prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: Section 420 of the Robert T  Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act ( P L  93-288 , hereinafter the Stafford Act) authorizes the President to "declare" a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG)  The current FMAG system was established by regulation in October of 2001  These grants provide federal assistance for fire suppression activities  This authority has been delegated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Regional Administrators  Once issued, the FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of federal assistance such as the provision of equipment, personnel, and grants to state, local, and tribal governments for the control, management, and mitigation of any fire on certain public or private forest land or grassland that might become a major disaster  This federal assistance requires a cost-sharing component such that state, local, and tribal governments are responsible for 25% of the expenses  This report discusses the most frequently asked questions received by the Congressional Research Service on FMAGs  It addresses questions regarding how FMAGs are requested, how requests are evaluated using thresholds, and the types of assistance provided under an FMAG declaration  FMAGs can be requested by a state when the governor determines that a fire is burning out of control and threatens to become a major disaster  At that point, a request for assistance can be submitted to FEMA  Typically, requests are submitted to the FEMA Regional Administrator  Requests can be submitted any time—day or night—and can be submitted by telephone to expedite the process  Telephone requests must be followed by written confirmation within 14 days of the phone request  Under the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA, Division B of P L  113-2 ), tribes are equivalent to states in their ability to request a major disaster declaration, an emergency declaration, or a request for an FMAG declaration  Note that some tribal land holdings are administered by the federal government and, therefore, receive fire suppression support through the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC)  The NIFC supports interagency "wildland" firefighting efforts on federal lands by the U S  Forest Service, National Weather Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U S  Fish and Wildlife Service and FEMA's U S  Fire Administration  Unlike FMAGs, such support generally does not require tribes to reimburse firefighting costs (FMAGs require the state to pay a 25% cost-share)  In addition, tribes with their own fire suppression resources may receive reimbursement from BIA for their costs related to fire suppression on tribal lands  The FMAG request should include cost estimates to support the request as well as information about the fire including the size of the fire(s) in acres or square miles, the population of the community (or communities) threatened, the number of persons evacuated (if applicable), weather conditions, and the degree to which state and local resources are committed to this fire and other fires in federal, state, and/or local jurisdictions  The verbal request must be followed up with a completed "Request for Fire Management Assistance Declaration" (FEMA form 078-0-1) and the "Principal Advisor's Report" (FEMA form 078-0-2)  The following criteria are used to evaluate wildfires and make a determination whether to issue an FMAG: the threat to lives and property including critical facilities, infrastructures, and watershed areas; the availability of state and local fire resources; high fire danger conditions based on nationally accepted indices such as the National Fire Danger Ratings System; and the potential economic impacts of the fire  In addition, FEMA has developed fire cost thresholds that are typically updated on an annual basis  There are two types of fire cost thresholds used to help determine if a state or tribal nation is eligible for fire assistance: (1) individual thresholds for a single fire, and (2) cumulative thresholds for multiple fires  Cumulative thresholds are applied to multiple fires burning simultaneously, or the accumulation of multiple fires in a single fire season  Threshold amounts vary by state (see Table 1 )  Taking Pennsylvania as an example, generally, a single fire would need to meet or exceed $927,274 in damages for Pennsylvania to be eligible for an FMAG declaration  In contrast, the formula for the cumulative fire threshold for a given state is one of two amounts—$500,000 or the amount of that state's individual fire threshold multiplied by three, whichever is greater  Returning to the Pennsylvania example, the sum of three individual fire thresholds equals $2,781,822  Since that amount is larger than $500,000, cumulative fire damages in Pennsylvania must meet or exceed $2,781,822 to be eligible for assistance  In contrast, the individual fire threshold for Alaska is $100,000, but the cumulative threshold is $500,000, not the sum of three individual fire thresholds ($300,000)  If FEMA denies the request for assistance, the state has one opportunity to appeal the denial  The appeal must be submitted in writing to the Regional Administrator no later than 30 days from the date of the denial letter  The appeal should contain any additional information that strengthens the original request for assistance  The Regional Administrator will review the appeal, prepare a recommendation, and forward the appeal package to the FEMA Headquarters Office  The FEMA Headquarters Office will notify the state of its determination in writing within 90 days of receipt of the appeal (or receipt of additional requested information)  The state may request a time extension to submit the appeal  The request for an extension must be submitted in writing to the Regional Administrator no later than 30 days from the date of the denial letter  The request for an extension must include a justification for the need for an extension  The FEMA Headquarters Office will notify the state in writing whether the extension request is granted or denied  No, an emergency or major disaster can be declared after an FMAG declaration has been issued  However, the emergency or major disaster declaration must be initiated by a separate request for assistance by the state or tribal government  FMAGs are funded through FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), the main account FEMA uses to provide disaster assistance  The DRF is a no-year account—unused funds from the previous fiscal year are carried over to the next fiscal year  Funds in the DRF fall into two categories  The first category is for disaster relief costs associated with major disasters under the Stafford Act  This category reflects the impact of the Budget Control Act ( P L  112-25 , BCA), which allows appropriations to cover the costs incurred as a result of major disasters to be paid through an "allowable adjustment" to the discretionary spending limits  The second category is colloquially known as "base funding " Base funding includes activities not tied to major disasters under the Stafford Act  Base funding is scored as discretionary spending that counts against the discretionary spending limits, whereas FMAGs are funded through the DRF's base funding category  The decision to issue a FMAG declaration is not contingent on the DRF balance  Similarly, FMAGs do not reduce the amount of funding available for major disasters  When the DRF balance was low in the past, FEMA used its "immediate needs funding" (INF) policy until supplemental appropriations were passed to replenish the DRF  Under INF, long-term projects (such as mitigation work) are put on hold and only activities deemed urgent are funded  FMAGs would most likely fall into the category of events with an "urgent" need  Under the INF policy, FEMA also delays interagency reimbursements, and recovers funds from previous years in order to stretch its available funds  As with many other Stafford Act disaster assistance grant programs (Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation Grant assistance, Other Needs Assistance) the cost-share for FMAGs is based on a federal share of 75% of eligible expenses  The grantee (the state) and subgrantees (local communities) assume the remaining 25% of eligible costs  Under the FMAG process, FEMA reimburses grantees for eligible activities they have undertaken  The state application for specific grant funds must be submitted within 90 days after the FMAG is granted  That time frame permits the state to gather all information and supporting data on potentially eligible spending to include in their grant application package  The package must also stipulate that the fire cost threshold was met  Following submission of the grant application FEMA has 45 days to approve or deny the application  FMAG assistance is similar in some basic respects to other FEMA assistance  For example, FMAGs will not replicate or displace the work of other federal agencies, nor will FEMA pay straight-time salaries for public safety forces, though it will reimburse overtime expenses for the event  Other eligible expenses can include costs for equipment and supplies (less insurance proceeds); mobilization and demobilization; emergency work (evacuations and sheltering, police barricading and traffic control, arson investigation); prepositioning federal, out-of-state, and international resources for up to 21 days when approved by the FEMA Regional Administrator; personal comfort and safety items for firefighter health and safety; field camps and meals in lieu of per diem; and/or the mitigation, management, and control of declared fires burning on comingled federal land, when such costs are not reimbursable by another federal agency  Until recently, only major disaster declarations made statewide hazard mitigation grants available  Division D of P L  115-254 (Disaster Recovery Reform Act, hereinafter DRRA) amended the Stafford Act to make hazard mitigation available for FMAG declarations as well  Under Section 404 of the Stafford Act as amended by DRRA, mitigation grants from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) are provided to states and tribes on a sliding scale based on the percentage of funds spent for FMAG assistance  For states and federally recognized tribes with a FEMA-approved Standard State or Tribal Mitigation Plan, the formula provides for up to 15% of the first $2 billion of estimated aggregate amounts of disaster assistance, up to 10% for amounts between $2 billion and $10 billion, and 7 5% for amounts between $10 billion and $35 333 billion  FEMA assistance through FMAGs is a direct relationship with the states to assist the state in fighting the fire on state lands  FMAGs are employed so a disaster declaration may not be necessary  The Forest Service and other federal agencies do provide other types of assistance related to wildfire management, such as postfire recovery assistance, or assistance planning and mitigating the potential risk from future wildfires  Most of these programs provide financial and technical assistance to state partners  In addition, other USDA agencies administer various other programs to provide disaster recovery assistance to nonfederal forest landowners, including the Emergency Forest Restoration Program and the Emergency Watershed Program  This depends on the type of assistance being provided by the Forest Service  FMAG assistance is not generally available in conjunction with emergency suppression assistance from the Forest Service, or any other federal agency engaged in suppression operations  FMAGs provide assistance for suppression operations on nonfederal lands, whereas suppression operations on federal lands are the responsibility of the federal agency with jurisdiction  Limited exceptions may occur for declared fires on lands in which the ownership is comingled federal and nonfederal, and the costs incurred by the eligible entity are not entitled to any other type of federal reimbursement  However, FMAGs may be provided in conjunction with other Forest Service assistance programs, such as any technical and financial assistance provided through the agency's state and volunteer fire assistance programs or state and private forestry office  FMAG and other federal assistance may potentially occur in conjunction when there is a cooperative agreement between federal, state, and other governmental or tribal partners to coordinate emergency wildfire protection and response activities  The cooperative agreement often delineates different geographic areas where the state government is responsible for initial suppression operations, regardless of land ownership, and vice versa, where the federal government may be responsible for providing suppression operations in lands under nonfederal ownership  The cooperative agreements (sometimes referred to as "fire compacts") specify how costs are to be apportioned among the partners, including provisions allowing for reimbursement, in accordance with applicable federal and state statutes  In the circumstance where a state (or other eligible entity) conducted suppression operations on federal land and the costs were not reimbursable, an FMAG may potentially be applied for and used to cover eligible costs  No, most fires that begin on federal land are the responsibility of the federal agency that owns or manages the land, and are not eligible to receive FMAG assistance  There are some exceptions, however  For example, FMAGs may be available to assist with declared fires that occur in areas with a mix of federal and nonfederal land, if the state has a responsibility for suppression activities under a cooperative agreement with the applicable federal agency, and those costs are not reimbursable under another federal statute 


Report 2:  persons, shaped in part from risks in not meeting FATCA reporting requirements  Representatives of a banking association and an advocacy group told us that some FFIs decided to avoid doing business with U S  persons after they became concerned about potential penalties for failure to comply—either willfully or in error—with FATCA reporting requirements  One banking association added that such errors could affect other aspects of FFIs’ relationships with the U S  government, such as nonprosecution agreements made with the U S  Department of Justice  Officials from one consulting firm that helped FFIs meet FATCA reporting requirements added that FFIs’ determination of risk depends on many layers, such as the value of clients’ assets or the country in which clients reside or possess citizenship  After FATCA’s implementation, according to officials from the consulting firm, FFIs decided to turn away U S  persons in some cases because the benefits of doing business with U S  persons were less than the potential risks  For example, if a U S  person only maintained a payroll account, the FFI may determine it would not make enough money to account for risks in incorrectly identifying the status of the customer as a U S  or non-U S  person  However, focus group participants from two countries said that FFIs may agree to accept U S persons as customers if they have higher account balances that offset risks from FATCA reporting requirements  One focus group participant, for instance, said banks in his country will do business with a U S  person if he or she has more than $500,000 in assets  Additionally, U S  persons and tax practitioners we interviewed said that other factors such as language barriers and U S  regulations designed to prevent money laundering may also inhibit U S  persons’ access to brokerage accounts while overseas  Focus group participants and others we interviewed said that Form 8938 reporting requirements contributed to denials of employment and promotion opportunities for U S  persons living abroad  Treasury officials noted that requirements imposed by FATCA do not directly hinder U S  persons from gaining employment or promotion opportunities overseas  However, focus group participants, a consulting firm, and a foreign government agency noted that foreign-owned companies and nonprofit organizations such as churches did not want to hire or promote U S  persons because they wanted to avoid exposing information to the U S  government on their organizations’ accounts and client trust accounts where the U S  person would have signature authority  As noted above, a U S  person is generally required to report on the Form 8938 foreign financial accounts for which the person has signature authority if he or she has a financial interest in the account  Focus group participants and others noted that such requirements have adversely affected the ability of U S  persons to serve on a corporate board or in a nonprofit organization, or maintain business relationships  Treasury and Department of Commerce officials stationed in one country included in our review added that FATCA implementation has played a role in dissuading foreign-owned corporations in some Asian countries from considering U S  persons for corporate leadership positions such as directorships  This is in part because FATCA has triggered additional paperwork burden and operating costs for onboarding U S  employees since they have had to help them meet Form 8938 reporting requirements  Two advocacy groups representing U S  persons living abroad added that it is also harder for U S -based companies to justify relocating U S  persons overseas and paying for such relocations since they also have had to help their U S  employees meet Form 8938 reporting requirements in addition to meeting other tax filing requirements  U S  embassy documents indicate there was increased demand for Social Security Numbers (SSN) since FATCA’s passage in 2010, driven in part by U S  citizens applying for an SSN to gain access to foreign financial services or resolve outstanding U S  tax obligations before completing renunciation  However, officials from two organizations representing Americans living abroad cited significant challenges faced by some U S  persons living abroad in obtaining SSNs required to meet their U S  tax obligations or obtain financial services  U S  persons living abroad might not possess an SSN because their parents did not obtain one for them as a minor  Often, this may have been due to the parents leaving the United States when the child was young  State officials also said that U S  citizens applying for U S  passports while overseas frequently forget their SSNs or do not know if their parents ever applied for an SSN on their behalf  Officials from organizations representing U S  persons living abroad added that without an SSN, these persons are unable to claim refunds or other tax benefits when filing their tax returns, or participate in IRS programs to voluntarily disclose previously unreported tax liabilities and assets  Additionally, some might be unable to gain or maintain access to financial accounts or other assets in their countries of residence without an SSN  According to these officials and tax practitioners we interviewed, U S  persons living abroad face greater challenges in obtaining SSNs than those living in the United States  For instance, they faced difficulties obtaining documentation from the United States that the Social Security Administration (SSA) requires with SSN applications; traveling to Social Security offices and U S  embassies or consulates to certify documents or submit applications in person; and receiving valid SSNs from SSA in a timely manner to file tax returns or participate in offshore disclosure programs  SSA officials also identified