Tax Gap
IRS Has Modernized Its Business Nonfiler Program but Could Benefit from More Evaluation and Use of Third-Party Data Gao ID: GAO-10-950 August 31, 2010The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not know how many businesses failed to file required returns, nor does it have an estimate of the associated lost tax revenue--the business nonfiling tax gap. Many cases it does investigate are unproductive because the business does not owe the return IRS expects. GAO was asked to assess (1) the data challenges of estimating the business nonfiler tax gap, (2) how recent program changes have affected IRS's capacity to identify and pursue business nonfilers, and (3) additional opportunities for IRS to use third-party data. GAO reviewed IRS's tax gap estimates, nonfiler program processes and procedures, and matched closed nonfiler cases with various other data.
IRS cannot develop a comprehensive estimate of the business nonfiling rate and associated tax gap because it lacks data about the population of all businesses. However, IRS could develop a partial estimate using its business nonfiler inventory. IRS identifies several million potential business nonfilers each year, more than it can thoroughly investigate. IRS could take a random sample of its inventory, thoroughly investigate those cases, and use the results to estimate the proportion of actual nonfilers in its inventory of potential nonfilers. Until recently IRS has not had a way to prioritize cases in its large inventory. IRS modernized its business nonfiler program in 2009 by incorporating income and other data in its records indicating business activity. Active businesses generally have an obligation to file a return. IRS's Business Master File Case Creation Nonfiler Identification Process (BMF CCNIP) now assigns each case a code based on this data. IRS uses the code to select cases to work with the goal of securing tax returns from nonfilers and collecting additional revenue. This is a significant modernization, but IRS lacks a formal plan to evaluate how well the codes are working. IRS has performance information on its individual nonfiler program but less on its business nonfiler program. Key management reports needed to provide program data are under development but no deadline has been set. IRS could also use more information on why many nonfiler cases are unproductive. This could potentially lead IRS to identify actions that could reduce IRS resources used on these cases and associated taxpayer burden. GAO identified several opportunities including the following to enhance IRS's identification and pursuit of business nonfilers. (1) The new BMF CCNIP selection codes provide a quick way to verify taxpayer statements that a business has ceased operations and does not need to file a return. Collections staff have been instructed to use the codes when making case closure decisions. They were previously instructed to use other income data but GAO's analysis indicated this may not have been done in all cases. (2) Non-IRS data on businesses including federal contractors could be used to verify taxpayer statements about whether a tax return should have been filed. GAO's analysis of cases in two states that were closed as not liable to file a return found 7,688 businesses where non-IRS data showed business activity as measured by sales totaling $4.1 billion. GAO also found cases closed as not liable to file a return involving 13,852 businesses on the federal contractor registry. GAO's analyses illustrated the potential value of non-IRS data but GAO did not assess which non-IRS data would be most useful nor examine the capacity of IRS's systems to use such data on a large scale. GAO recommends that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue develop a partial business nonfiler rate estimate; set a deadline for developing performance data; develop a plan for evaluating the selection codes; reinforce the need to use income data and selection codes in verifying taxpayer statements; and study the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using non-IRS data to verify taxpayer statements. In written comments on a draft of this report IRS agreed that identifying and pursuing active business nonfilers is key to enforcement efforts and acknowledged that our recommendations could assist these efforts. IRS agreed with four of GAO's recommendations and indicated some steps it would take to address the other four.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: James R. White Team: Government Accountability Office: Strategic Issues Phone: (202) 512-5594GAO-10-950, Tax Gap: IRS Has Modernized Its Business Nonfiler Program but Could Benefit from More Evaluation and Use of Third-Party Data
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-950
entitled 'Tax Gap: IRS Has Modernized Its Business Nonfiler Program
but Could Benefit from More Evaluation and Use of Third-Party Data'
which was released on September 30, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2010:
Tax Gap:
IRS Has Modernized Its Business Nonfiler Program but Could Benefit
from More Evaluation and Use of Third-Party Data:
GAO-10-950:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-950, a report to the Committee on Finance, U.S.
Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not know how many businesses
failed to file required returns, nor does it have an estimate of the
associated lost tax revenue”the business nonfiling tax gap. Many cases
it does investigate are unproductive because the business does not owe
the return IRS expects. GAO was asked to assess (1) the data
challenges of estimating the business nonfiler tax gap, (2) how recent
program changes have affected IRS‘s capacity to identify and pursue
business nonfilers, and (3) additional opportunities for IRS to use
third-party data. GAO reviewed IRS‘s tax gap estimates, nonfiler
program processes and procedures, and matched closed nonfiler cases
with various other data.
What GAO Found:
IRS cannot develop a comprehensive estimate of the business nonfiling
rate and associated tax gap because it lacks data about the population
of all businesses. However, IRS could develop a partial estimate using
its business nonfiler inventory. IRS identifies several million
potential business nonfilers each year, more than it can thoroughly
investigate. IRS could take a random sample of its inventory,
thoroughly investigate those cases, and use the results to estimate
the proportion of actual nonfilers in its inventory of potential
nonfilers.
Until recently IRS has not had a way to prioritize cases in its large
inventory. IRS modernized its business nonfiler program in 2009 by
incorporating income and other data in its records indicating business
activity. Active businesses generally have an obligation to file a
return. IRS‘s Business Master File Case Creation Nonfiler
Identification Process (BMF CCNIP) now assigns each case a code based
on this data. IRS uses the code to select cases to work with the goal
of securing tax returns from nonfilers and collecting additional
revenue.
This is a significant modernization, but IRS lacks a formal plan to
evaluate how well the codes are working. IRS has performance
information on its individual nonfiler program but less on its
business nonfiler program. Key management reports needed to provide
program data are under development but no deadline has been set. IRS
could also use more information on why many nonfiler cases are
unproductive. This could potentially lead IRS to identify actions that
could reduce IRS resources used on these cases and associated taxpayer
burden.
GAO identified several opportunities including the following to
enhance IRS‘s identification and pursuit of business nonfilers.
* The new BMF CCNIP selection codes provide a quick way to verify
taxpayer statements that a business has ceased operations and does not
need to file a return. Collections staff have been instructed to use
the codes when making case closure decisions. They were previously
instructed to use other income data but GAO‘s analysis indicated this
may not have been done in all cases.
* Non-IRS data on businesses including federal contractors could be
used to verify taxpayer statements about whether a tax return should
have been filed. GAO‘s analysis of cases in two states that were
closed as not liable to file a return found 7,688 businesses where non-
IRS data showed business activity as measured by sales totaling $4.1
billion. GAO also found cases closed as not liable to file a return
involving 13,852 businesses on the federal contractor registry. GAO‘s
analyses illustrated the potential value of non-IRS data but GAO did
not assess which non-IRS data would be most useful nor examine the
capacity of IRS‘s systems to use such data on a large scale.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue develop a
partial business nonfiler rate estimate; set a deadline for developing
performance data; develop a plan for evaluating the selection codes;
reinforce the need to use income data and selection codes in verifying
taxpayer statements; and study the feasibility and cost-effectiveness
of using non-IRS data to verify taxpayer statements.
In written comments on a draft of this report IRS agreed that
identifying and pursuing active business nonfilers is key to
enforcement efforts and acknowledged that our recommendations could
assist these efforts. IRS agreed with four of GAO‘s recommendations
and indicated some steps it would take to address the other four.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-950] or key
components. For more information, contact James R. White at (202) 512-
9110 or whitej@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
A Comprehensive Estimate of the Business Nonfiling Tax Gap May Be
Infeasible, but IRS Operational Data Could Provide Partial Information:
More Performance Information and Evaluation Is Needed to Measure the
Success of IRS's Business Nonfiler Program:
IRS Could Improve Business Nonfiler Case Closure Decisions through
Additional Use of Information Returns and External Data:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Additional Information on Businesses' Filing Requirements:
Appendix III: How IRS Identifies and Pursues Business Nonfilers:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: IRS's Inventory of Potential Business Nonfiler Cases by
Selected Return Type as of the End of Calendar Year 2009:
Table 2: Number of Partnership and Corporation Tax Year 2007 Nonfiler
Cases Closed As Not Liable to File Returns:
Table 3: California and Illinois Partnership and Corporation Nonfiler
Cases Closed as Not Liable to File in Tax Year 2007 with Gross Sales:
Table 4: California and Illinois Employment Tax Cases Closed as Not
Liable to File in Tax Year 2007 with Gross Sales:
Table 5: California and Illinois Cases with No Filing Requirements
Indicated in the BMF That Had Sales and Employees:
Figures:
Figure 1: Business Nonfiler Cases Can Go through a Multistage Process
from Identification to Pursuit:
Figure 2: Cases Selected for Pursuit Can Take Multiple Paths after
Receiving First Notice:
Abbreviations:
A6020(b): Automated 6020(b) program:
ACS: Automated Collection System:
AIR: Aggregated Information Return:
BMF: Business Master File:
BMF CCNIP: Business Masterfile Case Creation Nonfiler Identification
Process:
CAWR: Combined Annual Wage Reporting:
CCR: Central Contractor Registration:
CSCO: Compliance Services Campus Organization:
D&B: Dun and Bradstreet:
EIN: Employer Identification Number:
FERDI: Federal Employee/Retiree Delinquency Initiative:
FICA: Federal Insurance Contribution Act:
FPLP: Federal Payment Levy Program:
IDS: Inventory Delivery System:
IRM: Internal Revenue Manual:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
NAP: National Accounts Profile:
NFEAC: Nonfiler Executive Advisory Council:
NRP: National Research Program:
PMF: Payer Master File:
RAS: Research, Analysis, and Statistics:
SBSE: Small Business/Self-Employed:
SRFMI: State Reverse File Match Initiative:
TIC: Type Indicator Codes:
TIGTA: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration:
TIN: Taxpayer Identification Number:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 31, 2010:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
Chairman:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
In fiscal year 2009, businesses filed 14 million income tax returns
and 30 million employment tax returns and remitted over $1 trillion in
federal taxes. While the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) catches some
nonfilers, it does not know how many businesses failed to file returns
that they should have filed nor does it have an estimate of the
business nonfiling tax gap, which is the amount of tax revenue
associated with returns that were not filed.[Footnote 1] IRS's most
recent tax gap estimates for tax year 2001 include an estimate of $25
billion in revenue loss due to nonfiling by individuals.
The lack of an estimate of the business nonfiling tax gap matters
because the tax gap estimate is routinely used as a measure of the
total amount of tax noncompliance IRS needs to address.[Footnote 2]
Without a tax gap estimate for business nonfiling, there is no way to
know whether IRS's strategy to reduce the tax gap, including its
resource allocation decisions, places appropriate priority on this
type of noncompliance relative to others. Further, nonfiling of
required tax returns and nonpayment of taxes owed is not fair to
businesses and individuals who do file returns and pay their taxes.
Historically, IRS has identified more potential business nonfilers
than it can thoroughly investigate through its enforcement programs.
For tax year 2007, IRS had identified almost 2 million businesses as
potential nonfilers whose cases had not been resolved as of June 2009.
Until recently IRS has not had a way to prioritize the millions of
potential nonfiler cases it identifies each year. After several years
of study IRS modernized its business nonfiler program in 2009 by
incorporating data about businesses indicating business activity and a
likely filing requirement. IRS's Business Masterfile Case Creation
Nonfiler Identification Process (BMF CCNIP) now assigns each case a
code based on these data. IRS uses the code to select cases to work
with the goal of securing tax returns from nonfilers and collecting
additional revenue.
Because of your interest in IRS's business nonfiler program and IRS's
use of information returns, you asked us to assess (1) the data
challenges of estimating the business nonfiler tax gap, (2) how recent
program changes in IRS's processes and procedures have affected its
capacity to identify and pursue business nonfilers, and (3) what
opportunities exist for IRS to improve its use of third-party
information returns or other sources to identify and pursue business
nonfilers.
To meet our report's objectives, we conducted an evaluation involving
multiple elements including document review, data analysis, and
interviews. To assess the data challenges of estimating the business
nonfiler gap, we reviewed GAO and Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration (TIGTA) reports, IRS documents on the tax gap, past
research on the tax gap and business nonfilers; analyzed IRS
operational data; and interviewed IRS research officials. To assess
how recent program changes in IRS's processes and procedures have
affected its capacity to identify and pursue business nonfilers, we
reviewed program documents pertaining to IRS's new business nonfiler
program, portions of the Internal Revenue Manual, and IRS documents on
its Nonfiler Strategy and its implementation. We also observed IRS's
collections functions at IRS's Philadelphia service center, and
interviewed officials involved in the program. To assess what
opportunities exist for IRS to improve its use of third-party
information returns or other sources to identify and pursue business
nonfilers, we identified non-IRS data sources--including government
contractor data and private third-party data--that could have
information on business nonfilers and assessed the potential of this
information to help IRS better identify and pursue business nonfilers.
We matched closed nonfiler cases from businesses located in California
and Illinois against Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) data to determine
whether private sector data could be useful for IRS.[Footnote 3] The
data we include in our analysis are IRS data from BMF records, the
Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, and D&B data. Detailed
information about our methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2009 through August
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
IRS Requires Various Types of Tax Returns from Business Entities
Depending on Their Form and Activities:
Many businesses, including corporations, partnerships, and any
business that has employees, are required to request an Employer
Identification Number (EIN) from IRS to be used in filing returns.
[Footnote 4] Entities that must file business returns include
corporations, partnerships, trusts, estates of decedents, and
government agencies.[Footnote 5] On its EIN application, a business
gives IRS information about its structure and whether or not it has
employees. Based on this information, IRS establishes an account for
the business, notifies the business of its EIN and filing requirement,
and records its filing requirement on IRS's BMF. The filing
requirements on the BMF are the basis for IRS's efforts to ensure that
businesses file their required returns. Businesses may have to file
several types of returns. A business that does not file the return in
IRS's records by the due date including any extensions is considered
by IRS to be a potential nonfiler.[Footnote 6] This is the case
including where the business has filed a different return than the one
IRS expects, e.g., where a partnership has restructured itself as a
corporation and filed a corporate return. (For more information on
selected business returns and restructuring, see appendix II.)
Employment taxes from employers and employees account for the largest
share of revenue collected from businesses. Employment tax returns
report income taxes withheld on behalf of employees, the employees'
share of Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes, that is,
Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer's matching share
of FICA taxes. A business with employees, regardless of its structure,
is generally required to file employment tax returns. In fiscal year
2009, IRS collected an estimated $792.8 billion in FICA taxes and
$880.8 billion in individual income tax withholding, or 71.4 percent
of all federal tax collections.
Businesses also may be required to file an annual return reporting
income and losses. Businesses structured as C corporations[Footnote 7]
are generally required to file annual income tax returns including
when they did not have taxable income. C corporations pay the
corporate income tax.[Footnote 8] Other types of businesses including
businesses structured as S corporations and partnerships are required
to also file annual returns, but their income is not taxable at the
business level.[Footnote 9] Rather, income and losses are generally
passed through to others, e.g., to the shareholders of an S
corporation or the partners of a partnership.[Footnote 10]
Many businesses are also required to file third-party information
returns about various payments they make. Payments subject to
information reporting include interest earned from banks, mortgage
interest paid, wages paid, and some payments to contractors.
Over 30 types of information returns are filed on businesses. For tax
year 2008, IRS received 421.5 million such returns. Of these, about
347.5 million, or about 80 percent of all information returns filed on
businesses, reported broker and barter transactions (Form 1099B).
[Footnote 11] IRS also receives information returns on the amount of
federal contract obligations made to businesses awarded federal
contracts.[Footnote 12]
Recent IRS Actions Seek to Address Long-Standing Business Nonfiler
Issues:
GAO,[Footnote 13] TIGTA,[Footnote 14] and IRS itself have documented
long-standing issues with IRS's business nonfiler compliance
activities. Each year IRS identifies a large number of potential
business nonfiler cases, more than IRS has the capacity to work. Many
cases go unresolved, and many that IRS does pursue are closed with a
determination that the business does not owe IRS a return--a generally
unproductive use of IRS's enforcement resources.
In 2005 TIGTA found that IRS's nonfiler efforts for individuals and
businesses were fragmented and recommended that IRS develop a
coordinated national strategy. Following TIGTA's report, in August
2007 IRS adopted a Servicewide Nonfiler Strategy, governed by the IRS
Enforcement Committee. The Strategy recognized that large inventories
and pursuit of unproductive business nonfiler cases continued to
present challenges. The Strategy further noted that IRS did not apply
resources to more productive business nonfiler cases but rather to
cases closed with a determination that the taxpayer did not owe IRS a
tax return. As one of several goals, the Strategy proposed to expand
the use of third-party information and research tools to enhance
identification, selection and resolution of nonfiler cases. The
Strategy also set a goal of developing and implementing consistent
Servicewide performance and outcome measures to determine the impact
of its initiatives on filing compliance.[Footnote 15]
To provide Servicewide oversight for all IRS nonfiler initiatives and
actions, IRS established the Nonfiler Executive Advisory Council
(NFEAC), a Servicewide body chartered by the IRS Enforcement Committee
and consisting of representatives from all IRS divisions. The NFEAC
was to coordinate nonfiler initiatives across IRS's operating
divisions. In addition, its mission included developing, monitoring,
and measuring the effectiveness of the Strategy across all IRS
divisions.
Following adoption of the Nonfiler Strategy, IRS developed several
nonfiler initiatives affecting how it identifies and pursues
nonfilers. The initiative aimed at addressing long-standing business
nonfiler issues is the Business Master File Case Creation Nonfiler
Identification Process (BMF CCNIP). This project, implemented in April
2009, uses third-party information data and IRS account data to select
potential business nonfiler cases for pursuit based on the likelihood
of securing returns and revenue. This change represents a
modernization of IRS's business nonfiler compliance activities as well
as the introduction of a concept--use of information return data--we
have long endorsed.[Footnote 16] (For additional information on IRS's
process for identifying and pursuing business nonfilers, see appendix
III.)
The Nonfiler Strategy also envisioned that IRS would use state data in
its nonfiler activities. IRS officials told us that IRS originally
planned to expand BMF CCNIP to include use of state tax information in
its business nonfiler activities, ultimately from IRS's State Reverse
File Match Initiative (SRFMI), an initiative aimed at matching state
and federal taxpayer data to identify noncompliance with federal tax
law by individual and business taxpayers.[Footnote 17] Another
expansion was to develop business rules that would close cases where
filing requirements no longer existed. At the time we finished our
work, no documentation was available on the planned expansions, and
IRS officials told us that these were on hold pending funding.
A Comprehensive Estimate of the Business Nonfiling Tax Gap May Be
Infeasible, but IRS Operational Data Could Provide Partial Information:
According to IRS, the primary challenge for IRS in developing a
business tax gap estimate is a lack of data. IRS officials told us IRS
has no plans to develop a business nonfiler estimate due to a lack of
the necessary data. They said that IRS's tax gap estimates for
individual and estate nonfiling were comprehensive,[Footnote 18] but
data similar to that used in those estimates do not exist for
businesses. According to IRS officials we spoke with and an expert on
tax gap estimation issues we consulted, no comparable population data
set of all U.S. businesses exists and developing one would be very
expensive. IRS officials we spoke with identified a number of
alternative methods for conducting a comprehensive study of the
business nonfiler tax gap, but also stated that these studies would be
costly, overly complex, or inconsistent with other estimates.
We agree that a comprehensive approach may not be feasible, but there
may be ways IRS could build a partial estimate of business nonfilers.
A partial estimate could be based on IRS's inventory of over 40
million potential nonfiler cases. IRS does not know what share of its
inventory represents instances of actual nonfiling. On the basis of
IRS's historical experience, many of the businesses in the inventory
do not have a current filing requirement. For example, they may have
closed, merged with another business, no longer have employees, or
filed under a different EIN. Table 1 shows IRS's inventory for
selected business return types.
Table 1: IRS's Inventory of Potential Business Nonfiler Cases by
Selected Return Type as of the End of Calendar Year 2009:
Number of potential cases:
Employment tax (Form 941): 25,315,033;
Unemployment tax (Form 940): 3,878,431;
Corporate income tax (Form 1120): 5,080,271;
Partnership return (Form 1065): 3,825,244;
Estate tax return (Form 1041): 5,668,713;
Excise tax return (Form 720): 346,971.
Source: IRS.
Notes: In this table, a case involves an instance of nonfiling of one
return. Cases shown are in the BMF CCNIP inventory, which includes all
identified instances of business nonfiling whether or not selected for
pursuit.
[End of table]
IRS could estimate the extent of actual nonfiling among businesses
with EINs by taking a sample of each type of return, such as C and S
corporation returns, from this inventory and thoroughly investigating
them. The results would not be comparable to IRS's estimate for
individual nonfiling because they would not include businesses not
already in the inventory, but this study would begin to quantify the
extent of business nonfiling and could give IRS a better basis to
decide what priority it should place on this type of noncompliance.
Despite its limitations, this type of estimate could give IRS
information that would be useful in its long-term strategic planning.
If done with a sufficient sample size, IRS could determine the
characteristics of nonfiling entities and use this information to make
changes to its nonfiler compliance activities as appropriate. On the
basis of the results of this work, IRS could then decide whether the
benefits of a larger study to quantify the revenue impact of business
nonfiling would outweigh the costs.
More Performance Information and Evaluation Is Needed to Measure the
Success of IRS's Business Nonfiler Program:
As previously noted, IRS has already taken actions to address the long-
standing issues presented by business nonfilers. The BMF CCNIP
represents a significant modernization of IRS's business nonfiler
compliance program. BMF CCNIP's use of information return and account
data for the first time gives IRS a way to identify those potential
nonfilers most likely to be active businesses. Prioritizing business
nonfiler cases based on information return and account data could
increase productivity without any increase in resources. In addition
to the BMF CCNIP, IRS has developed overall performance measures that
could be used to gauge the success of the full range of its business
nonfiler compliance activities, from identification through case
selection through pursuit by IRS's collections functions. However, IRS
does not have all the information it needs to know how well the new
initiative is working.
Information on the Results of IRS's New Modernized Business Nonfiler
Program Is Not Yet Available:
As the BMF CCNIP was being designed, IRS developed goals and measures
that could be used to assess its progress. A key goal for the BMF
CCNIP was a 50-percent reduction in the number of unproductive cases.
[Footnote 19] This was based on an IRS research finding that where
businesses had information return data, closures of cases as "not
liable to file a return" were reduced by 50 percent. In 2006, IRS
developed a Performance Management Plan for the BMF CCNIP which
established performance measures aligned to the IRS Strategic Plan and
identified sources of data that could be used to monitor the goals.
This plan stated that baseline data to track progress towards goals
would be from 2005.
