report. As noted earlier, we will be looking at opportunities to
improve the overall effectiveness of the Schedule K-1 matching program
in our ongoing work for the Senate Committee on Finance.
Agency Comments:
We asked IRS to provide comments on a draft of our report but did not
receive a response in time to include it with this report. However, IRS
officials responsible for the program told us that they agree with the
facts presented in this report.
As arranged with your office, we will not distribute this report until
30 days from its issue date unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier. After that period, we will send copies to the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Ways and Means; Chairman
and Ranking Minority Member, House Subcommittee on Oversight, House
Committee on Ways and Means; Chairman and Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Small Business; Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member, Senate Committee on Finance; and the Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. We will also
send copies to Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, and other interested parties. We will make copies available to
others on request. In addition, the report will be available on the GAO
web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-9110. Key
contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix I.
Sincerely yours,
James R. White
Director, Tax Issues:
Signed by James R. White:
[End of section]
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
James R. White, (202) 512-9110:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact above, Marvin McGill, Adam Couvillion, Amy
Rosewarne, and Joseph Jozefczyk made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The underreporter notice informs taxpayers of a proposed change to
tax liability because of income that is not identifiable or apparently
not fully reported on the return.
[2] While the K-1 matching program was designed to select the
underreporter cases with discrepancies in interest and dividend income
reported on the K-1s, a small sample of cases with other types of K-1
income was also to be included.
[3] During the Case Preview, information return documents are sampled
to test the quality of the information and to identify potential
problems with the underreporter system.
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 ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text 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
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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: 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:
