Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Income taxes"
GAO-20-454, Jun 16, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-366, May 28, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-70, Jan 28, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS stated that they would review and consider developing further specific instructions within the Internal Revenue Manual, the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Audit Techniques Guide or other IRS training material to aid examiners. We believe that implementing this recommendation will help ensure that IRS is aware of when companies with at-risk single-employer defined benefit plans are reporting assets set aside to pay deferred compensation to key executives while in a restricted period as income for those employees
Agency: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: DOL stated that it does not have plans to issue guidance or regulations regarding executive retirement plans, citing, among other considerations, existing resource constraints and priority regulatory and guidance projects in development, and that it would not be advisable to shift resources from other projects. GAO continues to maintain that DOL's one-time single page alternative reporting for executive retirement plans lacks important information sufficient to help the agency identify whether companies may be including ineligible employees in its plan and DOL's current data on executive retirement plans has limited usefulness due to the age and limits of the original data submitted.
Agency: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: DOL stated that the agency has not encountered evidence of systematic abuses involving executive retirement plans or that ERISA's claims procedure rules and judicial remedies are inadequate to protect participants' benefit rights. However, we reported that industry surveys indicate that some companies may be extending employee eligibility to high percentages of their workforce who are lower-paid and lower-ranked employees who may not be considered a part of a select group. Industry experts also told us that plan eligibility requirements for executive retirement plans are not clearly defined and that companies are unclear on how to establish eligibility, and they identified court cases that contribute to the confusion regarding plan eligibility. Implementing this recommendation will help ensure that only executives who can bear the risks inherent in these plans are participating.
Agency: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: DOL suggested a remedy in an amicus brief for companies to follow to correct eligibility errors in these plans could have unintended consequences for participants because, according to IRS officials, it could result in violations of federal tax law and additional tax for participants. We urge DOL to develop instructions to correct eligibility errors, in coordination with other federal agencies, as needed, in a way that does not adversely affect rank-and-file employees participating in these plans.
GAO-20-210, Jan 27, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-491, Sep 5, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. In a July 2020 letter to GAO, IRS said the Tax Exempt/Government Entities division is documenting the process for reviewing Form 8886-T filings and analyzing whether all tax-exempt entities that should file Form 8886-T are filing it as required. As of August 2020, IRS officials expected to complete their analysis in November 2020. GAO continues to monitor IRS's progress.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, IRS officials said they were working to determine if database coding on abusive schemes involving tax-exempt entities can be added across the agency's audit divisions. As of August 2020, IRS officials said this work will be done by June 2021. GAO continues to monitor IRS's progress.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In a July 2020 letter 2020, IRS officials said they agreed with this recommendation and have begun to analyze its feasibility. IRS's plans include determining if the Return Inventory Classification System (RICS) could support analysis and monitoring of audit data across IRS's operating divisions. To that end, IRS plans to host cross-divisions meetings to determine what data can be shared and how the data can be monitored with RICS. As of August 2020, IRS expected to complete its analysis by March 2022. GAO continues to monitor IRS's progress.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In a July 2020 letter, IRS said it will explore the use of existing data analytic tools to mine data and to identify undiscovered exempt-entity involvement in abusive tax schemes. As part of that effort, IRS plans to continue to evolve its text processing. IRS also plans to determine if optical character recognition can be used to identify keywords in disclosure reports that could help determine whether a tax-exempt entity was a party to a reportable transaction that warrants further investigation and whether that would be productive. As of August 2020, IRS expected to complete its analysis by March 2022. GAO continues to monitor IRS's progress.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In a July 2020 letter, IRS said it agreed with the recommendation and will develop guidance to assist mangers across the agency's divisions to ensure referrals involving tax-exempt entities are directed to the Tax Exempt/Government Entities (TE/GE) division. The letter also said IRS plans to provide training across examination units to instruct staff to make referrals appropriately and correctly. IRS expects to complete the TE/GE guidance and training material by June 2021. As of August 2020, TE/GE officials said the other examination divisions are expected to incorporate the forthcoming procedural guidance in their work processes by 2022. GAO continues to monitor IRS's progress.
GAO-19-495, Jun 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation and plans to create an internal procedure manual which will document the Office of Exemption Determinations' process for managing IRA prohibited transaction exemption applications. When we confirm what actions DOL has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation and plans to periodically discuss all IRA exemption cases with IRS and did not elaborate on the formal means for this information sharing. IRS said that it has met with DOL to formalize collaboration on exemptions from prohibited transaction treatment in IRAs. DOL agreed to contact IRS within 25 days of DOL receiving an IRA prohibited transaction exemption application to determine if there are any Internal Revenue Code issues. To avoid any disclosure concerns, DOL will not identify the applicant at that time. This new process will be reflected in DOL's forthcoming internal procedure manual for the prohibited transaction exemption process.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation and said it has met with DOL to formalize collaboration on exemptions from prohibited transaction treatment in IRAs. DOL agreed to contact IRS within 25 days of DOL receiving an IRA prohibited transaction exemption application to determine if there are any Internal Revenue Code issues. To avoid any disclosure concerns, DOL will not identify the applicant at that time. This new process will be reflected in DOL's forthcoming internal procedure manual for the prohibited transaction exemption process.
GAO-19-340, May 9, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9110
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: No action has been taken on this matter as of December 2019.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In its initial response to our draft report, IRS disagreed with this recommendation. In November 2019, IRS said that it agreed with the intent of the recommendation, but did not agree to implement it, citing the need for additional explicit authority to establish security requirements for the information systems of paid preparers and others who electronically file. IRS reported that to effectively establish data safeguarding policies and implement strategies enforcing compliance with those policies, a centralized leadership structure requires the statutory authority that clearly communicates the authority of the IRS to do so. Without such authority, implementing the recommendation would be an inefficient, ineffective, and costly use of resources, according to IRS. We disagree that convening a governance structure or other centralized form of leadership would require additional statutory authority or be inefficient, ineffective, and costly. As discussed in the report, IRS has seven different offices across the agency working on information security-related activities that could benefit from centralized oversight and coordination, such as updating existing standards, monitoring Authorized e-file Provider program compliance, and tracking security incident reports.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its initial response to our draft report, IRS disagreed with this recommendation. In November 2019, IRS said it agreed with this recommendation and would update IRS Publication 1345, Handbook for Authorized IRS e-File Providers of Individual Income Tax Returns, to include security elements that are consistent with the FTC Safeguards Rule. IRS plans to update the publication by November 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its initial response to our draft report, IRS disagreed with this recommendation. In November 2019, IRS stated it was in agreement with the intent of this recommendation; however, IRS does not plan to implement it without additional statutory authority to require Authorized e-file Provider Program participants to comply with the NIST Special Publication 800-53. We continue to believe that under IRS's existing authority, IRS has already established some information security requirements for a portion of tax software providers, those that are online providers. IRS has the opportunity to further establish standards for all tax software providers by incorporating the subset of NIST controls into its Authorized e-file Provider program, which would capitalize on the work it has completed with the Security Summit members.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation and in November 2019 said that it will update IRS Publication 1345, Handbook for Authorized IRS e-File Providers of Individual Income Tax Returns, with a formal memorandum to all internal stakeholders during the annual review process. IRS plans to take this action by November 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its initial response to our draft report, IRS disagreed with this recommendation. In November 2019, IRS stated it was in agreement with the intent of this recommendation; however, it does not plan to implement it. IRS reported it does not have the statutory authority to establish policy on information security and cybersecurity issues, nor to enforce compliance if noncompliance is observed. Additionally, IRS said that the specialized technical skills required to monitor compliance with information and cybersecurity standards, should statutory authority be granted, would require additional funding to meet those monitoring needs. However, as we reported, IRS already monitors physical aspects of information security, which goes beyond existing Authorized e-file Provider program requirements. Since most individuals now file tax returns electronically, having checks for physical security without comparable checks for cybersecurity does not address current risks, as cyber criminals and fraudsters are increasingly attacking third-party providers, as IRS has noted. We believe that incorporating some basic cybersecurity monitoring into the visits would provide IRS the opportunity to help inform the most vulnerable third-party providers of additional guidance and resources.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its initial response to our draft report, IRS disagreed with this recommendation. In November 2019, IRS said it agreed with the intent of this recommendation; however it does not plan to implement it. IRS stated that absent statutory authority and funding, an assessment of the different monitoring approaches is moot. We disagree with this conclusion. As discussed in the report, IRS does not systematically monitor the existing security requirements for online providers, nor does it conduct information security or cybersecurity monitoring for all types of Authorized e-file Providers. We believe that IRS could conduct a risk assessment of its current monitoring program within existing statutory authority and make necessary changes that would provide better assurance that all types of providers are receiving some level of oversight and that IRS is addressing the greatest risk areas appropriately.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation and in November 2019 said that it would develop a standardized process for all Authorized e-file Providers to report security incidents to IRS. IRS said it plans to update IRS Publication 1345, Handbook for Authorized IRS e-File Providers of Individual Income Tax Returns, to include this standardized process by November 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its initial response to our draft report, IRS agreed with this recommendation. In November 2019, IRS said it agreed with this recommendation with respect to the formal process for tax professionals to report data breaches to the IRS through the Stakeholder Liaison function within the Communications and Liaison organization. According to IRS, procedures are documented in the Data Breach Incident Reporting Instructions that are followed during the intake process. IRS said that upon completion, the breach information is disseminated to other offices within the IRS, depending on the nature of the breach incident reported. According to IRS, all 2018 and 2019 Tax Pro Data Breach incidents remain stored in the Data Breach module of the Return Preparer Database. We will follow up to confirm the information IRS described and determine if these procedures cover all of the IRS offices included in our report.
GAO-19-179, Mar 28, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. The agency said it would consider the recommendation as part of its overall evaluation of the Form 5500. IRS said it would work with DOL as it responds to this recommendation.
GAO-19-88, Jan 18, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would work with Treasury to consider clarifying the issues raised by this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would work with Treasury to consider addressing the issues outlined in this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. However, DOL stated it plans to continue to evaluate whether there are circumstances in which the transfer of uncashed distribution checks from an ongoing plan to the states advances the goal of reuniting missing participants with their savings, which is consistent with this recommendation. We commend DOL for recognizing the importance of this issue and will monitor the agency's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-18-323, Apr 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open
Comments: RRB reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. In January 2020, the agency received a cost estimate from SSA for a proposed data exchange. In May 2020, RRB and SSA held an inaugural conference call and reached an understanding of the technical requirements to move forward with a data exchange. As of June 2020, RRB reports that systems analysts at SSA are developing the procedures and systems necessary for an electronic data exchange. GAO will close this recommendation when the data system is implemented.
Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, RRB reports that it has been working to draft documentation of the financial interchange calculation process, and sharing drafts of this documentation with SSA for its review. SSA has requested revisions in this documentation and RRB plans to hire additional staff to implement GAO's recommendation. GAO will close this recommendation once RRB finalizes its documentation of the financial interchange calculation process.
Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, RRB reports that it is in the process of developing formal review policies and plans to include them in its written documentation of the financial interchange process. GAO will close this recommendation once RRB's formal review policy is complete.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SSA reported that it received a data exchange request from RRB in October 2018. RRB proposed to send SSA a file of beneficiary and earnings data, and receive calculations for sample financial interchange cases. RRB and SSA discussed options for exchanging information electronically. In early 2020, SSA reported that it is developing a Rough Order of Magnitude/Cost Estimate for electronically sharing data and limiting the reliance of the financial interchange process on manual data entry under its existing agreement. The agency has no timeline to complete this effort.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, SSA reported that it has developed plans to review of a subset of financial interchange calculations as the individual-case level. SSA anticipates that this review will take place following the completion of RRB's fiscal year 2021-2022 financial interchange calculations. We will close this recommendation once SSA's review successfully takes place.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, HHS continues to disagree with this recommendation. HHS officials said that RRB is responsible for certifying its costs through the financial interchange, and that they believe the department lacks the authority to question RRB's calculations. We continue to believe that HHS would be better positioned to ensure that the transfers it makes and receives through the interchange are calculated correctly if it reviews case-level calculations. We will close this recommendation if HHS seeks the authority to review financial interchange calculations or takes other steps to ensure the accuracy of financial interchange calculations performed by RRB.
GAO-18-19, Jan 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: We will monitor congressional action related to this matter.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Labor agreed with this recommendation. In June 2019, the Department reported that it engaged with a range of stakeholders on issues surrounding missing and unresponsive participants, including representatives of plans, employers, financial services groups, consumer groups, and state unclaimed property funds. Their goal is to help plans locate and pay retirement benefits to missing participants and beneficiaries; they will evaluate constructive guidance to issue. There is no specific timeline for next steps regarding subregulatory guidance or regulatory proposals. GAO will monitor the agency's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed to review taxation issues relating to distributions involving incorrect participant addresses and uncashed benefit checks and to clarify for the public the Internal Revenue Code's requirements in these circumstances. We will consider closing this recommendation when the agency provides evidence that it completed these efforts.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS disagreed with this recommendation, noting that the IRS address of record for a participant would likely be of no greater value than addresses available through alternatives such as commercial locator services. However, our report does not cite the accuracy of IRS addresses, but rather other benefits that make a program revision worth considering, specifically the likelihood that individuals will open IRS correspondence, and the trust DOL places in the service as way for plan fiduciaries to meet their obligations. IRS also stated that the limited number of IRS staff and resources impact the feasibility of reinstating this program for plan participants. We continue to believe that expanding the letter forwarding program would be beneficial, and we encourage IRS to consider cost-effective ways to do so.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. We encourage IRS to take the necessary steps to dispel any confusion U.S. individuals may have over how to properly classify and report their foreign retirement accounts on a U.S. tax return-such clarification should help ensure that these taxpayers can meet their tax reporting obligations.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS disagreed with this recommendation but not on its merits, citing a lack of resources to implement it. Specifically, IRS noted that although the modification to the Form 8938 suggested in this recommendation may seem minor, systemically collecting and analyzing the data would require resources beyond those currently available to IRS. However, our report notes that IRS indicated that they already collect foreign account filing data through the Form 8938 and that the current reporting requirements help the agency to "keep a line of sight" on U.S. individuals' foreign pension arrangements. IRS told us that without such data being reported, U.S. individuals with foreign retirement accounts may seek to avoid proper reporting on their tax returns when distributions are made. However, without agreeing to take steps to analyze these data reported by taxpayers, the question remains why the agency continues to collect such information-which we show in the report to present a substantial reporting burden on taxpayers-if the agency has no plan to analyze the data in order to make an informed decision about the risk for tax evasion that such accounts present. It is also unclear how IRS would maintain a line of sight on foreign retirement accounts belonging to U.S. individuals without analyzing the data reported by taxpayers on such accounts. We recognize that resources are limited. When staff and resources become available, IRS should modify the form and conduct a systematic analysis of these data-data that current law requires taxpayers to report-in order to assess the risk of tax evasion that foreign retirement accounts pose. Such an analysis can provide a basis to reach an evidence-based understanding of how these accounts change over time and what level of risk they pose for tax evasion, and U.S. individuals owning foreign retirement accounts will continue to face these substantial reporting burdens without the knowledge that the data they are required to provide will be put to good use by the federal government.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. The agency indicated it would work to improve the likelihood that the Notice of Potential Private Pension Benefit Information corresponds to actual retirement benefits in the future, and agreed to take steps to ensure that the data reported on Form 8955-SSA are accurate and to advise plan sponsors of any changes to reporting these data.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SSA agreed with this recommendation. In November 2019, SSA stated that the agency is meeting with the IRS regularly to discuss Form 8955-SSA, which provides the basis for the information shown in the "Potential Private Retirement Benefit Information" notice. The IRS agreed to incorporate SSA's suggestion to update Form 8955-SSA to explain that the filer should include the individual pension plan participant's full social security number (SSN) on the form. SSA reported that it is working with the IRS to clarify coding instructions for Form 8955-SSA and institute a new edit to its paper processing to ensure accuracy. They are also considering potential data exchanges with filers. We will monitor the agency's progress in completing these tasks.