IRS officials told us that BMF CCNIP management reports and data
needed to gauge program performance were not yet available. A key
report that will show information on resolution type for each case,
selection code, return type, whether the return was secured, and
revenue collected with the return was planned. IRS plans to use the
report in assessing the effectiveness of the selection codes and
tracking the volume of cases closed as not liable to file a return.
Officials did not know when the report would be available. As of June
2010, BMF CCNIP staff were working on developing the specifications
for this report, and no deadline for its completion had been set. BMF
CCNIP management reports that were operational at the time we finished
our work were being used to monitor workload, for example, by return
type, selection code, and the IRS service center that processed the
case. In discussing plans to assess the BMF CCNIP, officials also said
that using data from before the start of the CCNIP would be difficult
and baseline program data to track progress would come from 2010.
IRS officials said that until additional BMF CCNIP management reports
are developed they were using other routine reports to monitor the
response rate to business nonfiler notices as an indicator of BMF
CCNIP effectiveness. Officials said the response rate to notices had
doubled since the start of BMF CCNIP, increasing from about 15 percent
to about 30 percent. Officials interpreted this increase as showing
that the new system is having a positive impact but noted that it was
too soon to identify a trend.
IRS Has Performance Information for Its Individual Nonfiler Program
but Not for Its Business Nonfiler Program:
In addition to measures specific to the BMF CCNIP, IRS has also
developed four Servicewide performance and outcome measures for IRS's
nonfiler activities overall. As of December 2009 IRS had data for its
four performance measures for its individual nonfiler program
including trend data going back to fiscal year 2005. At the time we
finished our work, IRS did not have comparable information on business
nonfilers it could use to identify trends, assess how well the new
initiative is working, or decide whether adjustments needed to be made.
* Voluntary filing rate. The voluntary filing rate is defined as the
total number of required returns filed on time divided by the
estimated number of returns required to be filed. At the time we
finished our work IRS had not estimated a voluntary filing rate for
business nonfilers. As discussed earlier in this report, no data set
for the population of all U.S. businesses exists that could be used to
estimate the tax gap for businesses or the total number of business
returns that should have been filed.
* Percentage of returns secured. This measure is calculated by
dividing the total number of nonfiler returns secured during the
fiscal year by the total number of nonfiler cases closed. IRS
originally planned to develop management reports on business nonfiler
cases comparable to the management reports it uses to calculate this
measure for individual nonfiler cases. Developing the business
reports, however, presented technical difficulties. At the time we
finished our work IRS was planning to use BMF CCNIP management reports
not yet developed as the data source.
* Repeater rate. Under the Servicewide definition established by the
NFEAC, a repeat nonfiler is defined as a current-year nonfiler that
was also a nonfiler in any year of a 2-year look-back period. IRS's
automated systems do not track repeat nonfiling by businesses. IRS has
identified recidivism as a significant problem among individual
nonfilers but has no way to know if this is also a problem among
businesses.[Footnote 20] If it is, IRS will not be able to assess the
effect of current and planned changes to its business nonfiler
compliance activities on repeat business nonfiling due to a lack of
baseline data.
* Efficiency rate. The efficiency rate is calculated by summing all
individual and business nonfiling closed cases and dividing by the
number of staff-years expended. IRS officials told us efficiency is
calculated on a combined basis because IRS does not differentiate
between individual and business cases when tracking staff time
expended. IRS's Servicewide nonfiler efficiency measure does include
data on business nonfilers, but without separate business and
individual measures, IRS has no way to compare the relative efficiency
of the two types of cases.
At the time we finished our work IRS officials told us they planned to
put BMF measures on the agenda for the September 2010 NFEAC meeting.
However, it is not clear whether the meeting will include setting a
deadline for developing such measures.
IRS Is Monitoring the Use of Selection Codes but Does Not Yet Have a
Formal Plan to Evaluate Them:
Selection codes are a key feature of the BMF CCNIP because they
distill the business information that IRS has on a case into a
prioritized code. Since IRS seeks to reduce the number of cases closed
as "not liable to file a return," the design and priority order of the
codes are important to program success. If selection codes do not
accurately identify businesses with a greater potential for securing
delinquent returns and generating more revenue, the proportion of
unproductive cases may not decline.
IRS did not test or evaluate the selection codes prior to the
beginning of the BMF CCNIP in April 2009. Rather, IRS developed the
selection codes using input from those in the agency with knowledge of
business nonfiler activity. According to those involved in the
process, selection codes were developed through discussions among IRS
staff working on business nonfiler programs and included
representation from multiple IRS business operating divisions.
However, IRS did not conduct a formal study or pilot test to aid in
designing the selection codes.
Since BMF CCNIP implementation, IRS has been monitoring the selection
codes including changes in the number of taxpayer responses to
notices. According to IRS officials, BMF CCNIP issues are discussed at
two annual meetings. One meeting concerns coordinating workflow for
both business and individual nonfiler programs, and the other is a
meeting of BMF CCNIP stakeholders where work plans are reviewed and
any changes to the system including to the selection codes are
discussed. IRS has made some changes to refine the selection codes but
has not formally evaluated them. As a result, IRS does not know if the
changes improved the codes, nor do they have a basis for knowing
whether they now have an optimum set. A more formal and extensive
evaluation could give IRS data to identify any need to change
selection code priority, or create new or redefine existing selection
codes. Our past work has shown that evaluations are beneficial in
generating information to guide program decisions.[Footnote 21] IRS's
Performance Measures Plan for the program identifies many of the
components of an evaluation including goals for the program and
potential data sources to monitor it. However, this plan does not
present a method for conducting an evaluation or a timeline for its
completion.
IRS officials told us they plan to revisit the selection codes and
evaluate the BMF CCNIP in the future, but they have no formal
evaluation plan or timetable. They told us that it was too early to
evaluate the BMF CCNIP due to the time needed for a case to go through
all the stages of pursuit. According to the officials, the earliest
date when complete information would be available to analyze the
effectiveness of the BMF CCNIP would be 2011. Those directly involved
with the BMF CCNIP said that choices of selection codes in weekly case
selection were being made with an evaluation in mind, so they attempt
to select cases for pursuit from a wide variety of selection codes. In
our analysis of fiscal year 2009 management report data, we found that
cases had been selected from across most selection codes. This
practice may provide useful data but without a formal evaluation, IRS
will not know how the selection codes are affecting the program
outcomes.
Refinements to Closing Codes Could Provide More Information on Why
Businesses That Did Not Owe a Return Were Identified as Potential
Nonfilers:
When a nonfiler case is closed, IRS collections staff use a two-digit
closing code that in some instances provides information on why a case
was closed. For some types of cases closed as not liable to file a
return, the closing code may explain why. For example, a case can be
closed as not liable to file for the period in question because the
business was identified as a subsidiary and the parent company filed
the return. A case may also be closed as not liable to file if IRS
determines that little or no tax is due from the business. Each of
these situations has a separate and distinct two-digit closing code.
In contrast, there are other closing codes that do not specify why the
case was closed as not liable to file. These types of closing codes
specify which collections function closed the case but do not provide
any additional information. Our analysis of IRS management data shows
that of the cases closed as not liable to file in fiscal year 2009, 65
percent were assigned closing codes that do not indicate the reason
the case was closed.
More detailed closing code information could be useful to IRS by
providing information on business nonfiler cases that it currently
lacks. IRS's closing codes do not specify many of the reasons that a
case could be closed as not liable to file. For example, a business
may no longer be operational but may have failed to indicate to IRS
that its last return was a final return. IRS does not have closing
codes for other types of situations, such as when a business has
changed its structure but failed to notify IRS or where a business
does not have employees for a given tax period but failed to indicate
on its last filed employment tax return that it is a seasonal
employer. Because there are no closing codes indicating these reasons
for case closure, IRS does not know the extent to which these
situations are a problem and it cannot begin to identify actions that
might reduce their frequency.
Developing more detailed closing codes could provide data that would
be valuable in program evaluation. Depending on results, the data
might also lead to education and outreach activities targeted at
reducing the number of identified business nonfilers. For example,
better information on case closing decisions might identify a need to
improve guidance or forms.
IRS Could Improve Business Nonfiler Case Closure Decisions through
Additional Use of Information Returns and External Data:
Selection Codes Can Help Verify Business Activity When Closing Cases:
Under BMF CCNIP, information returns play an important role in
selecting potential nonfiler cases for investigation because they are
good indicators of business activity. Information returns also play an
important role in making case closure decisions on whether a business
is liable to file a return. The Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) requires
that, before closing a case as not liable to file a return, IRS
collection staff are to do a full compliance check including checking
whether information returns and other IRS records indicate business
activity. For example, where a business taxpayer claims to not be
operational for the tax period under investigation, collections staff
are to review information returns to determine if there was business
activity. If this check of information returns showed that there was
business activity, staff is not to close the case until more research
is performed.
BMF CCNIP selection codes are concise indicators of what IRS knows
about a business's activity including its information return income.
For this reason, the codes have potential to be helpful to collections
staff when closing cases. Selection codes are readily available on the
computer screens that IRS collections staff use to research cases and
record case closings. Selection codes can therefore be used to check
taxpayers' claims that they do not owe a return. If the selection code
indicates business activity, this could help guide IRS enforcement
staff in doing the full compliance check. In December 2009 IRS updated
the IRM to include a statement that staff should refer to the
selection code to assist them in determining whether a taxpayer is
liable to file a return. A 2008 tax examiner training manual also
provided guidance on how to effectively use selection codes.
Our analysis of nonfiler cases that were selected for work prior to
the implementation of BMF CCNIP and that were mostly closed in 2008
and 2009[Footnote 22] suggests that full compliance checks may not
have been done to the fullest extent possible, since cases with
information return income were closed as not liable to file a return.
As shown in table 2, 39,931 tax year 2007 partnership and corporation
cases[Footnote 23] with information return income totaling over $193
billion were closed as not liable to file returns.[Footnote 24]
Table 2: Number of Partnership and Corporation Tax Year 2007 Nonfiler
Cases Closed As Not Liable to File Returns:
Business type: Partnerships;
Number of cases: 19,592;
Amount of information return income: $113.5 billion.
Business type: C corporations;
Number of cases: 16,018;
Amount of information return income: $65.3 billion.
Business type: S corporations;
Number of cases: 4,321;
Amount of information return income: $14.7 billion.
Business type: Total;
Number of cases: 39,931;
Amount of information return income: $193.5 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of IRS data.
[End of table]
It is difficult to determine whether knowing that a business had
information return income would have led to different case closure
decisions. About 90 percent of the cases shown in table 2 were closed
without any explanation.[Footnote 25] Although these results in table
2 do not indicate that these cases were closed inaccurately, they do
call into question the extent to which IRS staff took into
consideration information return income data when making decisions to
close cases. While information return income does not indicate the
amount of tax due, it does indicate business activity, meaning that
some of these businesses may have been required to file returns and
pay taxes.
Our observations shortly after BMF CCNIP implementation and prior to
the IRM update at one of the five IRS service centers that process
business nonfiler cases suggest selection codes were not being used in
closing cases. Tax examiners we spoke with had mixed awareness of the
BMF CCNIP and selection codes. Although the staff was able to view the
codes, tax examiners we observed during our site visits did not use
selection codes nor view information returns when making decisions to
close cases.
With the December 2009 revisions to the IRM, tax examiners are
instructed to use selection codes as indicators of business activity
when doing their full compliance checks. However, in the past they
were instructed to use information returns for these checks. Our
analysis shows that cases were closed in spite of the fact that
information returns showed business activity. To the extent that staff
do not make full use of the potential of selection codes and
information returns, opportunities may likely be missed to secure tax
returns and collect revenue from business nonfilers.
