Recommendation: To make it more likely that HHS will achieve its goals to reduce quality measure misalignment and associated provider burden, the Secretary of HHS should direct CMS and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to prioritize their development of electronic quality measures and associated standardized data elements on the specific quality measures needed for the core measure sets that CMS and private payers have agreed to use.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2019, HHS told us that CMS completed an analysis to determine which measures-from the core measure sets that CMS and private payers have agreed to use-are feasible to develop as electronic clinical quality measures. Further, in April 2019, CMS officials told us they will consider developing new electronic clinical quality measures where appropriate and feasible to fill future measure needs or gaps identified by the Core Quality Measures Collaborative (CQMC). However, we determined that the actions did not fully address the recommendation because they do not include efforts to work with ONC to prioritize their development of electronic clinical quality measures for the CQMC core measure sets. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To make it more likely that HHS will achieve its goals to reduce quality measure misalignment and associated provider burden, the Secretary of HHS should direct CMS to comprehensively plan, including setting timelines, for how to target its development of new, more meaningful quality measures on those that will promote greater alignment, especially measures to strengthen the core measure sets that CMS and private payers have agreed to use.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2019, HHS told us that CMS had conducted an assessment of the impact of selected measures used in its quality programs and has linked key component of that assessment to some meaningful measure areas that CMS has identified as priorities. However, this document did not include elements of a comprehensive plan--such as setting timelines-for how to target its development of new, more meaningful quality measures that will promote greater alignment. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To increase the effectiveness of IRS's examinations individual tax returns, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should transcribe data from paper-filed Form 1040 Schedules C and E that are not currently transcribed and make that data available to SB/SE examiners for classification. If IRS has evidence that the costs related to transcribing all such data on Schedules C and E are prohibitive, IRS could do one or both of the following actions: (1) transcribe less data by transcribing only the missing data for selected line items, such as certain, large expense line items, or (2) develop a budget proposal to fund an initiative for transcribing Schedule C and E.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS has taken some steps to implement this May 2013 recommendation. In September 2015, IRS completed a study on whether to transcribe more data from paper-filed returns. IRS officials said the study showed that the benefits to be derived from additional transcription are not significant and would not outweigh the added cost. That study did not provide specific information about the costs and benefits of transcribing information from Schedules C and E. In December 2018, IRS provided a cost-benefit estimate for transcribing all data from Schedules C and E and concluded that the cost of transcribing all additional Schedule C and Schedule E lines would exceed the expected benefits. This analysis satisfied the first part of GAO's recommendation. However, the study did not address whether transcribing certain, select lines on Schedules C and E would be cost-effective, as GAO's recommendation suggested. Having specific data transcribed and electronically available likely will improve the classification of audits as well as the quality of the audits, according to examiners GAO spoke with for the report. As of March 2020, GAO continues to monitor IRS's progress.

Recommendation: Congressmay wish to consider amending the Internal Revenue Code to authorize IRS to assess penalties on preparers for failure to comply with section 6011(e)(3).

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: A bill was introduced on June 28, 2011, which would have amended electronic filing requirements for paid preparers. This included language amending section 6695 of the Internal Revenue Code to include a penalty of $50 for failure to electronically file returns under section 6011 (e)(3). However, this bill was never enacted. As of January 2020, there are no bills pending that would provide IRS with authority to penalize paid preparers for failure to electronically file returns as GAO recommended

Recommendation: To ensure that IRS can adequately enforce certain tax provisions, Congress may wish to consider providing IRS with MEA to use tax return information from previous years to ensure that taxpayers do not improperly claim credits or deductions in excess of lifetime limits where applicable.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as GAO suggested in February 2010. Section 208 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113 enacted in December 2015) gave IRS the authority to use math error authority if (1) a taxpayer claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) during the period in which a taxpayer is not permitted to claim such credit as a consequence of either having made a prior fraudulent or reckless claim; or (2) a taxpayer omitted information required to be reported because the taxpayer made prior improper claims of the Child Tax Credit or the AOTC. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what GAO suggested in February 2010, GAO maintains that a broader authorization of math error authority with appropriate controls would enable IRS to correct obvious noncompliance, would be less intrusive and burdensome to taxpayers than audits, and would potentially help taxpayers who underclaim tax benefits to which they are entitled. If Congress decides to extend broader math error authority to IRS, controls may be needed to ensure that this authority is used properly such as requiring IRS to report on its use of math error authority. The Administration also requested that Congress expand IRS's math error authority as part of the Service's Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Report and Plan for fiscal year 2021. Specifically, the Administration requested authority to correct a taxpayer's return in the following circumstances: 1) the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases or Form W-2, or from other third party databases as the Secretary determines by regulation; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required to be included on or attached to the return. As of March 2020, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority.

Recommendation: To gain efficiencies and improve taxpayer service, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the appropriate officials, based on the quality of service provided by comparable organizations and on what matters most to the customer, to determine a customer service telephone standard, and the resources required to achieve this standard based on input from Congress and other stakeholders.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2019, IRS finalized a customer service strategy identifying an optimal telephone level of service. According to the strategy, IRS has a process to compare major metrics with other agencies and private industry, and conducted two studies to look at industry practices. In response to our recommendation, IRS compared its telephone data with similar telephone environments, and determined that a telephone level of service between 70 and 80 percent provides an optimal balance for servicing customer service telephones and paper correspondence requests. However, IRS faced two significant challenges in managing the 2019 filing season: (1) implementing major tax law changes from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), and (2) a lapse in appropriations that left IRS unfunded during five weeks leading up to the opening of the 2019 filing season. As a result of issues stemming from these challenges, IRS revised its 2019 filing season telephone service goals from 80 percent to 65 percent during the filing season, and from 75 percent to 63 percent for all of fiscal year 2019. By not maintaining the identified optimal level of service standard, IRS is missing opportunities to illustrate gaps between actual and desired levels of service that may have resulted from issues linked to TCJA implementation and the lapse in appropriations. IRS did outline steps it is taking to achieve the optimal range of 70-80 percent telephone level of service outlined in its customer service strategy. Specifically, IRS said that it is working to upgrade equipment for all IRS business units that provide telephone services to taxpayers. It also cited examples of these upgrades, such as implementing a customer callback system that allows callers to keep their place in queue without remaining on the phone. While IRS said it has allocated funding to begin the development and installation of the customer callback feature, it did not provide an estimate of the resources required to upgrade the equipment and otherwise achieve the optimum range of telephone level of service. By not providing sufficient information to Congress on resources needed to achieve an optimal level of service, IRS is missing opportunities to justify the resources it believes are needed to improve taxpayer service.