several challenges U S  persons experience when applying for an SSN from abroad  For instance, SSA officials said that efforts to authenticate documents submitted with SSN applications can cause delays for U S  persons living abroad in obtaining an SSN  Additionally, SSN applicants living abroad face significantly longer wait times than applicants living in the United States once their applications are processed  According to SSA officials, after an application is processed, it can take 3 to 6 months–-depending on the country’s mail service–-for an individual to receive a Social Security Card  This is significantly longer than the 2-week period it takes SSN applicants to receive a card after mailing in their applications from within the United States  According to Department of State (State) data, the annual number of approvals of requests for renunciations of U S  citizenships increased nearly 178 percent during a 6-year period, from 1,601 in 2011—the year after FATCA was enacted—to 4,449 in 2016, the most recent year to which full data on renunciations were available  According to U S  embassy documents and information provided by focus group participants and interviewees across all the countries we examined, FATCA was the reason or a contributing factor in some of these decisions and the resulting increase in total renunciations  Specific effects of FATCA implementation contributing to decisions to renounce U S  citizenship included reduced access to foreign financial services and employment or promotion opportunities in a foreign-owned company—as identified above from our document reviews, focus groups, and interviews—and burdens in meeting FATCA reporting requirements  However, the extent to which FATCA implementation contributed to increased renunciations is unclear  State officials said that data are unavailable to determine the extent to which these renunciation decisions were the direct result of FATCA because State has no legal obligation to collect information on the motivation behind renunciation of citizenship  In response to concerns about the availability of foreign financial services, Treasury implemented regulations that allow certain low-risk local FFIs to be deemed compliant with FATCA, but only if the FFIs do not implement policies or practices that discriminate against opening or maintaining accounts for specified U S  persons  Treasury and State also previously established joint strategies to address these challenges  For instance, Treasury and State developed guidance on FATCA that was posted on embassy websites to educate U S  persons and others  Additionally, Treasury and State officials conducted outreach events and workshops through U S  embassies and American chambers of commerce worldwide to provide information on FATCA and other tax filing requirements, According to State officials, the U S  embassies in at least two countries—Switzerland and France—also worked with foreign officials and/or FFIs to increase access to financial services for U S  citizens residing in those countries  For instance, Treasury and State officials reached agreements with FFIs in Switzerland to provide a wider range of financial services to U S  persons  Similarly, in 2017, SSA and State implemented an interagency agreement to streamline processes for providing SSNs to U S  persons living abroad after FATCA’s implementation in 2010  SSA officials said they are also in discussions with State on improving SSA’s website to include more transparent, specific information for SSN overseas applicants about SSA documentation requirements  Tax practitioners, advocacy groups, and Treasury officials we interviewed said FFIs have become more willing to accept U S  persons as customers compared to when FATCA was enacted in 2010  However, U S  persons living abroad continue to face issues gaining access to foreign financial services  For example, in a September 2018 letter sent by the Chair of the Finance Committee of the Netherlands House of Representatives to a member of Congress, U S  citizens born outside the United States and who have never lived, studied, or worked in the United States are effectively being denied access to financial services in the Netherlands  Focus group participants added that some banks will reject U S  clients or charge heavy fees for them to open an account  Agencies have ongoing efforts to address FATCA-related issues, as listed below, but some are ad hoc, fragmented, or otherwise not part of a broader effort between Treasury and other agencies such as State or SSA to use ongoing collaborative mechanisms to monitor and share information on such issues, and jointly develop and implement steps to address them: Treasury officials said they are participating in discussions with FFIs to address residual issues with access to foreign financial services  However, they said they have not involved other agencies in these discussions  IRS officials, in response to concerns from the French government, said they are developing a program to help streamline foreign asset- related tax compliance requirements for a small group of U S  born citizens that have been French residents most of their lives without an SSN, and—according to State officials—did not wish to take the necessary steps to renounce their citizenship  However, no effort has been made to address these issues more broadly  State encouraged U S  citizens to alert the nearest U S  embassy of any practices they encounter with regard to the provision of financial services  State documents noted that some Americans have been turned away by banks or required to meet a higher deposit threshold in part because of FATCA reporting requirements  State documentation also noted that there have been cases of U S  citizens with existing bank accounts who have been asked to close them  However, State documentation we reviewed does not highlight collaborative efforts currently underway with Treasury or other agencies to address banking access issues U S  persons living abroad are presently encountering worldwide  As described above, SSA and State streamlined processes and policies for U S  persons abroad seeking to obtain SSNs  However, SSA officials said they have not been involved in any ongoing efforts involving Treasury to identify systemic issues and related solutions involving SSNs for the purposes of tax compliance and citizenship renunciations  Treasury officials said they spoke with SSA officials about problems U S  persons living abroad face in obtaining SSNs, but SSA believed that cycle times for processing SSN applications submitted by U S  persons living abroad were not significantly greater than for applications submitted by U S  persons living in the United States, although mailing times could vary significantly and take up to 3 to 6 months  We have previously identified key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration, including defining and articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results  One goal in IRS’s strategic plan is to collaborate with external partners proactively to improve tax administration, while objectives in SSA’s strategic plan include improving service delivery and expanding service delivery options  Additionally, according to State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs website, one of State’s key priorities is to protect the interests of U S  citizens overseas, such as through ensuring responsive and efficient provision of consular services overseas  As noted above, there are a host of ongoing issues and challenges for U S  persons living abroad from implementation of FATCA, such as loss of access to foreign financial services, denial of employment and promotion opportunities overseas, and difficulty obtaining SSNs from abroad  However, Treasury currently lacks a collaborative mechanism to coordinate efforts with other agencies to address these issues, and Treasury officials said they do not plan to establish them  Without effective collaborative mechanisms to monitor and share information and implement cross-agency solutions, future efforts to address such issues will continue to be fragmented and less effective than they otherwise could be  In enacting FATCA, Congress sought to reduce tax evasion by creating greater transparency and accountability over offshore assets held by U S  taxpayers  Because of FATCA, IRS receives information on foreign financial assets from hundreds of thousands of filers annually  IRS could use this information to help ensure taxpayers holding offshore assets report and pay taxes owed on income generated from such assets  However, to take full advantage of the information, IRS must address key challenges  Specifically, Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN) reported by FFIs are often inaccurate or incomplete, which makes it difficult for IRS to match information reported by FFIs to individual taxpayers  As such, IRS must develop a plan to mitigate the risks that these data issues pose to agency efforts to identify and combat taxpayer noncompliance  Lack of consistent, complete, and readily available Form 8938 and related parent individual tax return data also affects IRS’s compliance activities, making it more difficult for IRS business units to extract and analyze FATCA data to improve tax compliance efforts and reduce tax revenue loss from income generated from offshore assets  At the same time, IRS has stopped following its FATCA Compliance Roadmap it developed in 2016 because, according to IRS officials, IRS moved away from updating broad strategy documents to focus on individual compliance campaigns  However, in light of the challenges IRS continues to face in fully integrating FATCA information into its compliance programs, it will not maximize use of such information and effectively leverage individual compliance campaigns