GAO-18-224, Jan 30, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2019, IRS continues to disagree with this recommendation. IRS stated that it does not have all the information required for calculating and sending late penalty notifications prior to the beginning of the next filing season. However, in its response, IRS did not consider other options that could be available prior to finalizing penalty calculations, such as communicating with the employers earlier in the process. As noted in our report, quickly responding to employers that filed late increases the potential for compliance, thereby increasing the availability of W-2 data for systemic verification to detect and prevent fraud and noncompliance. We continue to believe that assessing the options for improving enforcement of late W-2 filing penalties, such as through earlier communication, would help IRS identify potential opportunities to encourage compliance with the W-2 filing deadline and verify more wage information before releasing refunds. We will continue to discuss options with IRS regarding this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS has assessed the benefits of modifying the refund hold, but it has not assessed the costs, as GAO recommended in January 2018. In November 2018, IRS provided its assessment of the February 15 refund hold. In it, IRS reiterated its findings regarding the benefits of the refund hold. These benefits included potential savings if IRS modified the hold to include all taxpayers, extended the hold to a later date when more W-2 data are available, or made both changes. However, IRS did not include any assessment of costs to achieve these potential savings, such as the costs for IRS to review any additional returns that would be identified under a modified refund hold. It did not assess taxpayer burden, either. IRS also did not determine how the February 15 refund hold informs IRS's overall compliance strategy for refundable tax credits and its fraud risk management strategy. In January 2019, IRS took actions to hold more returns beyond the February 15 refund hold date using a risk-based selection method. Nevertheless, without a complete assessment of the benefits and costs, including taxpayer burden, IRS is making a decision based upon incomplete information. Further, if Congress or Treasury considered making any changes, they too would have incomplete information on which to direct IRS's actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS has taken actions consistent with our recommendations by modifying its filters to hold more returns claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) beyond the February 15 refund hold date based on a risk-based selection method. In addition, in May 2019, IRS officials told us they are making similar changes for the 2020 filing season to hold more high-risk returns not claiming EITC or ACTC until W-2 data are available. This action, if taken, would be consistent with our recommendations. In 2018, IRS assessed the benefits of modifying the refund hold, however, it did not assess or document the costs, including taxpayer burden, or determine how the February 15 refund hold informs IRS's overall compliance strategy for refundable tax credits and its fraud risk management strategy. Completing these actions, along with the planned modifications, would fully address our recommendations, which would enable IRS to make decisions based on completed information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2019, IRS provided results for a pilot encouraging voluntary compliance through expanded systemic verification using W-2 data. In the pilot, IRS sent soft notices to a targeted group of taxpayers whose returns under-reported income compared to W-2 data. In its analysis, IRS reported that some taxpayers voluntarily amended their returns after receiving the soft notice, resulting in a net increase in tax revenue. If IRS determines that the benefits outweigh the costs of adopting this practice based on the pilot results, or assesses additional options to address other fraud and noncompliance before issuing refunds, it would satisfy our recommendation. We will continue to follow IRS's progress on the pilot and its results.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2019, IRS provided an evaluation of a pilot it conducted during tax year 2019. In the pilot, IRS sent soft notices to a targeted group of taxpayers whose returns under-reported income compared to W-2 data. In its analysis, IRS reported that some taxpayers voluntarily amended their returns after receiving the soft notice, resulting in a net increase in tax revenue. IRS told us they intend to continue the pilot during tax year 2020. We will continue to follow IRS's progress on the pilot and its results.
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS reported it does not agree with the recommendation. In September 2018, IRS officials stated that the Fiscal Year 2018-2022 IRS Strategic Plan included six strategic goals and six performance measures. However, none of those performance measures related to a long-term, quantitative goal for improving voluntary compliance. In its 60-day letter, IRS agreed that improving voluntary compliance is core to its mission; however, it stated that creating a quantifying goal will do little to advance that purpose. IRS provided several reasons why it should not create a quantitative measure, including the voluntary compliance rate could rise over time without any help from IRS, or fall despite additional effort from IRS. Further, IRS reported that the voluntary compliance rate is not effective to making strategic and operational decisions. However, as we note in the report, setting long-term strategic goals is essential for results-oriented management, because such goals explain in greater specificity the results an agency is intending to achieve. Further, focusing on intended results can promote strategic and disciplined management decisions that are more likely to be effective because managers who use fact-based performance analysis are better able to target areas most in need of improvement and to select appropriate interventions. As of August 2020, there has been no change in this status.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, IRS stated that it is working on a redesign of the National Research Program (NRP). The outcome of the redesign will determine the scope of the information available from NRP in the future. IRS reported that next steps to address this recommendation is contingent on the completion of the NRP redesign.