Private Sector Data on Business Activity May be Useful in Deciding
Whether Businesses Are Liable for Filing Delinquent Returns:
As discussed earlier, information return data are good indicators of
business activity, but not all payments for goods and services are
subject to information return reporting and not all businesses receive
information return income. According to IRS data, about 19 percent of
its business nonfiler inventory had selection codes that reflect third-
party information. This number should increase once information return
requirements for reporting businesses credit card payments go into
effect in 2012 and requirements for reporting service payments made to
corporations go into effect in 2013. Even after these payments are
reported to IRS, certain other payments made with cash or by check
will not be subject to information reporting. However, there are a
number of private sector companies that maintain business activity
data, such as data on a business's gross sales and number of
employees, which might help IRS identify business nonfilers and help
it determine whether a business is required to file tax returns. While
IRS does not use private sector data to help it determine whether a
business should file a tax return, it does have contracts with private
sector companies for locating taxpayers' assets and obtaining credit
reports on taxpayers that can be used by its collection field staff
during their investigations.[Footnote 26]
To test whether private sector data on business activity could be
useful for determining whether businesses are liable for filing tax
returns, we matched tax year 2007 nonfiler cases that IRS closed as
not liable to file returns with a calendar year 2007 Dun & Bradstreet
(D&B) database of businesses located in California and Illinois. Our
test results showed that there were a total of 40,223 cases in those
two states that IRS closed as not liable to file returns where there
was a match on name and address between IRS and D&B records.[Footnote
27] Of the 40,223 cases, 9,740 were for corporation and partnership
delinquent returns and the remaining 30,483 were for delinquent
employment tax returns. Of the 9,740 partnership and corporation
cases, 7,688 cases had either little or no information return income
but, as shown in table 3, had D&B total sales of about $4.1 billion.
[Footnote 28]
Table 3: California and Illinois Partnership and Corporation Nonfiler
Cases Closed as Not Liable to File in Tax Year 2007 with Gross Sales:
Business type: Partnerships;
Number of active businesses: 2,658;
Total sales for active businesses: $1.3 billion.
Business type: C corporations;
Number of active businesses: 4,366;
Total sales for active businesses: $2.5 billion.
Business type: S corporations;
Number of active businesses: 664;
Total sales for active businesses: $0.4 billion.
Business type: Totals;
Number of active businesses: 7,688;
Total sales for active businesses: $4.1 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of IRS and D&B data.
[End of table]
Since these 7,688 cases had little or no information return income,
IRS would have had little if any business activity data on which to
make decisions on whether the businesses were liable to file returns.
Private sector data, such as the D&B sales data, could fill that void.
Of the 30,483 employment tax cases that were closed as not liable to
file employment (Form 941) and unemployment (Form 940) tax returns,
4,523 cases had employees according to D&B data. Table 4 shows that
these 4,523 businesses had a total of 11,418 employees in calendar
year 2007, which indicates that they may have been required to file
employment tax returns.
Table 4: California and Illinois Employment Tax Cases Closed as Not
Liable to File in Tax Year 2007 with Gross Sales:
Type of form: 941;
Number of businesses with employees: 3,015;
Total number of employees: 7,836;
Total sales for businesses with employees: $8.4 billion.
Type of form: 940;
Number of businesses with employees: 1,508;
Total number of employees: 3,582;
Total sales for businesses with employees: $3.8 billion.
Type of form: Totals;
Number of businesses with employees: 4,523;
Total number of employees: 11,418;
Total sales for businesses with employees: $12.2 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of IRS and D&B data.
[End of table]
Under BMF CCNIP, IRS identifies potential nonfilers when the Business
Master File records for the businesses indicate that they have a
requirement to file returns. If the BMF does not indicate a filing
requirement, then a potential nonfiler case would not be developed. To
determine whether businesses with no BMF filing requirements may be
liable for filing returns, we matched business entities that had been
established on IRS's Business Master File in 2006 that had no filing
requirements to D&B calendar year 2007 records of businesses that had
California and Illinois addresses. The results of the match showed
that 39,920 cases matched the names and addresses on both the IRS and
D&B records. Table 5 shows that 39,920 cases had total sales of $29.5
billion and 4,185 of the 39,920 cases had a total of 16,869 employees.
Table 5: California and Illinois Cases with No Filing Requirements
Indicated in the BMF That Had Sales and Employees:
(dollars in billions).
Type of case: Cases without employees;
Number of cases: 35,735;
Total sales: $9.2 billion;
Number of employees: 0.
Type of case: Cases with employees;
Number of cases: 4,185;
Total sales: $20.3 billion;
Number of employees: 16,869.
Type of case: Totals;
Number of cases: 39,920;
Total sales: $29.5 billion;
Number of employees: 16,869.
Source: GAO analysis of IRS and D&B data.
[End of table]
These data indicate that the businesses were active in 2007 and that
the businesses might have been liable for filing income tax or
employment tax returns. Taxpayer contact would have to be made in
order to determine whether the businesses were liable to file returns.
Federal Contract Data May Be Useful in Identifying Federal Contractors
Who Owe Tax Returns:
In addition to examining potential private sector data, we also
examined the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) file, which
contains self-reported revenue and employment data on businesses that
register annually to be awarded federal contracts, to determine
whether it could be used by IRS in its business nonfiler program. This
database generally dealt with federal contracts so its usefulness
would be limited to the subset of the total business nonfiler
population that had registered for federal contract consideration.
[Footnote 29]
We matched the calendar year 2007 CCR file, which contained over
400,000 registrants nationwide, to the tax year 2007 partnership,
corporation, and employment tax cases that were closed as not liable
to file returns. This match showed that there were 3,589 entities on
the CCR file with reported revenue that were closed as not liable to
file partnership (1,210 cases) or corporation (2,379 cases) returns.
The match also found that 10,263 entities on the CCR file reported
that they had employees that were closed as not liable to file either
Forms 941 (8,694 cases) or Forms 940 (1,569 cases).
The above data show that there are a number of federal contractors
with income that IRS closed as not liable to file returns. As noted
earlier, in many cases IRS's records do not indicate the specific
reason for closing a nonfiler case; therefore, we do not know why
these cases were closed when the CCR data indicate that they may have
been required to file returns because they had indications of business
activity.
IRS does not give a high priority to potential business nonfilers that
receive federal contracts when it selects business nonfiler cases for
review but does so for federal workers and retirees who fail to file
tax returns under its Federal Employee/Retiree Delinquency Initiative
(FERDI) program. This program was developed in 1993 by IRS to promote
federal tax compliance among current and retired federal employees.
FERDI cases are given a specific priority selection code and are
subject to the full range of compliance treatments, including return
delinquency notices and field investigations. According to IRS data,
in fiscal year 2009, IRS closed over 100,000 FERDI cases.
IRS recognizes that businesses receiving federal contracts should be
identified and that appropriate and timely actions should be taken to
ensure they remain in full compliance with federal tax laws.[Footnote
30] IRS also has delinquent return procedures that address federal
contractors. IRS has special procedures for investigating federal
contractors who have been or will be awarded a contract by the IRS and
who owe both outstanding taxes and tax returns. These procedures do
not apply to federal contractors who only have unfiled returns. Also,
according to IRS, during field return delinquency investigations,
revenue officers are instructed to determine on initial contact with
all taxpayers if the taxpayer is a federal contractor and, if so, to
take prompt action to secure any delinquent business returns including
their delinquent taxes.
Also, unlike federal employees and retirees covered by the FERDI
program, federal contractor cases do not have a specific nonfiler
selection code, which could give them a priority ranking at the
beginning of the investigation process. Currently, IRS has an
indicator on its Business Master File that identifies businesses that
have federal contracts, but it is not used to prioritize federal
contractor nonfiler cases. The source of the BMF federal contractor
indicator is Form 8596 (Information Return for Federal Contracts),
which certain federal executive agencies are required to file
quarterly to report information about persons with whom they have
entered into contracts.[Footnote 31]
Since IRS already has a federal contractor indicator on its Master
File records, it may be able to cost-effectively develop a specific
nonfiler selection code that would give these cases a higher priority
in its nonfiler program.
Conclusions:
Identifying and pursuing nonfilers including businesses is a key part
of IRS's enforcement efforts. Absent a robust nonfiler program,
compliant taxpayers will not have confidence that others are paying
their fair share. IRS has faced several challenges in its business
nonfiler program. IRS generally identifies more potential nonfilers
than it can thoroughly investigate, and many of those it does
investigate turn out not to owe the return IRS expects based on its
records. Our analyses suggest IRS cannot be sure these types of cases
are all being closed correctly.
IRS has significantly improved its business nonfiler efforts by
developing and implementing the BMF CCNIP. This initiative gives IRS
for the first time a way to set priorities among its voluminous
inventory by making use of information return and other IRS data to
predict the likelihood that IRS will secure additional returns and
revenue. This initiative should help IRS choose cases to work, but
without an estimate of the business nonfiler tax gap, IRS does not
have a data-driven basis for allocating resources to its business
nonfiler efforts.
While IRS has made good progress in implementing BMF CCNIP, it has not
calculated the performance measures or planned the evaluations it
would need to assess success. IRS also has little data on why it
identifies millions of potential business nonfilers only to find that
many of them do not owe IRS the return IRS is expecting based on its
records. Absent better information on cause, IRS may continue to
expend resources on too many unproductive cases, leading to
unnecessary taxpayer burden. Until and unless IRS has better
information, it will not be able to measure its success or identify
the best ways to continue to move in the right direction.
While IRS is gathering data needed to manage the program, it can also
explore opportunities to build on what it has already achieved. IRS
could leverage the information in the BMF CCNIP selection codes by
using them to help verify taxpayers' claims that they do not owe a
return because they have gone out of business. IRS could also explore
adding non-IRS data to the BMF CCNIP. Private sector and federal
contractor data on business activity would give IRS more third-party
information and enlarge the capacity of the BMF CCNIP to identify
active businesses, thereby potentially leading to fewer cases being
closed as not liable to file a return.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue take the
following eight actions:
Understanding the Scope of the Business Nonfiler Population:
* Estimate the magnitude of business nonfiling among businesses
registered with IRS, using data from its operational files to select
cases for further investigation. Based on the results of this work IRS
should develop a tax gap estimate for the impact of business nonfiling
insofar as doing so is cost-effective.
Monitoring the Performance of Business Nonfiler Activities:
* Set a deadline for developing data that can be used to measure the
performance of the BMF CCNIP and its business nonfiler compliance
activities overall.
* Develop a separate efficiency measure for business nonfilers insofar
as doing so is cost-effective.
* Develop an evaluation plan for the BMF CCNIP selection codes,
including both an initial evaluation and an ongoing monitoring plan,
and conduct an evaluation based on this plan. Results from the study
and the ongoing monitoring could be used to refine the selection codes
to improve the effectiveness of the program.
Identifying Additional Actions to Help Achieve the Goal of Fewer
Unproductive Cases:
* Add closing codes that would better indicate all known causes for
"not liable to file" determinations and use this information to
analyze causes of unproductive cases and use them as appropriate to
identify any actions IRS could take either administratively or through
education and outreach that could reduce the number of business
nonfiler cases where the filing requirement in IRS's records is not
applicable.
Ensuring That IRS Does Not Inappropriately Close Cases as Not Liable
to File Returns:
* Reinforce to collections staff the need to check for business
activity using information return data and selection codes.