unless it employs a comprehensive plan that enables IRS to better leverage such campaigns to improve taxpayer compliance  Our analysis of available data indicates that many of the Forms 8938 filed in tax year 2016 may have been filed unnecessarily  Factors that are contributing to this unnecessary reporting are unclear  While IRS has provided instructions and guidance on its website for completing Form 8938, focus group participants and tax practitioners reported confusion on whether and how to report investments in foreign accounts  Taking steps to identify and address factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting would help reduce taxpayer burden and reduce processing costs for IRS  Reporting requirements for foreign financial assets under FATCA overlap with reporting requirements under FBAR  These overlapping requirements—implemented under two different statutes—have resulted in most taxpayers filing Forms 8938 also filing FBARs with FinCEN  Duplicative filings on foreign financial assets cause confusion, frustration, and compliance burdens for taxpayers  Duplicative filings also increased costs to the government to process and store the same or similar information  Modifying the statutes governing the requirements can fully address the issues outlined above, and can allow for the use of FATCA information for prevention and detection of financial crimes  This is similar to other statutory allowances for IRS to disclose return information for other purposes, such as for determining Social Security income tax withholding  Lastly, FATCA has created challenges for some U S  persons living abroad that go beyond increasing their tax compliance burdens  Some U S  persons living abroad are still facing issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs  Treasury, State, and SSA have taken some steps to address these issues both separately and in coordination with each other  However, Treasury, as the agency ultimately responsible for effective administration of FATCA, currently lacks a collaborative mechanism with State and SSA to address ongoing issues  Establishing a formal means to collaboratively address burdens faced by Americans abroad from FATCA can help agencies develop effective solutions to mitigate such burdens  We are making the following matter for congressional consideration: Congress should consider amending the Internal Revenue Code, Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and other statutes, as needed, to address overlap in foreign financial asset reporting requirements for the purposes of tax compliance and detection, and prevention of financial crimes, such as by aligning the types of assets to be reported and asset reporting thresholds, and ensuring appropriate access to the reported information  We are making the following four recommendations to IRS: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop a plan to mitigate risks with compliance activities due to the lack of accurate and complete TINs of U S  account holders collected from FFIs  (Recommendation 1) The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should ensure that appropriate business units conducting compliance enforcement and research have access to consistent and complete data collected from individuals’ electronic and paper filings of Form 8938 and elements of parent individual tax returns  As part of this effort, the Commissioner should ensure that IRS provides clear guidance to the business units for accessing such data in IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse  (Recommendation 2) The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should employ a comprehensive plan for managing efforts to leverage FATCA data in agency compliance efforts  The plan should document and track activities over time to ensure individuals and FFIs comply with FATCA reporting assess and mitigate data quality risks from FFIs; improve the quality, management, and accessibility of FATCA data for compliance, research, and other purposes; and establish, monitor, and evaluate compliance efforts involving FATCA data intended to improve voluntary compliance and address noncompliance with FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 3) The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should assess factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting and take steps, as appropriate, to address the issue  Depending on the results of the assessment, potential options may include: identifying and implementing steps to further clarify IRS Form 8938 instructions and related guidance on IRS’s website on determining what foreign financial assets to report, and how to calculate and report asset values subject to reporting thresholds; and conducting additional outreach to educate taxpayers on required reporting thresholds, including notifying taxpayers that may have unnecessarily filed an IRS Form 8938 to reduce such filings  (Recommendation 4) We are also making the following recommendation to Treasury: The Secretary of the Treasury should lead efforts, in coordination with the Secretary of State and Commissioner of Social Security, to establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues— including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 5) We are also making the following recommendation to State: The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of Social Security, should establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues—including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 6) We are also making the following recommendation to SSA: The Commissioner of Social Security, in coordination with the Secretaries of State and Treasury, should establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues—including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 7) We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of State and the Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Acting Commissioner of Social Security  IRS provided written comments that are summarized below and reprinted in appendix VI  IRS did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with our four recommendations but otherwise provided responses  Regarding our recommendation to develop a plan to mitigate risks with compliance activities due to the lack of accurate and complete TINs of U S  account holders collected from FFIs (recommendation 1), IRS reiterated that it provided a transition period, through the end of 2019, for compliance with the TIN requirements for FFIs in countries with Model 1 IGAs with the United States  IRS also said that it continued to make progress on improving FATCA filing compliance, citing efforts such as initiating a campaign addressing FFIs that do not meet their compliance responsibilities  While these efforts may help IRS obtain more accurate and complete information from financial accounts, IRS did not specify how it will mitigate the ongoing hurdles it faces in matching accounts reported by FFIs without valid TINs to accounts reported by individual tax filers and ensure compliance  Regarding our recommendation that appropriate business units have access to consistent and complete data collected from Forms 8938 and tax returns filed by individuals (recommendation 2), IRS reiterated that RAAS has been working to obtain read-only access to the IPM database but that limited budgetary resources are delaying implementation  Enabling access to consistent and complete Form 8938 and tax return data would help IRS better target compliance initiatives and leverage limited available enforcement resources  While IRS continues to work on enabling access to IPM, it could still provide clear guidance to its business units for accessing Form 8938 and tax return data in IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse, as we recommended  Regarding our recommendation to employ a comprehensive plan for managing efforts to leverage FATCA data in agency compliance efforts (recommendation 3), IRS said the resources that would be required to develop a comprehensive plan would be better spent on enforcement activities  While implementing enforcement activities could increase compliance with FATCA reporting requirements, it risks not maximizing the value of such efforts without a comprehensive plan to manage and address the myriad of challenges discussed in this report  Further, it is our belief that IRS’s failure to execute the FATCA roadmap is not justification for abandoning a strategic approach going forward  Regarding our recommendation to assess factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting and take appropriate steps to address the issue (recommendation 4), IRS said it will continue to observe filings of Form 8938 and, to the extent that there are unnecessary filings, assess options to inform account holders to reduce reporting and filing burdens followed by appropriate steps to implement any selected options  Our analysis of available data indicates that many Forms 8938 may have been filed unnecessarily  Implementing our recommendation reduces the risk that taxpayers file—and IRS processes—forms unnecessarily  Treasury provided written comments but did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with our recommendation that it lead efforts, in coordination with State and SSA, to establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements (recommendation 5)  Treasury said it will work collaboratively with State and SSA to answer questions that Americans abroad have regarding their tax obligations and, where appropriate, to direct U S  citizens to resources that will help them understand the procedures applied by SSA to apply for an SSN  However, Treasury said it is not the appropriate agency to lead coordination efforts involving foreign employment issues and issues regarding access to foreign