GAO-17-395, Jul 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, but the agency provided some evidence of its progress in implementing this recommendation. When IRS fully implements this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
GAO-17-467, Jul 13, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2623
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with this recommendation. On May 23, 2018, HHS's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that it is currently in the process of developing an improper payment measurement for the advance premium tax credit (PTC). The development of the measurement methodologies will be a multi-year process which consists of the development of measurement policies, procedures, and tools. It also includes extensive pilot testing to ensure an accurate and efficient improper payment estimate, as well as, acquisition activities for procurement of improper payment measurement contractors. In January 2020, CMS stated that it is still in the process of developing an improper payment measurement for the advance PTC. Further, CMS stated that it provided progress updates in the fiscal year 2019 HHS agency financial report (AFR), and will continue to do so in future AFRs until an improper payment rate is estimated. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. On February 28, 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services's (HHS) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that updates on the advance premium tax credit (PTC) program improper payment measurement development were provided in the fiscal year (FY) 2017 Agency Financial Report (AFR), which was published in November 2017. In FY 2018, we reviewed the FY 2017 AFR that HHS's CMS cited in support for closing this recommendation. Based on our review, the FY 2017 AFR does not address our recommendation as it does not provide a timeline for reporting an improper payment estimate. In FY 2019, we reviewed HHS's FY 2018 AFR published in November 2018, which includes a statement that HHS will continue to update its annual AFRs on the status of the measurement program development until the improper payment estimate is reported. However, this latest AFR also does not provide a timeline for reporting an improper payment estimate for HHS's PTC program. In January 2020, CMS stated that it is in the process of procuring federal contractors to perform the improper payment measurement. However, CMS further stated that due to uncertainties surrounding the timing of the procurement, CMS does not anticipate publishing a reporting timeline until the contracts have been awarded. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. Regarding verification of filer identity, HHS stated, in response to the draft report, that for individuals starting an application via phone, the call center representatives use verbal attestations for verifications from individuals. HHS stated that for paper applications, individuals must provide names and complete addresses as well as other information. In addition, HHS stated that individuals must attest that the information they provide on all applications is accurate by signing under penalty of perjury. However, these steps do not involve the verification of an applicant's identity to a third-party source. In August 2018, HHS officials stated that they are exploring alternatives for assessing risk and ensuring integrity of applicant information that is provided to the program and ways to ensure personal information provided by an individual is accurate through a variety of means. After this analysis phase, they will assess resource requirements, cost, and operational implications for potential implementation approaches with a target date for completion of 2019. As of December 2018, HHS had not designed and implemented procedures for verifying the identities of phone and mail applicants, as GAO recommended. As of January 2020, HHS indicated that it is developing new policy and guidance which could significantly change potential solutions or requirements. However, HHS did not provide us a time frame for when it plans to finalize the new policy and guidance. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) partially agreed with this recommendation. On December 13, 2019, IRS provided us a status update and stated that its Research, Applied Analytics and Statistics division completed an analysis of net premium tax credit (PTC) using National Research Program (NRP) tax years 2015 and 2014 data during the 4th quarter of fiscal year 2019 and developed improper payment estimates using two different methodological approaches. However, IRS indicated that it did not publish these improper payment estimates in Treasury's Agency Financial Report for two reasons: (1) there is as yet insufficient NRP data to develop an estimate that is within the confidence interval and margin of error prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget for improper payments sampling, and (2) the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) wishes to engage with Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the potential for developing a joint rate estimate for advance PTC and PTC. In addition, IRS noted that it had not yet determined whether this is even possible from a data compatibility standpoint. Further, IRS stated that while the estimates do not meet the statistical precision requirement, they do suggest that Net PTC would meet the criteria to be considered susceptible to significant improper payments. IRS indicated that when it last discussed this recommendation with GAO, it was suggested this recommendation would be closed once improper payment rates are published. However, IRS would now like GAO to consider closing this recommendation at this time given (1) the IRS's efforts to analyze potential improper payments, (2) Treasury's new approach to reporting, and (3) the need for additional years of data before a statistically valid estimate can be developed. We do not believe the recommendation should be closed at this time based on the three reasons IRS has listed above. However, we credit IRS for exploring ways to meet the intent of the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agreed with this recommendation. In December 2018, an IRS official indicated that IRS conducted a detailed review of the recommendation. IRS informed GAO that it is internally discussing an alternative way to address the recommendation to prevent premium tax credit to noncitizens. The IRS official indicated that IRS is reviewing this alternative with the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. IRS did not provide GAO with a time frame for its implementation. On December 13, 2019, IRS provided us a status update and stated that it had no new information for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-324, Mar 28, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, IRS officials said LB&I has developed and deployed the Campaign Development Form and the LB&I Taxpayer Registry to capture stakeholder input and feedback. The form documents all actions and a decision made on a particular campaign and is used to monitor real-time performance. While this will help IRS document lessons learned moving forward, IRS officials have not said how they would document lessons learned in the past.
GAO-16-475, May 27, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: No executive action taken as of December 2019. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disagreed with this May 2016 recommendation. IRS raised concerns about the cost of studying collections data for post-refund enforcement activities. GAO recognizes that gathering collections data has costs and the data have limitations, notably that not all recommended taxes are collected. However, use of these data -- once IRS is able to verify their reliability -- could better inform resource allocation decisions and improve the overall efficiency of enforcement efforts. By not taking necessary steps to ensure the reliability of that data and to link them to tax assessments to calculate a collections rate, IRS lacks critical information. Periodic reviews of collections data and analyses could help IRS officials more efficiently allocate limited enforcement resources by providing a more complete picture about compliance results and costs.