* Study the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using private sector
business activity data and federal contract data to make a
determination of whether federal contractors and other businesses are
liable for filing tax returns.
Ensuring Federal Contractors Comply with Filing Requirements:
* Establish a process similar to the FERDI program for federal workers
and retirees that will give a high priority to businesses identified
as potential nonfilers that have federal contracts.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. We received written comments from the Deputy Commissioner
which are reprinted in appendix IV. IRS agreed that identifying and
pursuing active business nonfilers is key to enforcement efforts and
acknowledged that our recommendations could assist these efforts. IRS
agreed with four of our eight recommendations and indicated as
discussed below some steps it would take to address the other four.
With respect to our recommendation that IRS should estimate the
magnitude of business nonfiling by selecting cases from its
operational files for further investigation, IRS agreed to collect and
report additional data on the number of delinquent business returns
identified by its operational programs and the dollars assessed. IRS
indicated that such data may overstate the extent of nonfiling because
they would include cases such as businesses that filed returns under a
parent entity. The intent of our recommendation, however, was to have
IRS develop an estimate of the number of businesses that were actually
liable for filing returns, which would exclude businesses that were
not liable to file returns. It is not clear from IRS's response
whether it intends to do the study we recommended or if IRS plans to
report only the results currently available from its business nonfiler
program. Our recommendation was that IRS draw a sample of potential
business nonfilers and thoroughly investigate those cases to estimate
the number of actual business nonfilers in IRS's business nonfiler
inventory.
With respect to our recommendation that IRS develop an evaluation plan
for the BMF CCNIP selection codes, IRS identified monitoring
activities for its new BMF CCNIP report as well as additional
information that could be used to evaluate the program. IRS also said
that data should not be studied until they are complete and available,
which IRS estimates to be by the end of fiscal year 2011. We
acknowledged many of IRS's monitoring activities in our report but
these do not constitute an evaluation plan that would identify a
method for conducting an evaluation and a timeline for its completion.
We recognize that time will be needed for cases to complete the
collections process and did not propose a timeline for IRS to complete
its evaluation. Our recommendation addressed the need for IRS to
develop an evaluation plan for the BMF CCNIP selection codes,
including both an initial evaluation and an ongoing monitoring plan,
and conduct a study based on this plan.
With respect to our recommendation that IRS should study the
feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using private sector business
activity data and federal contract data, IRS agreed to evaluate the
effectiveness of data mining using the Central Contractor Registration
database but did not agree to study the feasibility of using private
sector data. IRS stated that a study initiated in fiscal year 2009--
which IRS did not provide to us during the course of our audit work--
concluded that it would be difficult to quantify benefits because
there is not an automated way to effectively match Taxpayer
Identification Numbers to purchased lists of business names. IRS's
response, however, does not address our analysis illustrating the use
of private sector data in our report, which showed that using such
data was not only possible but potentially beneficial. While we cannot
determine the revenue implications of these cases including whether
potential revenue would exceed IRS's threshold, our analysis shows
that private data can provide information not now available to IRS on
the business activity of potential nonfilers. For this reason, we
continue to recommend that IRS further explore the feasibility and
cost-effectiveness of private sector business activity data.
With respect to our recommendation that IRS establish a process for
federal contractors similar to the process established by its FERDI
program for individuals, IRS agreed to explore the feasibility of
establishing a system for prioritizing and routing federal contractor
nonfiler cases through its current Inventory Delivery System. IRS also
stated that it is working on further actions--including implementing
legislative changes--that will identify noncompliant federal
contractors. IRS stated that a federal contractor with an unfiled
employment tax return is a high priority in the case selection
process. While employment tax cases are prioritized in IRS's case
selection process, federal contractors do not receive higher priority
than nonfederal contractors because there is no selection code
specifically aimed at federal contractors. Since IRS already has a
federal contractor indicator on its Master File records, our
recommendation was based on the assumption that IRS could cost
effectively develop a specific nonfiler selection code that would give
these cases a higher priority.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chairman
and Ranking Member, House Committee on Ways and Means; the Secretary
of the Treasury; the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and other
interested parties. This 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, please contact me at (202)
512-9110 or whitej@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V.
Signed by:
James R. White:
Director, Tax Issues:
Strategic Issues Team:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
The objectives of this report were to assess (1) the data challenges
of estimating the business nonfiler tax gap, (2) how recent program
changes in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) processes and
procedures have affected its capacity to identify and pursue business
nonfilers, and (3) what opportunities exist for IRS to improve its use
of third-party information returns or other sources to identify and
pursue business nonfilers.
To assess the data challenges of estimating the business nonfiler tax
gap, we reviewed IRS documents and prior GAO and Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reports that dealt with tax gap
measurement and IRS's National Research Program, which develops data
for use in making estimates of the tax gap relating to tax reporting
noncompliance. We analyzed Business Master File Case Creation Nonfiler
Identification Process (BMF CCNIP) inventory data to determine the
number of potential business nonfilers IRS identifies and analyzed
IRS's fiscal year 2009 Collection Activity Reports to determine the
number of business nonfiler cases IRS closed as not liable to file
returns. We interviewed IRS research officials from the Small
Business/Self-Employed (SBSE) and the Research, Analysis, and
Statistics (RAS) Divisions on the types of data that would be needed
to develop a business nonfiler tax gap estimate and the problems
associated with obtaining such data.
To assess how recent program changes in IRS's processes and procedures
have affected its capacity to identify and pursue business nonfilers,
we reviewed program documents pertaining to BMF CCNIP. These documents
dealt with the cost and benefits of the program; program evaluation
and performance measurement processes; and procedures for identifying,
prioritizing, selecting, working, and closing business nonfiler cases.
We also reviewed Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) sections dealing with
handling taxpayer responses to delinquent return notices and
procedures for closing business nonfiler cases and IRS documents on
its Nonfiler Strategy and its implementation. We interviewed IRS
officials from SBSE to understand the various operational features and
processes associated with the BMF CCNIP. To understand how IRS handles
responses to delinquent return notices from businesses, we observed
IRS's collections functions at IRS's Philadelphia service center.
To assess what opportunities exist for IRS to improve its use of third-
party information returns or other sources to identify and pursue
business nonfilers, we identified non-IRS data sources--including
government contractor data and private sector data--that could have
information on business nonfilers and assessed the potential of this
information to help IRS better identify and pursue business nonfilers.
To test whether information return income could be useful in making
case closure decisions under BMF CCNIP, we matched IRS's calendar year
2007 Aggregated Information Return (AIR) file, which is used in BMF
CCNIP and contained summaries of information returns that were
received by IRS, to IRS's Nonfiler Measurement file that contained
data on all tax year 2007 cases that were closed as not liable to file
partnership (Form 1065) and corporation (Form 1120) returns. We
limited our analysis to tax year 2007 cases that had information
return income of $1,000 or more. According to IRS officials, tax year
2007 business nonfiler cases were selected prior to the implementation
of BMF CCNIP. Our analysis showed that about 96 percent of the cases
were closed in 2008 and 2009 while the remaining 4 percent were closed
in 2007 and 2010. In doing this match we eliminated all cases that
were closed because they were subsidiaries of other businesses and
thus would not have been required to file returns under their Employer
Identification Numbers (EIN). We did not follow up on any of the
closed cases to determine whether using the information return income
data would have resulted in a closure different than not liable to
file a return. To determine whether these businesses would have been
liable to file returns would have required IRS to reinvestigate the
cases. To determine whether the data in IRS's Nonfiler Measurement
file were of sufficient reliability for our analysis, we reviewed the
program documentation associated with the file and discussed the
various data elements with the IRS staff responsible for the file. As
a result of our review and discussions, we determined that the data in
this file were of sufficient reliability to be used in our analysis.
To test whether private sector data on business activity could be
useful for determining whether businesses may be required to file
partnership, corporation, and employment tax returns, we matched IRS's
tax year 2007 Nonfiler Measurement file of nonfiler cases that IRS
closed as not liable to file returns to a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B)
file of businesses located in California and Illinois. We judgmentally
selected these two states to get a geographic mix of states that had
sufficient cases that were closed as not liable to file tax year 2007
returns to test the viability of using private sector data. The D&B
file contained various data on business activity including name,
address, sales, and employment information. Combined, California and
Illinois had 130,336 or about 14.3 percent of the 914,505
corporations, partnerships, and employment tax cases that were closed
as not liable to file tax year 2007 returns. Since the D&B files did
not include the businesses' EINs, the match was made on the
businesses' name and address, which included the street address,
state, and ZIP code. To make the name and address matches, we used
D&B's onsite matching software program, which can be used to associate
records with differences in name and addresses to a particular entity.
Each match is assigned a confidence code from 0 to 10, with 10 being
the highest confidence score and 0 the lowest or no match. According
to D&B documents, scores of 8 to 10 are considered high-quality
matches and were the matches we used for our analysis. Our match of
the 130,336 California and Illinois cases resulted in 40,223 high-
quality matches (9,740 corporations and partnerships and 30,483
employment tax cases). Of the 9,740 partnership and corporation cases,
7,688 cases had either little or no information return income. Of the
30,483 employment tax cases, 4,523 had employees.
Also, to determine whether private sector data could be useful in
identifying active businesses that IRS had not identified as
nonfilers, we matched the D&B data files of California and Illinois
businesses to a Business Master File (BMF) extract of 176,061 entities
on the BMF that had been established in calendar year 2006 but had no
filing requirements as of September 2009, which was when IRS produced
the extract for us. As a data reliability check on this no filing
requirement extract, both GAO and IRS staff spot checked selected
output from this extract to IRS's National Accounts Profile (NAP)
file, which contains all valid taxpayer names, addresses, taxpayer
identification numbers, and filing requirements. These checks showed
that the names were valid and that the businesses did not have any
filing requirements. The match of D&B data to the no filing
requirement extract produced 39,920 cases that were considered to be
high-quality matches (i.e., they had confidence scores of 8 to 10) and
were the ones we used for our analysis. Since D&B is a commercial
business, we were not able to validate the sales and employment data
contained in the file. However, according to data D&B officials
provided to us, D&B collects its data through direct investigations,
such as phone calls to businesses, and reviews of trade records on
payment and financial data, public records, and government registries,
and Web sources and directories. Also, since D&B data are used by
various federal agencies, we determined that the data were of
sufficient reliability to be used in our analysis.
To test whether other federal data sources could be useful for
identifying business nonfilers, we analyzed the 2007 Central
Contractor Registration (CCR) file, which we received from the General
Services Administration, which contains data on businesses that must
register at least annually to compete for federal contracts. We tested
this file because it contains various entity data such as name,
address, and EIN, which could be readily matched to IRS's records.