financial services and obtaining SSNs  As we noted above, Treasury is ultimately responsible for effective administration of FATCA  As such, it is in a better position than State or SSA to adjust regulations and guidance implementing FATCA to address burdens FFIs and foreign employers face from FATCA implementation while ensuring tax compliance  Additionally, Treasury has an interest in helping U S  persons receive valid SSNs from SSA in a timely manner to meet their tax obligations  Treasury’s written response is reprinted in appendix VII  State and SSA also provided written comments in which they concurred with our recommendations to establish a formal means to address collaboratively together with Treasury ongoing issues that U S  persons living abroad encounter with FATCA (recommendations 6 and 7)  State and SSA’s written comments are reprinted in appendices VIII and IX, respectively  Treasury, State, and SSA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretaries of State and the Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9110 or mctiguej@gao gov  Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are on the last page of this report  GAO staff who contributed to this report are listed in appendix X  The objectives of this report are to (1) assess the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) efforts to use information collected under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) to improve taxpayer compliance; (2) examine available foreign financial asset reports submitted by U S  persons, including submissions that were below required filing thresholds; (3) examine the extent to which the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) administers overlapping reporting requirements on foreign financial assets; (4) describe similarities and differences between FATCA and Common Reporting Standard (CRS) reporting requirements; and (5) examine the effects of FATCA implementation that are unique to U S  persons living abroad  For our first objective, we reviewed Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reports and collected information from Treasury and IRS to summarize efforts to collect complete and valid Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN) from foreign financial institutions (FFI)  We identified criteria from our prior work identifying key practices for risk management  The key practices are derived from the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Development and Office of Management and Budget guidance  We applied these criteria to assess steps IRS has taken to manage risks in not receiving complete and valid TIN information from FFIs  We also applied criteria from our prior work on use of documented frameworks to IRS documentation on FATCA compliance activities to determine the extent to which IRS implemented a comprehensive plan to maximize use of collected data to enforce compliance with FATCA  For our second objective, we identified total maximum account values reported by individual filers of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114s (commonly known as the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or FBAR) in calendar years 2015 and 2016  See appendix III for more details on our methodology to evaluate these data  We also summarized the numbers of IRS Forms 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets (Form 8938) filed in tax year 2016, accounting for the data limitations described below  We also identified Forms 8938 filed in tax year 2016—the most recent year for which data were available—with available residency and asset information that reported specified foreign financial assets with aggregate values at or below end-of-year tax thresholds, which vary depending on the location of residence and filing status of such filers  For our third objective, we reviewed IRS and FinCEN documentation, and applied criteria from Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide to identify the extent to which IRS and FinCEN were engaged in overlapping activities, and collecting duplicative information on foreign financial assets held by U S  persons  We assessed the extent to which individual filers who submitted a Form 8938 in 2015 and 2016 also submitted an FBAR for the same year by determining the number and percentage of Forms 8938 with TINs that also match the TIN listed on the corresponding FBAR for the same year  For the three objectives described above, we assessed the reliability of data submitted on Forms 8938 filed by individuals for tax years 2015 and 2016, the most recent data available  These data were extracted from IRS’s Individual Return Transaction File (IRTF) and Modernized Tax Return Database (MTRDB) through IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW)  We also assessed the reliability of data from FBARs for calendar years 2015 and 2016 by (1) reviewing documentation about the data and the systems that produced them; (2) conducting electronic tests, such as identifying data with significant numbers of missing Form 8938 or FBAR records, or values of foreign financial assets reported outside an expected range; (3) tracing selections or random samples of data to source documents; and (4) interviewing IRS and FinCEN officials knowledgeable about the data  We also reviewed Form 8938 and relevant parent tax return data stored in IRS databases to determine whether IRS management is using quality information collected from Forms 8938 to achieve its objectives, as defined in our Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  We determined that data extracted from IRTF on characteristics of Form 8938 filers and from FBAR filings was sufficiently reliable for our purposes, subject to caveats identified in this report  However, we determined we could not obtain complete data on foreign financial assets reported on Forms 8938 filed on paper  For our fourth objective, we reviewed model international agreements and other documentation, and interviewed officials from Treasury, IRS, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to compare and contrast FATCA and CRS reporting requirements  We also used the collected information to identify what changes, if any, the United States and other countries could implement to align FATCA and CRS reporting requirements  For our fifth objective, we collected documentation and conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 21 U S  persons living abroad that were subject to FATCA reporting requirements  We also conducted focus groups and interviews with tax practitioners, banking and CPA organizations, government agencies, advocacy groups representing Americans living abroad, and other organizations from the United States and five other countries (Canada, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom)  We selected these countries based on geography, relatively high numbers of U S  expatriates and Form 8938 filers, tax information sharing agreements, and other tax treaties with the United States  The findings from the focus groups and interviews are not generalizable to other U S  persons, tax practitioners or organizations, but were selected to represent the viewpoints of U S  persons, FFIs, and host country tax authorities required to transmit information on foreign accounts and other specified foreign financial assets to IRS  We conducted a thematic analysis of the focus groups and interviews, and reviewed cables from U S  embassies to identify the unique effects of FATCA implementation on U S  persons living abroad  We collected documentation from and interviewed Treasury, IRS, Department of State, and Social Security Administration officials on steps to monitor and mitigate such effects  We also identified criteria from our prior work on key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration and mechanisms to facilitate coordination  We applied the criteria to agencies’ collaborative efforts addressing issues U S  persons living abroad faced from FATCA’s implementation, and identified the extent to which agencies established effective collaborative mechanisms to identify, assess, and implement cross-agency solutions to such issues  We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to April 2019 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  The following IRS databases store data collected from individuals’ electronic and paper filings of Forms 8938 and/or elements of individual parent tax returns—the filer’s address and filing status—used to determine specified reporting thresholds for Form 8938 filers: Individual Master File (IMF), which serves as IRS’s system for processing individual taxpayer account data  Using this system, accounts are updated, taxes are assessed, and refunds are generated as required during each tax-filing period  Individual Returns Transaction File (IRTF), which stores edited, transcribed, and error-corrected data from the Form 1040 series and related forms for the current processing year and two prior years  Modernized Tax Return Database (MTRDB), which serves as the official repository of all electronic returns processed through IRS’s Modernized e-File system  Tax return data is stored immediately after returns are processed  International Compliance Management Model (ICMM)-FATCA International Returns (ICMM-FIR), which collects, parses, and stores data from incoming form reports–such as Forms 8938 and 8966–into the FATCA Database (FDB), which serves as the repository where ICMM-FIR stores data and from which downstream applications can pull data  Integrated Production Model (IPM), which is a downstream data repository that houses IMF data, information returns, and other data  According to IRS officials, data from IPM are consolidated and made available to a variety of downstream, security certified, systems for use in conducive analysis, case