GAO-16-155, Feb 23, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9110
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS had taken some action to establish a mechanism to coordinate on a plan and timeline for developing a consolidated, online referral submission, as GAO recommended in its February 2016 report. IRS established a cross-functional team in February 2016 to comprehensively review IRS's referral programs. Among other things, the team has explored options to consolidate the initial screening operations and determine the scope and complexity for moving the referral process to an online format. According to IRS, an electronic submission process is expected to provide better access to the program and reduce the burden associated with making a written report or referral. In November 2016, the cross-functional team requested information technology resources for fiscal year 2019 to develop an online system which could potentially replace four separate referral forms, filter out incomplete referrals, and electronically route referrals for further IRS action. IRS assessed options for consolidating all forms for the various referral programs and determined that consolidating them to a single form was not feasible because of the technical nature and complexity of the various referral types. The cross-functional team had worked with IRS On Line Services to develop an online application prototype and was considering the cost-effectiveness of a commercial off-the-shelf product. According to IRS, the online application will make it easier for the public to report possible tax violations. Also, the online system will improve efficiency in coordination and provide reports that will be incorporated into the quarterly coordination meetings of the new cross-division referral coordination committee. As of January 2020, IRS was still considering funding for online referral submission development. IRS estimated that a commercial off-the-shelf product would cost about $2 million with an online referral capacity operational within one year. IRS said it will consider further consolidating the referral programs once the online application is in place. Without continued progress on efforts to consolidate referral intake, IRS faces continued inefficiencies in receiving and processing referrals as well as public confusion caused by trying to choose among multiple forms.
GAO-14-732, Sep 18, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7968
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS has taken actions to implement GAO's September 2014 recommendation, but the definition IRS provided is not likely to help it analyze results from audits of the very large partnerships that GAO's report covered. In September 2017, IRS defined large partnerships as those with assets of $10 million or more, without regard to the number of partners. With changes to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 partnership audit procedures and enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) (sections 1101 and 1102 of Public Law 114-74), IRS officials said that the number of partners is no longer a critical factor when defining a large partnership. IRS is correct that the number of partners is no longer relevant to this statutory definition of large partnership. The recently eliminated Electing Large Partnerships audit procedures had defined large partnerships as those with 100 or more direct partners in a taxable year. Even so, IRS's new definition of large partnerships is limited compared to large corporations. IRS has defined eight asset categories for tracking large corporation audit results while it has one for large partnerships, which vary widely based on asset amounts and complex structures. As GAO reported, during tax years 2002 through 2011, the number of large partnerships with 100 or more direct and indirect partners as well as $100 million or more in assets more than tripled to 10,099, some of which had assets exceeding $5 billion. In tax year 2011, more than two-thirds of these large partnerships had at least 100 or more pass-through entities as direct and indirect partners. Until IRS develops a more expansive definition of large partnerships, IRS may have challenges analyzing the results from its audits of large partnerships. As of January 2020, IRS had revised its activity codes to create a category for its large partnership definition as well as created a reporting and monitoring structure for its new definition to track the results from auditing large partnerships. IRS also created reports to regularly track audit results (e.g., dollar amounts, hours, number of returns, campus versus field locations) for this one category. IRS officials said they plan to use the reports to analyze audit results to identify opportunities to better plan and use resources in auditing large partnerships but this outcome may not be possible with the statutory changes governing partnerships. Given the challenges involving such audits, IRS officials said they have started efforts to better select partnership returns for audits based on compliance risk. They said these efforts will extend at least through fiscal year 2021. Thus, IRS does not yet know whether the audit results will be sufficient to analyze ways to better plan and use IRS audit resources as well as to analyze noncompliance risk for its new definition. IRS's analysis may not be able to achieve these ends with only one asset category to cover the wide range of asset amounts above $10 million.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS created a reporting and monitoring structure for its new large partnership definition to track the results from auditing large partnerships. IRS also created reports to regularly track audit results (e.g., dollar amounts, hours, number of returns, campus versus field locations) for this one category. IRS officials said they plan to use the reports to analyze audit results to identify opportunities to better plan and use resources in auditing large partnerships but this outcome may not be possible with the statutory changes governing partnerships. Thus, IRS does not yet know whether the audit results will be sufficient to analyze ways to better plan and use IRS audit resources as well as to analyze noncompliance risk for its new definition. IRS's analysis may not be able to achieve these ends with only one asset category to cover the wide range of asset amounts above $10 million. Given these and other challenges involving such audits, IRS officials said they have started efforts to better select partnership returns for audits based on compliance risk. They said these efforts will extend at least through fiscal year 2021.
GAO-14-479, Jun 5, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7968
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS correspondence audit program officials planned a working group to develop formal program objectives. In November 2016, IRS officials provided documents intended to define the program objectives, but the objectives were unclear. As of December 2019, IRS officials provided draft program objectives to GAO for discussion and are responding to comments from GAO. We will update the status when IRS provides any further supporting documentation, as we requested in March 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS officials said that, among other actions, they plan to review and update program documentation and guidance as warranted to ensure a clear link between correspondence audit program objectives and related measures. IRS officials provided documentation in November 2016, but program measures could not be clearly linked to objectives because the objectives were not clear. As of December 2019, IRS officials provided draft measures for their draft program objectives to GAO and are responding to comments from GAO. We will update the status when IRS provides any further supporting documentation, as we requested in March 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS officials said that, among other actions, they plan to review and update program documentation and guidance as warranted to ensure that program measures clearly link to IRS strategic goals. IRS officials provided documentation in November 2016,but measures for the program could not be clearly linked to either the program objectives or IRS goals because the objectives were not clear. As of December 2019, IRS officials provided GAO with draft linkages to IRS's strategic goals for the draft measures and program objectives and are responding to comments from GAO on those linkages. We will update the status when IRS provides any further supporting documentation, as we requested in March 2020.