Businesses that want to vie for federal contracts must submit a valid
EIN for inclusion onto the CCR. The EINs are validated against IRS's
records before they are included in the CCR. Also, the CCR file
contains various self-reported data on business activity data, such as
total revenue and number of employees for each business, which could
be useful for making decisions on whether a business would be required
to file returns. We matched the calendar year 2007 CCR file, which
consisted of 441,467 records, to IRS's tax year 2007 Nonfiler
Measurement file of cases that were closed as not liable to file
returns to determine whether CCR data would identify potential federal
contractors that had business activity data that would indicate that
they may have been required to file returns. The match identified
3,589 entities on the CCR file with reported revenue that were closed
as not liable to file partnership (1,210 cases) or corporation (2,379
cases) returns. The match also found that 10,263 entities on the CCR
file reported that they had employees that were closed as not liable
to file either Form 941 (8,694 cases) or Form 940 (1,569 cases). We
did not verify the accuracy of the data on the CCR file because these
data are self-reported by businesses entering the data onto the CCR
database. However, since the EINs on the CCR are validated to IRS's
records, we determined that the CCR data we used for our analysis were
sufficiently reliable to use in our assessment.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2009 through August
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Additional Information on Businesses' Filing Requirements:
Form: 940: Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment (FUTA) Tax Return;
Who should File: Businesses with one or more employees that paid at
least $1,500 in wages in a calendar quarter and businesses that had
one or more employees for at least some part of a day in any 20 or
more different weeks during the calendar year must file Form 940 to
report Federal Unemployment Tax Act tax. Household employers that paid
at least $1,000 in wages in a calendar quarter must file Form 940;
Filing timeline: Annually. Return due on February 1st after the end of
the calendar year. Those who made full payments prior to filing may
file by February 10;
Extensions: An extension may be requested via letter. Extensions are
not to exceed 90 days.
Form: 941: Employer's Quarterly Federal Employment Tax Return;
Who should File: Businesses with one or more employees file Form 941
to report information on employees including wages paid, federal
income tax withheld, and Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by
employers and employees;
Filing timeline: Quarterly. Return due the last day of the month
following the end of the quarter;
Extensions: Extension requests are not allowed. Form 941 has a 10-day
extended due date if 100% of the tax amount has been deposited on
time.
Form: 1120: U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
Who should File: Domestic corporations--unless corporation meets the
criteria and has elected to be treated as an S corporation. The return
is used to report income, gains, losses, deductions, credits, and to
figure the income tax liability of a corporation;
Filing timeline: Annually. Return due by the 15th day of the third
month following end of corporation's tax year. For example, if tax
year is equivalent to calendar year, filing would be due March 15;
Extensions: Business can file IRS Form 7004 to be granted a 6-month
extension.
Form: 1120S: U.S. Income Tax Return for S Corporation;
Who should File: S corporations. An eligible domestic corporation can
avoid double taxation (once to the shareholders and again to the
corporation) by electing to be treated as an S corporation;
Filing timeline: Annually. Return due by the 15th day of the third
month following end of corporation's tax year. For example, if tax
year is equivalent to calendar year, filing would be due March 15;
Extensions: Business can file IRS Form 7004 to be granted a 6-month
extension.
Form: 1065: U.S. Return of Partnership Income;
Who should File: Partnerships. A partnership is the relationship
existing between two or more persons who join to carry on a trade or
business. A partnership must file an annual information return to
report the income, deductions, gains, losses, etc., from its
operations, but it does not pay income tax. Instead, it generally
"passes through" any profits or losses to its partners;
Filing timeline: Annually. Return and Schedule K-1 information returns
(which report income shares to partners) due on the 15th day of the
4th month following the close of its tax year;
Extensions: Business can file IRS Form 7004 to be granted a 5-month
extension.
Source: GAO analysis of IRS documents.
[End of table]
When a business changes its structure or hires employees, the business
is required to notify IRS and in some cases may need a new EIN.
* A business is required to notify IRS if its structure changes, for
example if it restructures as an S corporation, a partnership, or a
subsidiary of another company.[Footnote 32] A subsidiary that elects
to have its income, losses, and deductions included in the parent
business's consolidated income tax return is not required to file an
annual return.
* A business that ceases to operate is expected to inform IRS
including by sending a letter and checking a "final return" box on its
income tax return.[Footnote 33] A business is also required to notify
IRS if it stops paying wages or is a seasonal employer.
A business that fails to notify IRS of a change affecting its filing
requirement risks being identified as a potential nonfiler by IRS when
it matches its records against returns filed.
[End of section]
Appendix III: How IRS Identifies and Pursues Business Nonfilers:
IRS identifies potential business nonfilers primarily using its return
delinquency check process. Under its new Business Master File Case
Creation Nonfiler Identification Process (BMF CCNIP), IRS prioritizes
which of these potential business nonfilers will be pursued using
information return and historical account data in IRS's records on the
business entity. Once a case has been selected for pursuit, IRS mails
the taxpayer a notice of delinquency. If IRS is not successful in
resolving a case through this taxpayer correspondence, the case may
proceed to one of IRS's collections functions. Figure 1 shows IRS's
process for business nonfiler cases through the notice stage.
Figure 1: Business Nonfiler Cases Can Go through a Multistage Process
from Identification to Pursuit:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Business Master File Case Creation Nonfiler Identification Process
(BMF CCNIP):
Identification:
IRS checks to see if all returns owed have been filed (Business Master
File).
Prioritization:
Each nonfiler instance is coded to determine priority (includes
Information return data, Payment data, Wage data).
* Selection codes indicate business activity and cases are prioritized
based on third-party information and account information;
* Primary codes determine number of notices and are based on:
- compliance history;
- other taxpayer account information.
Selection:
Case creation analysts select and apply criteria to determine cases to
be pursued (Nonfiler inventory).
First, analysts set work schedules based on:
* available inventory;
* workloads of pursuit staff;
* selection codes;
* types of returns.
Second, database program flags individual cases for pursuit that meet
selection criteria set by case creation analysts.
Pursuit:
IRS pursues the selected delinquent cases.
* IRS sends delinquency notice to taxpayer;
* If taxpayer complies or filing requirement is incorrect, case is
closed;
* If no response or taxpayer does not comply, IRS may close case,
defer pursuit, or pursue further through options such as:
- sending additional notices;
- calling taxpayer;
- assigning revenue officers to taxpayer;
- preparing a substitute return.
Source: GAO analysis of IRS information.
[End of figure]
Identification:
IRS's return delinquency program checks the filing requirement of each
business against the returns filed by that business for a given tax
period. This process is completed every week for all return types. If
IRS identifies a business that has not filed a return for a filing
requirement on IRS's BMF a specified number of weeks after the due
date for the return including any extensions, a delinquency module is
created for the missing return. Previously, the program identified as
delinquent only those businesses that had filed in the past and then
ceased filing or had made payments to IRS. However, since the
introduction of the BMF CCNIP, IRS now includes some entities that
have an income tax filing requirement but have never filed.
Prioritization:
The BMF CCNIP has changed IRS's business nonfiler activities by using
several types of IRS taxpayer data provided by businesses and about
businesses to create indicators of business activity and prioritize
these businesses for pursuit based on the likelihood of generating
revenue. The goal of the BMF CCNIP is for IRS to pursue more
productive cases by reducing the number of these cases it pursues
where the business is not liable to file a return, e.g., because it is
no longer active. In this way, IRS aims to better use its limited
resources for pursuing business nonfilers.
Selection codes are the feature of the BMF CCNIP that assists IRS in
prioritizing the inventory and determining which cases should be
pursued. Specifically, selection codes are used to determine which
cases are sent to IRS's campuses, which are the locations of the IRS
service centers that handle initial pursuit activities. The campuses
will send a taxpayer a notice of delinquency. This notice details the
delinquent tax form and period and requests the taxpayer file the form.
The third-party information IRS uses to assign the selection codes
comes from three sources:
* The Aggregated Information Return (AIR) file contains data from
information return forms such as the Form 1099 series. This file is
updated annually.
* The Payer Master File (PMF) contains information on those who file
these information returns and make payments documented by the
information returns.
* The Combined Annual Wage Reporting (CAWR) file contains information
on business payments for employment taxes including Social Security
and Medicare.
Selection codes range from 01 to 99 and represent IRS's priority for
working cases.[Footnote 34] Cases with a lower number selection code
have a higher priority. Each code indicates characteristics of the
information IRS has about the case. Examples of selection codes are
"high dollar credits," "high information return income without broker
sales," and "broker sales." Selection codes 97 through 99--the lowest
priority codes--are typically for those cases with no indication of
business activity.[Footnote 35]
In addition to a selection code, a primary code[Footnote 36] is also
assigned to each case. These codes indicate the number of delinquency
notices a case should receive once it has been selected and whether
the case will be pursued further after the notice stage. Primary codes
are determined based upon compliance history and the type of return.
Once these codes have been applied to cases,[Footnote 37] the cases
are placed in the nonfiler inventory. The inventory includes all
identified business nonfiler delinquencies, both cases that have and
have not been forwarded to IRS's collections functions for collection.
As of the end of calendar year 2009, the nonfiler inventory had 46.6
million cases in it. All cases will remain on the nonfiler inventory
for 6 years.
Selection:
Case creation analysts--a new position created with the BMF CCNIP--
decide on a weekly basis the number of cases to move from the nonfiler
inventory for pursuit. Using the selection codes, case creation
analysts are able to select not only the number of cases sent for
further processing, but the selection code and return type as well.
They are also able to direct the cases to one of five specific
campuses.[Footnote 38] Case creation analysts we spoke with said they
select cases to move to collections based upon several factors
including: the makeup of the inventory, selection codes, return type,
and input from the collection functions at the IRS campuses on their
workloads. IRS officials told us that one goal is to assure coverage
across the different return types; another goal is to match cases
selected with the capacity of campuses to send the notices.
Information from the BMF CCNIP, such as the number of cases in the
inventory and selection codes used, is contained in management
reports. IRS said that the information in these reports is used by
case creation analysts to make selection decisions.[Footnote 39]
Pursuit:
Notice Stage:
At the first stage of the collections process, the notice stage, IRS
first attempts taxpayer contact by mailing a delinquency notice. This
notice informs the taxpayer of the identified delinquency, and
provides information on how to respond to the delinquency. According
to IRS data, in fiscal year 2009, IRS issued 2.6 million initial
notices to business nonfiler cases.[Footnote 40]
If a response (either a return or an explanation of why no return is
due) is received from the taxpayer, the response is forwarded to a tax
examiner in IRS's Compliance Services Collection Operations (CSCO)
function. The tax examiner is responsible for verifying that a return
filed matches the filing requirement or that the response otherwise
justifies closure of the case. In some cases where taxpayers claim
that they do not owe a return, tax examiners are required to perform a
full compliance check, which is a method to verify the taxpayer's
response and to ensure that there are no other outstanding modules. If
the taxpayer response does not resolve the delinquency, tax examiners
will sometimes contact the taxpayer to discuss the matter.
The primary code assigned to the case determines what happens next if
the taxpayer does not respond. Business nonfiler cases generally
receive a Primary Code B, A, or X.
* If the case received a Primary Code B, it will not be pursued beyond
the first notice. Cases receive a Primary Code B when they do not meet
the criteria for any other primary code. Primary Code B cases, also
known as "suppressed" cases, generally fall below a certain threshold
for the tax liability from the entity's last return.
* If the case received a Primary Code A, it will receive another
notice before being forwarded for further pursuit.
* Primary Code X cases receive one notice and if IRS receives no
response, the case is forwarded for further pursuit after 6 weeks.
Primary Code X is reserved for employment tax cases where the tax due
by the business for the previous year was above a certain threshold.
In some instances, if a delinquent module is identified and the
taxpayer already has other modules further along in the pursuit
process, the newly identified delinquent module is moved after
receiving the first notice to the collection function with other
modules from the same business; this process is called "association."
Post-Notice Stage Collections Functions:
If the notice or notices do not elicit a response from the taxpayer,
IRS guidelines and a routing program are used to determine the next
destination for the case.
* If a case meets criteria established in the Internal Revenue Manual
(IRM), it will go directly to the destination prescribed. One example
of the criteria for a case to use the rules is where the last return
amount--the tax liability from the last return--is above a certain
threshold.