selection, and report preparation  Additionally, data from these and other IRS databases are copied to IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW) periodically, which captures data from multiple production systems and organizes the data in a way that is conductive to analysis  Table 6 highlights several problems with the consistency and completeness of Form 8938 and relevant parent tax return data stored across the listed databases  Inconsistent and incomplete data on address and filing status of Form 8938 filers: As noted above, elements of parent tax returns— specifically the filer’s country of residence and filing status—are used to determine specified reporting thresholds for Form 8938 filers  However, IRTF and MTRDB have inconsistent and incomplete data on addresses linked to Form 8938 filers, and report inconsistent numbers of Forms 8938 filed from a U S  residence  For example, the variable identified as containing data on foreign countries of residence in IRTF shows approximately 8,100 foreign filers in tax years 2015 and 2016, whereas a similar variable in MTRDB shows approximately 89,000 foreign filers for those same years  Additionally, FDB does not contain country codes from paper filings of Form 8938  ICCM-FIR stores information from some elements from parent tax returns—such as TINs and document locator numbers  According to IRS officials, however, ICMM-FIR lacks data on country codes and filing status of Form 8938 filers  IRS officials said that ICMM-FIR was not designed or intended to store data on Form 8938 filers; rather, it was designed to be a database for use in comparing Form 8938 and 8966 data  In general, IRS officials indicated that they would like to adjust the way ICMM-FIR stores data, but that would require modifying the way the database was established  Incomplete data on assets reported on Forms 8938: MTRDB contains detailed information on specified foreign financial assets submitted on electronic filings of Form 8938 and the country code from which the Form 8938 was filed  IRS officials said it is not designed to store information submitted on paper filings of Forms 8938 and parent tax returns  IRS officials said that while IMF processes information transcribed from individual income tax returns, there is no requirement to cross-reference information from the tax return with information submitted with an accompanying Form 8938  Additionally, while IRS officials told us that IRTF is the authoritative source for filers of Form 8938, it does not store account and other asset information submitted from Forms 8938  When asked whether there is any move to store account and other asset information collected from Forms 8938 into IRTF, IRS officials said that the decision on what returns or portions of returns are transcribed are subject to resource constraints and are prioritized from year to year  Table 7 shows that more than 900,000 individuals filed Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114s (commonly known as the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or FBAR) in calendar years 2015 and 2016, and declared total maximum values of accounts ranging from about $1 5 trillion to more than $2 trillion each year  We are providing a range of estimates because we found a large number of filings made potentially in error  In some cases, for instance, FBAR filers reported more than $100 trillion in foreign financial accounts  We assume many of these filings are likely made in error, but have only limited means to determine which filings have errors, and which filings have accurate information  Because we cannot independently verify the accuracy of all self-reported FBAR data, we decided to present a range of data with (1) a lower bound discarding all FBAR filings reporting total values of reported foreign financial accounts at or above $1 billion; and (2) an upper bound discarding all filings reporting total values of such accounts at or above $5 billion  Table 2 excludes amended and duplicated FBAR filings  This table also excludes FBAR filings that reported a financial interest in 25 or more financial accounts, but reported total maximum account values of $0 from parts II and III of the FBAR  Although we identified problems with the data, we determined they were reliable enough to provide an estimated range of asset values to report the scale of foreign financial accounts held by U S  persons  Table 8 shows a detailed breakdown of 2015 and 2016 FBAR filings by residence and categories of total maximum account values reported on the FBARs  Appendix IV: Detailed Comparison of Individual Foreign Financial Asset Reporting Requirements 26 U S C  § 6038D; 26 C F R  §§ 1 6038D-1 to 1 6038D-8  26 C F R  § 1 6038D-2  Filers in this category include those who identify as single, married filing separately, “head of household,” or “qualifying widow(er) ” Includes maximum value of specified foreign financial assets (Form 8938) or maximum value of financial accounts maintained by a financial institution physically located in a foreign country (FBAR)  Under FATCA, any income, gains, losses, deductions, credits, gross proceeds, or distributions from holding or disposing of the account are or would be required to be reported, included, or otherwise reflected on a person’s income tax return  Under FBAR reporting requirements, a person has signature or other authority if he or she has the authority (alone or in conjunction with another) to control the disposition of money, funds or other assets held in a financial account by direct communication (whether in writing or otherwise) to the person with whom the financial account is maintained  The account itself is subject to reporting, but the contents of the account do not have to be separately reported  In addition to the contact named above, Brian James (Assistant Director), Mark Ryan (Analyst-in-Charge), Ariana Graham, George Guttman, Krista Loose, Daniel Mahoney, Cynthia Saunders, A J  Stephens, and Elwood White made key contributions to this report  Michael John Bechetti, Ted Burik, and Jacqueline Chapin also provided assistance 

ground_truth: Section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, hereinafter the Stafford Act) authorizes the President to "declare" a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG). In the interest of saving time, the authority to make the declaration has been delegated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Regional Administrators. Once issued, the FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of federal fire suppression assistance such as the provision of equipment, personnel, and grants to state, local, and tribal governments for the control, management, and mitigation of any fire on certain public or private forest land or grassland that might become a major disaster. This federal assistance requires a cost-sharing component such that state, local, and tribal governments are responsible for 25% of the expenses. This report answers frequently asked questions about FMAGs. This report will be updated as events warrant.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2: The Buy American Act of 1933 was enacted during the Great Depression when there was a need to create and preserve jobs for American workers, and it established a preference for the federal government to buy domestic end products  Many of the products the federal government buys—including aircraft engines and medical supplies—are end products that may be subject to the requirements of the Buy American Act  Further, the Buy American Act does not apply to products that are purchased for use outside the United States or obtained through contracts under the micro-purchase threshold, which was generally $3,500 in fiscal year 2017  end products manufactured in the United States provided that (a) the product is a commercially available off-the-shelf item; or (b) the cost of the components mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States exceeds 50 percent of the total cost of all components  End products that are not considered domestic under the Buy American Act are treated as foreign  This characterization is based on the origin of the end product—that is, where the product is manufactured or produced—and not the vendor’s location  For example, a vendor located in Finland may supply end products manufactured in the United States, in which case these products would be treated as domestic products  Conversely, a vendor located in the United States may supply end products manufactured in Finland  In this case, the end products would be considered foreign  Although the Buy American Act establishes a preference for domestic end products, there are situations in which agencies can procure foreign end products through established exceptions to the Buy American requirements  In addition, under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the United States has waived domestic purchasing requirements—including the Buy American Act—for certain acquisitions of foreign end products from countries that are party to international trade agreements or are considered designated countries by the U S  Trade Representative  In implementing the Buy American Act, the FAR sets forth several exceptions that permit federal agencies to buy foreign end products  These include situations when a domestic end product is not produced in sufficient quantities or cases where the cost would be unreasonable to buy a domestic end product  The steps that contracting officers must take to determine or document an exception will vary depending on the circumstances of the acquisition  For example, a written determination from the Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) or a delegate may be necessary to determine non-availability in some cases  However, a written determination may not be required when an