GAO-14-453, May 14, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7968
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS stated that it understands the objective of this recommendation and, at such time that resources are available to enhance capabilities, it would consider the proposed methodology of advanced testing. However, based on current and anticipated budget constraints, it does not expect its plans to change in the near future. As of September 2020, there has been no change. As such we will continue to monitor progress.
GAO-13-662, Aug 22, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, IRS had taken some steps to implement this August 2013 recommendation, but had not developed a plan to track and reinvest any savings. IRS provided documents from October 2019 which discussed how portfolio management is used as a tool to prioritize and allocate time to eight compliance program areas, including CAP. IRS officials explained that any hours saved in a compliance program area are reallocated to the same or another compliance program area based on the division's strategic priorities rather than a plan focusing on CAP. Furthermore, CAP has not yet achieved the desired outcome of saving resources, according to IRS. If IRS finds any savings from CAP, it will need to develop a plan for reinvesting it to expand audit coverage. Without a plan for tracking savings and using them to increase audit coverage, IRS cannot be assured that the savings are effectively invested in either CAP or non-CAP taxpayers with a high compliance risk.
GAO-13-480, May 24, 2013
Phone: (202)512-5594
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.
GAO-13-156, Dec 18, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-9110
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendation from December 2012, but has made progress in developing a customer service strategy that defines appropriate levels of telephone service; however, as of February 2020, IRS had not finalized its strategy nor determined the appropriate levels of service for correspondence and wait time. In January 2017, IRS shared results of a benchmarking study that compared its telephone service, measures, and goals to comparable agencies and companies. The team that conducted the study recommended options for additional measures to indicate the level of access taxpayers have to service across service channels. In September 2019, IRS provided GAO its revised customer service strategy; however, it did not include correspondence service. In July 2019, the Taxpayer First Act (Public Law 116-25) was enacted which requires IRS to develop a comprehensive customer service strategy. As of February 2020, IRS had established an internal office to implement this requirement. Completion of a comprehensive customer service strategy that defines appropriate levels of service and wait time as well as specific steps to manage services based on an assessment of time frames, demand, capabilities, and resource requirements would enable IRS to make a more informed request to Congress about resources needed to deliver specific levels of service. Further, finalizing a long-term comprehensive strategy will help ensure IRS is maximizing the benefit to taxpayers and possibly reduce costs in other areas.
GAO-12-176, Dec 15, 2011
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, IRS had not developed a new measure for refund timeliness. In early 2019, Treasury announced that it would discontinue reporting the refund timeliness measure beginning with fiscal year 2019 because it was based on paper returns, which account for approximately 10 percent of returns. Nevertheless, as of January 2020, IRS continues to use this measure internally to monitor performance. During the 2019 tax filing season, taxpayers filed about 90 percent of returns electronically, and as a means to set taxpayer expectations, IRS publicly reported that about 90 percent of taxpayers owed a refund received it in less than 21 days. Accordingly, we continue to believe that IRS's sole performance measure of issuing paper-filed refunds within 40 days is outdated and does not acknowledge advances in technology that allow IRS to issue refunds faster. We agree with IRS that the environment has changed considerably since we made this recommendation--the growth in identity theft refund fraud has increased the need for additional scrutiny of tax refunds, which can add to the time needed to process tax returns. IRS can take into account its concerns and set a performance measure and goal that would be both challenging and obtainable. Without a measure and goal to assess refund timeliness that includes both paper and electronically filed returns and is reflective of IRS's current capabilities, IRS is missing opportunities to provide optimum levels of taxpayer service while also ensuring that taxpayers receive accurate refunds. As such, we believe that our recommendation remains valid.
GAO-11-750, Sep 20, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: Treasury disagreed with this recommendation based on the fact that many outside studies already exist and IRS did not comment. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in December 2017 did not include any requirements that Treasury study alternative approaches for the taxation of financial derivatives. However members of Congress have released proposals for a mark-to-market tax system, which would include financial derivatives. GAO continues to maintain that further study is needed in coordination with IRS and will continue to monitor the climate for such a study.
GAO-11-481, Mar 29, 2011
Phone: (202)512-5594
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.
GAO-10-429, Apr 14, 2010
Phone: (202) 512-9039
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, Congress has not raised the amount of U.S. income paid by a foreign employer that is exempt from tax for nonresidents who meet the other conditions of the exemption.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, Congress has not eliminated the sailing permit requirement.
GAO-10-349, Feb 10, 2010
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as we 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. In addition, Congress expanded math error authority for the First-Time Homebuyer Credit in November 2009. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what we suggested in February 2010, we maintain 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 President's budget proposal 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; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of January 2020, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority. We continue to believe that Congress should broaden IRS's math error authority with appropriate safeguards in order to help reduce the tax gap, which is the difference between tax amounts that taxpayers should have paid and what they actually paid .
GAO-10-195, Dec 15, 2009
Phone: (202)512-9039
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, Congress had not enacted legislation to require S corporations--a federal business type that provides certain tax benefits like passing income and losses to shareholders' individual returns-- to calculate and report shareholder's stock and debt basis as completely as possible and report the calculation to shareholders and IRS, as GAO suggested in December 2009.