* Alternatively, a case is routed further by the Inventory Delivery
System (IDS). IDS governs movement to, from, and between IRS pursuit
functions. The system makes these determinations based on risk and
business rules. These rules include a set of criteria used to score a
case based on the following factors: age of case, balance due, number
of modules for the entity, the type of return, credit balances, the
tax due from the prior year's tax return, and prior year net tax. In
addition to these risk scores, IDS also uses predictive models to
generate probability scores. These models predict the likelihood of
certain outcomes, including securing a return and securing the full
amount of money due.
IDS moves cases to one of the following functions after a
predetermined number of weeks from when the notice was sent:
* The Automated Collection System (ACS) is responsible for making
telephone contact with taxpayers who have not responded to notices. In
some cases, the call site operators who make this contact must
research contact information for the delinquent taxpayer.
* The automated 6020(b) (a6020(b)) program can be used to prepare a
substitute return for business nonfilers without the intervention of
ACS or the field. This program is limited to employment tax cases with
an amount below a certain threshold.[Footnote 41] This program
automatically prepares a return for certain businesses that have not
filed based on information that IRS has. The automatically prepared
return is then sent to the entity, which has the ability to respond
with its own return if it does not accept the prepared return. If no
response is received, IRS has the authority to create an assessment
for all taxes and penalties due.
* The Queue is a holding area for cases. Cases can move from the Queue
to the field. In certain circumstances, cases have been routed from
the Queue to a6020(b) or CSCO.
* Revenue officers in the Collection Field Function (the field) make
in-person contact with delinquent taxpayers in efforts to secure
returns.
In addition, if IDS criteria determine that the case is of low enough
priority, IDS can close the case.
Generally, cases that receive further pursuit beyond notice stage
first go to ACS. If ACS has not been successful in closing a case
after 13 weeks or does not send it to a6020(b), the case may then be
moved to the Queue, where it will be available for the field to pursue
further.
When a case goes to the Queue, it is assigned a level of risk and a
probability score. The risk level--high, medium, or low--takes into
account dollar amount, age of case, and type of return. Cases are
assigned to one of four priority groups in the Queue based upon these
scores. Those cases that are "high risk" and have a high probability
score--indicating a greater likelihood of collecting revenue--become
the highest priority cases. The other groups--high risk, medium risk,
and low risk--are based solely on risk scores. When group managers
need cases for the field, they review cases based on priority for
potential selection to the field. If a case remains in the Queue for
52 weeks, it is reevaluated by IDS. Based on this evaluation, it can
be sent back to ACS, remain in the Queue, or--if the case has become a
low-risk case based on the reevaluation--the case can be closed.
[Footnote 42]
Figure 2 provides an overview of the coding systems and automated
systems that govern the path of a business nonfiler case that proceeds
beyond the notice stage into IRS's collections functions.
Figure 2: Cases Selected for Pursuit Can Take Multiple Paths after
Receiving First Notice:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Taxpayer has not responded to first delinquency notice:
* Primary Code A cases: Second notice is sent to taxpayer;
* Primary Code X cases: Cases go to IDS;
* Primary Code B cases: No further pursuit.
IDS applies risk and predictability scores to each case:
* ACS: Noncompliant taxpayers are pursued by phone;
* a6020(b) cases: IRS automatically generates return for taxpayer;
* No further pursuit.
Queue:
* Field Agents pursue noncompliant taxpayers in person;
After 1 year in Queue case returns to IDS for rescoring.
Source: GAO analysis of IRS information.
[End of figure]
Cases that leave the Queue for pursuit are generally high-dollar
cases, cases involving more than one delinquent return,[Footnote 43]
and cases involving both nonfiling of returns and nonpayment of taxes
owed. Revenue officers have multiple methods of enforcement they can
use to secure returns and payments, including preparing substitute
returns using IRS's authority to do so under Internal Revenue Code
6020(b) and legal options, such as injunctions or summons.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service:
Department Of The Treasury:
Internal Revenue Service:
Deputy Commissioner:
Washington, D.C. 20224:
August 25 2010:
Mr. James R. White:
Director, Tax Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. White:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft report entitled,
"Tax Gap: IRS Has Modernized Its Business Nonfiler Program But Could
Benefit From More Evaluation and Use of Third-Party Data" (GA0-10-
950).
We recognize that assigning the best possible nonfiler inventory for
investigation will result in the best use of our resources. We agree
that identifying and pursuing business nonfilers who remain in
business is a key component of our enforcement efforts and that your
recommendations may assist us in those efforts.
In July 2008, the IRS adopted Servicewide Nonfiler Performance and
Outcome Measures. These strategic measures gauge our overall
performance in delivering the nonfiler mission and goals. Such
measures describe the intended result of carrying out a program and
emphasize outcome over process. The IRS will soon begin exploring new
business nonfiler measures pursuant to your recommendation.
Your report acknowledges our new potential business nonfiler filter,
the Business Master File Case Creation Nonfiler Identification Process
(BMF CCNIP). We regularly evaluate and monitor the BMF CCNIP inventory
and evaluate possible enhancements to the process. Through BMF CCNIP,
a federal contractor with an unfiled employment tax return is a high
priority in our case selection process. In addition to BMF CCNIP,
there are actions implementing legislative changes that will filter
out or identify noncompliant federal contractors (e.g., Enhancing
Payment Accuracy Through a "Do Not Pay List" and Internal Revenue Code
section 3402(t)(1) "Three (3) percent withholding"). These actions
implementing legislative changes, along with other business processes
will assist the IRS in protecting the integrity of the tax system and
addressing federal contractors that do not file required returns.
The enclosed response addresses each recommendation separately.
If you have any questions, please contact me or members of your staff
may contact Nikole Flax, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Services
and Enforcement, at (202) 622-6860.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven T. Miller:
Enclosure:
[End of letter]
Enclosure:
GAO Recommendations and IRS Responses to GAO Draft Report:
Tax Gap: IRS Has Modernized Its Business Nonfiler Program But Could
Benefit From More Evaluation and Use of Third-Party Data; GAO-10-950:
Recommendation 1:
Estimate the magnitude of business nonfiling among businesses
registered with IRS, using data from its operational files to select
cases for further investigation. Based on the results of this work IRS
should develop a tax gap estimate for the impact of business
nonfiling insofar as doing so is cost-effective.
Comment:
The IRS will report the number of delinquent business returns
identified by operational programs. However, this estimate may
overstate the extent of nonfiling if a missing return is associated
with a corporation that is defunct, has changed its name, changed its
form of organization (e.g., from a partnership or C corporation to an
S corporation), filed under a parent entity, filed under a different
identification number, or merged with another entity. The IRS will
report the dollars assessed on delinquent corporation and employment
tax returns, but these amounts are not synonymous with the nonfiling
gap, and are not a suitable basis for estimating that gap.
Recommendation 2:
Set a deadline for developing data that can be used to measure the
performance of its business nonfiler compliance activities overall.
Comment:
We agree to set a deadline for developing data that can be used to
measure the performance of IRS business nonfiler compliance
activities. The NFEAC governs Servicewide Nonfiler Performance and
Outcome Measures for the IRS Enforcement Committee. This topic will be
included in the agenda for the September 2010 Nonfiler Executive
Advisory Council (NFEAC) quarterly meeting.
Recommendation 3:
Develop a separate efficiency measure for business nonfilers insofar
as doing so is cost effective.
Comment:
We agree to develop a separate efficiency measure for business
nonfilers if doing so is cost effective. The NFEAC governs Servicewide
Nonfiler Performance and Outcome Measures for the IRS Enforcement
Committee. This topic will be included in the agenda for the September
2010 NFEAC quarterly meeting. We will determine if it is cost
effective to develop a separate BMF Nonfiler Efficiency measure and,
if so, assign this for development.
Recommendation 4:
Develop an evaluation plan for the BMF CCNIP selection codes,
including both an initial evaluation and an ongoing monitoring plan,
and conduct a study based on this plan. Results from the study and the
ongoing monitoring could be used to refine the selection codes to
improve the effectiveness of the program.
Comment:
The BMF CCNIP team conducts weekly analysis to evaluate and monitor
the volume, status, select codes, and primary codes of the BMF CCNIP
inventory. Each week the team meets to discuss the current Campus
inventories and previous week's analysis before they confirm and load
the current week's selections. Meeting minutes and analysis are posted
to BMF CCNIP's SharePoint site. Additionally, the Team recently held
their initial BMF CCNIP annual meeting and met with developers on July
20-21, 2010 to evaluate CCNIP and review planned enhancements. They
also reviewed CCNIP Business Objects Reports and will formalize
requirements for a "TC 141" report that will provide monthly data on
selections. Requirements for the "Select Code Effectiveness Reports"
will be developed within six months; however, complete results (i.e.,
resolution type and dollars collected) will not be available on cases
created by CCNIP until the end of FY 2011. Many delinquencies must
flow through the entire compliance stream before there is resolution,
so data that predicts Select Code "effectiveness" should not be
studied until it is complete and available. We expect the TC 141
report to be in production within 90 days and the "Select Code
Effectiveness Report" by the end of FY 2011.
Recommendation 5:
Add closing codes that would better indicate all known causes for "not
liable to file" determinations and use this information to analyze
causes of unproductive cases and use them as appropriate to identify
any actions IRS could take either administratively or through
education and outreach that could reduce the number of business
nonfiler cases where the filing requirement in IRS's records is not
applicable.
Comment:
We agree that additional closing codes to capture more specific
reasons why BMF taxpayers are determined to be "not liable to file" a
tax return may provide opportunities for IRS to improve upon its
ability to identify potential nonfilers. The IRS currently uses
roughly 30 different closing codes to satisfy modules for which the
taxpayer was not liable to file a return. The IRS will conduct a
coordinated review of the existing closing codes to determine where
capturing additional reasons for not liable determinations would prove
valuable for future research efforts. Cost and added complexity may
argue for not adding more codes.
Recommendation 6:
Reinforce to collection staff the need to check for business activity
using information return data and selection codes.
Comment:
The BMF CCNIP Select Code training was developed and presented to
Campus Return Delinquency managers and employees this year during
Campus Filing and Payment Compliance Program reviews for FY 2010. The
material addresses the use of BMF CCNIP Selection Codes as a research
tool. With an understanding of the specific third-party criteria for
each Select Code, employees can easily determine what type of
additional research (i.e., income, payer, or Combined Annual Wage
Reporting) is needed to resolve a case and conduct a full-compliance
check. The training material will be shared with collection functional
training coordinators for reinforcing use of information return data
and selection codes to check for business activity.
Recommendation 7:
Study the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using private sector
business activity data and federal contract data to make a
determination of whether federal contractors and other businesses are
liable for filing tax returns.
Comment:
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) made a
similar recommendation involving the use of private sector data to
identify potential nonfilers. In FY 2009, the IRS initiated a study to
address the feasibility of using private data sources to identify non-
filers not captured by other systems. The IRS' Office of Research
looked into what would be required should the IRS decide to purchase
private data, and attempts were made to determine what benefits the
IRS might realize. They concluded that it is difficult to quantify the
benefits because IRS would be purchasing data from information
resellers without assurance that the IRS would not receive duplicate
records or that the data purchased would produce revenue-generating
casework. The most exhaustive marketing data companies have over 14
million listings available. Most IRS data are set up to match on
Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs), and an automated process to
effectively match purchased lists of business names to TINs in IRS
systems does not currently exist. A new study involving the use of
private sector data will likely produce the same results as the IRS
study initiated in FY 2009 and completed March 2010. With regard to
using federal contractor data to make a determination for filing tax
returns, the IRS will evaluate the effectiveness of data mining using
the Central Contractor Registration database maintained by the General
Services Administration.