acquisition is conducted through full and open competition, is synopsized, and no domestic offer is received  Other exceptions to the Buy American Act restrictions on the purchase of foreign products, such as the exception for commercial information technology, are blanket exceptions that do not require a written determination  In addition, some agencies have specified additional considerations that must precede a determination and what level of authority is appropriate for certain determinations  The five Buy American Act exceptions that apply government-wide and the corresponding determination standards in the FAR are listed in Table 1  Individual federal agencies may make blanket determinations of situations in which the Act’s restrictions should not apply to that agency’s procurements, when it is not in the public interest to restrict the purchase of foreign end products  For example, over the years, DOD has entered into reciprocal procurement agreements with 27 foreign counterparts  DOD determined that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to apply the Buy American Act restrictions on products from these 27 qualifying countries  Thus, if an offer includes end products from a qualifying country, those products are not restricted by the Buy American Act and the acquisition of qualifying country end products does not require higher approval  This public interest exception for qualifying countries applies only to contracts awarded by DOD  Federal agencies can purchase eligible foreign end products from designated countries when the Buy American Act’s requirements are waived because of the terms of an international trade agreement or other criteria, such as a designation by the U S  Trade Representative as a least developed country  In accordance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the president has the authority to waive the Buy American Act  For eligible products that come from countries covered by the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement, Free Trade Agreements, and the Israeli Trade Act, the Buy American Act has been waived so that these items receive nondiscriminatory consideration and are on equal footing with domestic end products  In total, these agreements cover approximately 60 countries—overlapping with all but two of the DOD qualifying countries  Appendix II highlights the overlap  Unlike DOD’s blanket public interest exception for qualifying countries, the Buy American Act requirements are only waived under a trade agreement if the acquisition is of a certain value set by the U S  Trade Representative  Current trade agreement thresholds, at or above which the requirements are waived, range from $25,000 for contracts for eligible products from Canada to $180,000 for the 45 other parties to the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement  Table 2 lists the parties eligible for trade agreements and the associated threshold for supply contracts  The FAR specifies certain conditions in which trade agreements do not apply, even if the acquisition is above the requisite threshold value set by the U S  Trade Representative  In these cases, the Buy American Act would apply  These conditions include, but are not limited to: acquisitions that do not use full and open competition, when the limitation of competition would preclude the procedures applicable to acquisitions covered by trade agreements; certain sole-source acquisitions for commercial items using simplified acquisition procedures; acquisitions set aside for small businesses; acquisition of ammunition, arms, or war materials, or for purchases indispensable for national security or national defense purposes; and acquisitions from federal prison industries or nonprofit agencies employing people who are blind or severely disabled  If the contracting officer determines that a trade agreement applies to a particular acquisition, which waives the Buy American restrictions, that determination does not require additional review at a higher level  This is similar to other circumstances where Buy American Act restrictions do not apply, such as for the acquisition of products for use outside the United States or contracts valued below the micro-purchase threshold  The Buy American Act’s applicability is based on the country of origin of the product being supplied, rather than the country of the vendor offering the product to the government  Vendors who propose to do business with the U S  government are required to certify as to where their products are manufactured or produced—whether in the United States or in a designated country covered by the Trade Agreements Act  Vendors can provide an annual certification applicable to all of their contracts through the federal government’s contractor registry, known as the System for Award Management (SAM)  Through SAM, a vendor identifies the country of origin for foreign products associated with a broad category of products  For example, a vendor could state that it provides aircraft components that originate in France and Mexico  Vendors also have the option not to certify the origin of their products in SAM, but instead provide information about foreign end products in their individual offers for contracts  Contracting officials include the relevant clauses in solicitations and contracts in accordance with regulation to require vendor certification  For example, the clause at FAR 52 225-2, Buy American Certificate, requires the offeror to certify that each end product is a domestic end product, or list any foreign end products and their country of origin  Once a contract is awarded, the awarding agency must enter certain information into FPDS-NG, a government-wide database for contract awards and obligations  The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of Management and Budget provides the overall direction for FPDS-NG, which is managed by the General Services Administration  FPDS-NG data can be populated through the individual systems agencies use to develop contracts  Agencies are responsible for the quality of the information transmitted to FPDS-NG, including data captured on the contract value and whether the foreign product acquisition is authorized by one of the Buy American Act exceptions or a trade agreement  This information is recorded at the contract level, or at the delivery order level for orders from indefinite delivery contracts  For certain product categories—essentially those that represent end products—FPDS-NG requires that contracting staff enter information in the “Place of Manufacture” drop-down data field, as shown in Figure 1  This field must be populated for all reported manufactured end products, including those valued under the micro-purchase threshold, which at the time of our review was generally $3,500  Options in this field include indicating that the product is made in the United States, or that it is made outside the United States and qualifies under one of the Buy American Act exceptions, or that it is subject to the requirements of a trade agreement instead of the Buy American Act requirements  In 2018, FPDS-NG data on agencies’ historical reporting of the use of Buy American exceptions were added to the website on which agencies post contracting opportunities (www fbo gov)  According to OFPP, this allows vendors selling domestic products to more easily see how agencies acquire foreign goods pursuant to Buy American Act exceptions  In fiscal year 2017, the federal government obligated approximately $7 8 billion for the acquisition of foreign end products, which accounts for less than 5 percent of total federal contract obligations for end products in that year  We observed differences in how civilian agencies and DOD apply Buy American Act exceptions and waivers  In our review of 38 contracts and orders from four agencies—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—we found 6 instances where the place of manufacture information was misreported in FPDS-NG  We further identified system limitations in how FPDS-NG captures information  Based on our analysis of FPDS-NG data, almost 40 percent of federal contract obligations in fiscal year 2017—totaling approximately $196 billion—were for domestic and foreign end products, such as aircraft parts, that may be subject to the Buy American Act  Less than 5 percent of these obligations—approximately $7 8 billion—were reported as foreign end products  This is consistent with the information agencies reported in FPDS-NG in the previous 4 years, with foreign end products accounting for approximately 3 to 8 percent of goods subject to Buy American Act restrictions between fiscal years 2013 through 2016  The foreign end products in fiscal year 2017 primarily came from South Korea, the United Kingdom, Afghanistan, Canada, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates, which together accounted for almost half of the total foreign end products reported  Appendix III shows the federal government’s obligations for foreign end products from various countries for fiscal year 2017  The procurement of foreign end products is permitted by the flexibilities available under the Buy American Act’s exceptions and waivers  Agencies also procured foreign end products through means separate from the exceptions allowed under the Buy American Act, primarily in cases where the Act would not apply  Agencies reported obligating more than $700 million to procure foreign end products by applying one of the five government-wide Buy American Act exceptions—such as domestic non-availability or unreasonable cost—in FPDS-NG for fiscal year 2017  Agencies reported obligating approximately $550 million to procure foreign end products as permitted by the Trade Agreements Act, which waives the Buy American Act’s domestic preference requirements for US trading partners when eligible