GAO-09-815, Sep 10, 2009
Phone: (202)512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed to research sole proprietor noncompliance, as GAO recommended in September 2009. It is focusing on those who improperly claim business losses (i.e., not profits). IRS's Office of Research, Analysis and Statistics is using the reporting compliance study of Form 1040 filers to gather the data on such noncompliant business losses. This research covered sampled tax returns filed for tax years 2009, 2010, and 2011 and used audits of the sampled tax returns that are filed for each tax year. In November 2016, IRS research officials provided the initial rough estimates of the percentage of disallowed losses and associated dollar amounts for all 3 tax years but as of December 2019, they had not yet indicated how these estimates helped IRS to understand the nature of the tax noncompliance. The officials cautioned that their ability to develop the estimates depends on the number of observations that can be applied from each tax year. This research, when completed, could help IRS to identify noncompliant sole proprietor issues and take action to reduce losses.
GAO-09-521, May 13, 2009
Phone: (202)512-5594
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: No executive action taken. IRS had not addressed this action and had no plans to do so as of January 2020. IRS did not agree with GAO's May 2009 recommendation and the agency maintains that existing examination guidance provides examiners with sufficient information to properly examine this deduction. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2016, section 11042 of Public Law 115-97 caps the deduction for state and local taxes, including real estate taxes, at $10,000. In its 2009 review, GAO found that some examiners were not confirming that taxpayers were entitled to deduct real estate charges claimed, even in situations where their deductibility may have been in question. As a result, GAO maintains that examiners are continuing to rely on guidance that is inadequate to properly examine this deduction and that action should be taken to clarify the guidance.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: No executive action taken. IRS had not addressed this action and had no plans to do so as of January 2020. IRS did not agree with GAO's May 2009 recommendation and the agency maintains that existing examination guidance provides examiners with sufficient information to properly examine this deduction. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2016, section 11042 of Public Law 115-97 caps the deduction for state and local taxes, including real estate taxes, at $10,000. In its 2009 review, GAO found that some examiners were not confirming that taxpayers were entitled to deduct real estate charges claimed, even in situations where their deductibility may have been in question. As a result, GAO maintains that examiners are continuing to rely on guidance that is inadequate to properly examine this deduction and that action should be taken to clarify the guidance.
GAO-09-238, Jan 28, 2009
Phone: (202)512-5594
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: No legislative action has been taken, as of March 2020, to require payers engaged in a trade or business to report on payments to corporations for services, thereby reducing these payers' burden to determine which payments require reporting, as GAO recommended in January 2009. Reporting of third-party information is a powerful compliance tool, and eliminating the reporting exemption for payments to corporations would be a cost-effective way to improve voluntary compliance.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: According to IRS, developing such an estimate requires a multi-pronged approach and a large amount of coordinated effort. One prong is to determine the extent of filing compliance among employers. A second prong would determine the extent to which 1099-MISC payers properly report their payments. Starting with the Tax Year 2001 individual income tax reporting compliance study, the National Research Program (NRP) office has been collecting some data related to Form 1099-MISC compliance, from both the payer and payee perspectives. Additional data were generated by the NRP reporting compliance study for employment tax. As part of the NRP employment tax research, IRS examiners were to review taxpayers' Form 1099 filing compliance. Data collected from these studies should shed some light on whether employers are appropriately reporting required payments on Form 1099-MISC. As of March 2020, IRS had completed its preliminary analysis and expected to complete more comprehensive analysis of the NRP employment tax data by May 2020. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's progress.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS researchers collected data on 1099-MISC reporting as part of its National Research Program (NRP) study on employment taxes, a program that involved examinations of a sample of tax returns for tax years 2008 through 2010. As part of the NRP employment tax research, IRS examiners were to review taxpayers' Form 1099 filing compliance. Collecting data on this issue will enable IRS to study the nature and characteristics of payers that do not comply with 1099-MISC reporting requirements. As of March 2020, IRS had completed its preliminary analysis and expected to complete more comprehensive analysis of the NRP employment tax data by May 2020. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's progress.
GAO-09-146, Dec 12, 2008
Phone: (202) 512-5594
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 2019. 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; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of April 2019, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority.
GAO-08-364, Feb 15, 2008
Phone: (202) 512-9039
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: No legislative action as of March 2020. GAO suggested in February 2008 that as Congress considers whether tax-exempt governmental bonds should be used for professional sports stadiums that are generally privately used, it also should consider whether other privately used facilities, including hotels and golf courses, should continue to be financed with such bonds. Reconsidering the tax-exempt status of certain bonds could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal revenue.
GAO-07-1014, Jul 13, 2007
Phone: (202)512-5594
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, Treasury has taken no action to address this recommendation and has not provided GAO with plans to do so. Treasury's tax gap strategy does not cover sole proprietor compliance in detail while coordinating it with broader tax gap reduction efforts as GAO recommended in July 2007. In March 2016, Treasury officials reported to GAO that they have implemented or proposed several actions to address the tax gap among sole proprietors, such as requiring reporting on payment card payments and improved audit selection procedures for sole proprietors. However, GAO's July 2007 report noted there are many trade offs involved in various options for improving sole proprietor compliance. GAO recommended that Treasury's strategy for reducing the tax gap include a segment on sole proprietor compliance that is coordinated with broader tax gap reduction efforts.
GGD-89-107, Sep 25, 1989
Phone:
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: Call 202/512-6100 for additional information.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Call 202/512-6100 for additional information.