Recommendation 8:
Establish a process similar to the FERDI program for federal workers
and retirees that will give a high priority to businesses identified
as potential nonfilers that have federal contracts.
Comment:
We will explore the feasibility of establishing a system for
prioritizing and routing federal contractor nonfiler cases (i.e.,
leverage the federal contractor indicator in the nonfiler process
through our Inventory Delivery System (IDS). We continue to believe
that the IDS is the most cost-effective and efficient way to ensure
that high priority cases are brought into active inventory.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
James R. White, (202) 512-9110 or whitej@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Ralph Block, Assistant
Director; Linda Baker; Amy Spiehler; Donna Miller; Jeffrey Niblack;
A.J. Stephens; James Ungvarsky; and John Zombro made key contributions
to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] IRS defines the tax gap as the difference between what taxpayers
pay voluntarily and on time and what they should pay under the law.
This is the gross tax gap. IRS also publishes an estimate net of all
receipts. Unless noted, in this report the tax gap is defined as the
gross tax gap. While IRS does not have an estimate of the business
nonfiling tax gap, it does have an estimate for estate tax nonfiling.
[2] See, for example, GAO, Tax Compliance: Better Compliance Data and
Long-term Goals Would Support a More Strategic Approach to Reducing
the Tax Gap, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-573]
(Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2005).
[3] We judgmentally selected these two states to get a geographic mix
of states that had sufficient cases that were closed as not liable to
file tax year 2007 returns to test the viability of using private
sector data.
[4] A business may request an EIN on-line or by using Form SS-4.
[5] IRS considers employers, sole proprietors, corporations,
partnerships, tax-exempt organizations, trusts, estates of decedents,
and other entities to be businesses. Sole proprietors, however, do not
file business income tax returns. Rather, sole proprietors report the
income and expenses of the business on a schedule attached to their
individual tax returns but may be required to file other types of
business tax returns, e.g., employment or excise taxes, for which they
need an EIN.
[6] This is the Servicewide definition of a nonfiler in IRS's Nonfiler
Strategy, discussed later in this report.
[7] A corporation is a legal construct (often a business entity)
created in conformance with statutory requirements that acts as a
separate and distinct legal entity apart from its owners and that has
other legal rights such as the ability to own property, enter into
contracts, and issue stock. Typically, a corporation's shareholders
have limited liability, meaning they are not personally liable for the
debts of the corporation beyond their investment. Under the Internal
Revenue Code, corporations are classified as C corporations or S
corporations. A corporation can elect to be treated as an S
corporation for tax purposes if it meets certain eligibility
requirements, including having no more than 100 shareholders. 26
U.S.C. § 1361. In recent years S corporations have been one of the
fastest growing business entity types. See GAO, Tax Gap: Actions
Needed to Address Noncompliance with S Corporation Tax Rules, GAO-10-
195 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2009). Any corporation not eligible or
not electing to be treated as an S corporation is treated as a C
corporation. Generally, income earned by C corporations is taxed at
the corporate tax rate at the corporate level. In addition,
distributions to stockholders are taxed as income at the shareholders'
rates.
[8] 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)(2); 26 C.F.R. § 1.6012-2.
[9] In general, all domestic partnerships that have income,
deductions, or credits for federal income tax purposes during a tax
year must file a return of partnership income (Form 1065) for that
year. 26 U.S.C. § 6031(a); 26 C.F.R. § 1.6031(a)-1(a). This
requirement encompasses entities such as limited liability
corporations that are treated as partnerships for federal income tax
purposes. Certain eligible syndicates, pools, or joint ventures, such
as investing and operating agreement partnerships, may elect not to be
treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes and are not
required to file a Form 1065, although their members must still report
their share of the partnership's income. 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.761-2,
1.6031(a)-1(c). Certain publicly traded partnerships are treated as
corporations and file Form 1120. 26 U.S.C. § 7704. Foreign
partnerships are generally only required to file if the partnership
had gross income from a source within the United States or income
effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within
the United States. 26 U.S.C. § 6031(e); 26 C.F.R. § 1-6031(a)-1(b).
[10] The information returns reporting income are known as Form K-1s.
See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Should Take Steps to Improve the
Accuracy of Schedule K-1 Data, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1040] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30,
2004) and Tax Administration: Changes to IRS's Schedule K-1 Document
Matching Program Burdened Compliant Taxpayers, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-667] (Washington, D.C.: May 30,
2003).
[11] These totals include information returns filed on sole
proprietors where the sole proprietor withholds FICA and income tax
under an EIN that is the tax identification number for the business.
[12] Federal agencies use Form 8596 to report this information. See
GAO, Tax Administration: More Can Be Done to Ensure Federal Agencies
File Accurate Information Returns, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-74] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5,
2003).
[13] See GAO, Tax Administration: Improving IRS' Business Nonfiler
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-89-39]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 1989) and Tax Administration: IRS Could
Reduce the Number of Unproductive Business Nonfiler Investigations,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-88-77] (Washington,
D.C.: May 24, 1988).
[14] See Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, The
Internal Revenue Service Needs a Coordinated National Strategy to
Better Address an Estimated $30 Billion Tax Gap Due to Nonfilers
(Reference No. 2006-30-006, Nov. 22, 2005) and Additional Steps Need
to be Completed to Ensure the Success of the Service-wide Non-filer
Strategy (Reference No. 2008-30-165, Sept. 22, 2008).
[15] TIGTA's 2008 report following up on the implementation of IRS's
Nonfiler Strategy found that Servicewide performance measures needed
to be developed.
[16] See GAO, The Merits of Establishing a Business Information Return
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD-87-4]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 1987); IRS Needs to Implement a Corporate
Document Matching Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD-91-40] (Washington, D.C.: June
10, 1991); and Tax Administration: Benefits of a Corporate Matching
Program Exceed the Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-91-118] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
27, 1991).
[17] See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Strengthen Its Approach
for Evaluating the SRFMI Data-Sharing Pilot Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-45] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7,
2008). Several pilot phases have been completed. As of January 2010,
in response to our recommendation, IRS had completed a plan to
evaluate the pilot.
[18] IRS's National Research Program (NRP) updates the tax gap
estimates. Its nonfiling estimates seek to estimate noncompliance by
all nonfilers, both those known to IRS and those unknown. A
comprehensive effort to measure compliance for different types of
taxes and various sets of taxpayers, the NRP is intended to provide a
statistically valid representation of the compliance characteristics
of taxpayers.
[19] See GAO, Tax Debt Collection: IRS Has a Complex Process to
Attempt to Collect Billions of Dollars in Unpaid Tax Debt, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-728] (Washington, D.C.: June 13,
2008), appendix III.
[20] An internal IRS research report done in 2001 on business
nonfilers found that about 28 percent of businesses identified as
nonfilers had more than 1 nonfiler module and some had up to 20
nonfiler modules.
[21] IRS recognized the importance of an evaluation plan by producing
one for its State Reverse File Match Initiative (SRFMI) program. This
evaluation plan was in response to our recommendation to develop such
a plan. See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Strengthen Its
Approach for Evaluating the SRFMI Data-Sharing Pilot Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-45] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 7, 2008).
[22] IRS data indicate that 96 percent of the cases were closed in
2008 and 2009. The remaining 4 percent of the cases were closed in
2007 and 2010.
[23] All reference to cases in this section relate to unique
businesses.
[24] We eliminated all cases from our analysis that IRS closed as not
liable to file a return because they were subsidiaries of other
businesses.
[25] Another 7 percent (2,941 cases) of the cases were closed as not
liable to file a return because there was little or no tax due.
[26] According to Internal Revenue Manual section 5.1.18.4, IRS has a
contract with Accurint for its national asset locator tool and a
contract with Smart.Alx, which is a Web browser used to access credit
reports.
[27] See appendix I for an explanation of the D&B data matching
process.
[28] Of the 7,688 cases, 3,960 cases had information return income of
less than $1,000 while the remaining 3,728 cases had no information
return income.
[29] The CCR also contains data on federal assistance awards, which
include grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of federal
assistance.
[30] Federal contractors that owe delinquent taxes currently receive
priority treatment. Under the Federal Payment Levy Program (FPLP)
businesses and individuals who receive federal payments such as
certain Social Security benefits, federal wages, and federal contract
payments are subject to a continuous levy of up to 15 percent of
individual and recurring specified payments. The American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004 amended IRS's continuous levy authority by
providing for a 100 percent levy on specified federal
contractor/vendor payments.
[31] For tax year 2008, IRS processed 116,148 Forms 8596 for 102,248
taxpayer entities that had a valid EIN.
[32] Where a subsidiary elects to have its income, losses, and
deductions included in the parent business's consolidated income tax
return, Form 1122 must be completed by the subsidiary and filed with
the parent business's income tax return.
[33] A corporation electing to be taxed as an S corporation notifies
IRS by filing a Form 2553. For businesses ceasing to operate, IRS's
Web site has a checklist of actions to be taken, including writing IRS
a letter. See [hyperlink,
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98703,00.html] and
[hyperlink,
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=177073,00.html],
downloaded on May 7, 2010. IRS's Web site and, in some cases, the tax
forms themselves, provide information on how and what types of changes
businesses must communicate to IRS. Once IRS has received notification
of a change, it can update its record of the business's filing
requirement on its Business Master File (BMF) as needed.
[34] There is also a selection code of 00, which indicates cases that
are "on hold." An example of such a case would be one that is being
investigated as a criminal case.
[35] Certain selection codes apply only to particular return types.
[36] Primary codes are assigned to a case by the BMF CCNIP. However,
these codes existed prior to the creation of BMF CCNIP and were
assigned by the Business Master File.
[37] Type Indicator Codes (TIC)--added with the establishment of the
BMF CCNIP--are also applied to cases before they are placed on the
nonfiler inventory. TIC codes may be used to accelerate a case
directly to the collections function. For example, taxpayers that have
filed an extension but still have not filed by the extension deadline
receive an accelerated TIC code because they have shown the intention
to file when they asked for the extension. While every case is
assigned a TIC code, most cases receive one that directs a case
through the normal process of the nonfiler inventory. Currently,
accelerated TIC codes are rarely used.
[38] The campuses that process business nonfiler cases are Brookhaven
(NY), Cincinnati (OH), Memphis (TN), Ogden (UT), and Philadelphia (PA).
[39] Case creation analysts also use a "default schedule" to guide
their decisions. The default schedule is created annually and provides
a guide for case creation analysts by setting weekly values for each
of the variables that the analysts must choose. IRS officials told us
that the default schedule is referred to on a weekly basis, but
selections often vary from those proposed in the schedule.
[40] When a case is in notice stage, TDI Analysis--a computer program--
periodically reexamines information on the case to determine whether a
case will receive the second notice, be closed, or be directed onward.
TDI Analysis also updates information on the Business Master File.
[41] Revenue officers and some call-site operators have the ability to
use the 6020(b) program to prepare a return for business nonfilers as
well.
[42] Cases can also be sent to CSCO or a6020(b) from the Queue, but
these cases are relatively less frequent.
[43] When employment tax delinquencies continue to accumulate after
the taxpayer has been assigned to the field for pursuit, IRS considers
the case to be "pyramiding." IRM Section 5.7.8 describes the
pyramiding cases and the role of the field in pursuing them.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