products are covered by trade agreements and are above certain dollar thresholds  DOD also obligated nearly $2 9 billion to procure foreign products from countries with which it has reciprocal procurement agreements, using what is referred to as the DOD qualifying country exception  This is an exercise of the authority available to agencies under the Buy American Act’s public interest exception  DOD determined that it is not in the public interest to restrict the purchase of foreign end products from 27 countries  All but two of these qualifying countries are also US trading partners, so some of these awards for eligible products may be authorized by a trade agreement  However, the qualifying country exception allows DOD to procure foreign end products without regard to dollar thresholds or other trade agreement eligibility limitations  Agencies also procured foreign end products, such as fuel, to be used outside the United States, in which circumstance the Buy American Act’s requirements do not apply  For fiscal year 2017, these obligations accounted for almost $3 7 billion—about 47 percent of all dollars obligated for foreign end products, as reported in FPDS-NG  Figure 2 highlights fiscal year 2017 obligations, including agencies’ reported spending on foreign end products under the Buy American Act exceptions and other means  DOD accounted for more than 80 percent—roughly $6 4 billion—of the total obligations for foreign end products in fiscal year 2017  Almost all of DOD purchases were either for use outside of the United States, so were not subject to Buy American Act restrictions, or were reported under the public interest exception for DOD qualifying countries  In contrast, civilian agencies report a more varied mix of the exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act  The civilian agencies—which are unable to apply DOD’s qualifying country exception—were more likely to report buying foreign end products based on trade agreements or another exception to the Buy American Act requirements  Figure 3 shows how DOD and the civilian agencies acquired foreign end products authorized by the various exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act  From our review of FPDS-NG data, the civilian agencies are more likely to cite one of the five Buy American Act exceptions or a trade agreement waiver when buying foreign end products, and thus take corresponding actions to document or approve the authority cited  For example, in our review of contracts from four agencies, VA obligated $71,000 for medical imaging equipment from Canada, and had to consider whether a trade agreement waiver applied  The manufacturer was determined to be the only source available and the contracting officer determined the acquisition was authorized by a Buy American exception based on domestic non-availability, which can require additional review  In contrast, DOD may make a similar contract award for equipment from Canada based on the qualifying countries exception  DOD acquisitions, then, may be authorized by exceptions such as domestic non-availability when a required item does not come from a qualifying country  For example, we reviewed a $744,000 DOD award for vehicle equipment that was only available from South Africa—which is not one of the DOD qualifying countries and not covered by any of the trade agreements—so the acquisition was authorized by the domestic non-availability exception  In addition, the civilian agencies also reported buying foreign end products for use outside the United States but to a lesser extent than DOD  For example, this included one of the contracts we reviewed, an HHS award for Ebola vaccines manufactured in the Netherlands, with $44 7 million obligated in fiscal year 2017  This contract was reported as used outside the United States because it is primarily stored overseas  FPDS-NG is the primary means for capturing procurement data regarding the Buy American Act, but we found that agencies may not always input reliable information on the extent to which exceptions or waivers authorized the acquisition of foreign end products  In addition, some aspects of how FPDS-NG is structured could lead to additional data reporting errors  In the non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts and orders we examined from DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA, we found 6 awards where information related to the Buy American Act was incorrectly reported in FPDS-NG  In three of the six contracts, agencies recorded the wrong exception or waiver, most often because of an error when reporting the place of manufacture in FPDS-NG  For example, DOD reported a $22,000 contract for vehicle equipment from South Africa as a Buy American Act exception due to unreasonable cost  But the contract file indicated that the exception that applied was domestic non-availability  DOD officials acknowledged the error and corrected it in FPDS-NG during the course of our review  In the three remaining contracts, agencies misreported whether an end product came from the United States or another country  For example, DHS incorrectly recorded that an $18 million contract was for aircraft accessories and other parts manufactured in the United States, even though file documentation showed the contract was for Italian-produced spare parts from the original equipment manufacturer  The Italian- produced spare parts were available from existing inventory maintained by the manufacturer and were needed immediately to meet a mandatory operational requirement  Officials from DHS acknowledged the recording oversight, attributed it to a mistake when entering information in FPDS- NG, and have since corrected the error in response to our observation  Additionally, FPDS-NG has system limitations that could hinder complete and accurate reporting of Buy American Act information: DOD Qualifying Country Exceptions and Trade Agreement Waivers  FPDS-NG requires that information on the type of Buy American Act exception or waiver applied be provided when end products are reported as foreign  But FPDS-NG does not identify errors associated with this process  For example, we reviewed an $8 3 million DHS contract for engines manufactured in Germany that was recorded as a DOD qualifying country exception in FPDS-NG, although this exception is not available to civilian agencies  Contracting officials corrected the data in FPDS-NG during the course of our review  Further, FPDS-NG does not prevent agencies from reporting trade agreement waivers when the contracts are valued below applicable thresholds or waivers do not apply, such as for small business set asides  For example, in the fiscal year 2017 data we reviewed, more than 5 percent of contract obligations reported for trade agreement waivers were for awards set-aside for small businesses, which would not be eligible under the Trade Agreements Act  OFPP officials noted that because of the various dollar thresholds applicable to different trade agreements, adding automatic thresholds in FPDS-NG to guide contracting staff in reporting an applicable trade agreement could lead to additional data errors in the procurement database  Awards under the Micro-purchase Threshold  Although the Buy American Act requirements do not apply to contract awards valued below the micro-purchase threshold—generally $3,500 in fiscal year 2017—the FPDS-NG ‘Place of Manufacture’ field does not have an option to indicate whether a contract is under the threshold  Instead, contracting officers entering information for awards under the micro- purchase amount must still state whether the product is domestic or foreign  If the product is foreign, the officials must select a Buy American Act exception authorizing the purchase, even though no exception is needed at these dollar levels  As a result, when agencies report in FPDS-NG that a Buy American Act exception or waiver applied for a procurement valued at less than $3,500, that information would not be accurate  Based on our review, this may have involved about $16 million in fiscal year 2017 obligations  Awards for both Foreign and Domestic Products  When reporting data for contracts that include multiple end products from both the United States and a foreign country, FPDS-NG only allows for one country of origin to be identified  Contracting officers told us that they typically will report a foreign end product in FPDS-NG when the foreign products account for the preponderance of the contract value  Thus, in cases where a contract includes foreign end products that do not account for the preponderance of the contract’s value, the value of these foreign end products would not be reported in FPDS-NG  We have previously reported that FPDS-NG has similar limitations in other fields, such the type of product or service provided, which prevent contracting officers from identifying more than one condition  According to OFPP, a recent change in the FAR requiring contract reporting at the line item level should provide greater transparency of all products included in a contract  Buy American Act Exceptions and Waivers under Indefinite Delivery Contracts  The way FPDS-NG captures data for Buy American Act exceptions and waivers for some indefinite-delivery contracts results in inaccurate data reporting  When an indefinite- delivery contract is initially awarded, FPDS-NG functionality does not give contracting staff the option to enter information for the ‘Place of Manufacture’ field  Instead, this information is typically captured once an order is placed on the contract  In our review of FPDS-NG data across the four agencies, however, we found that in some cases obligations are reported on the initial indefinite delivery contract so the Buy American Act exceptions or waivers are not recorded  This occurred with multiple agencies, but particularly at HHS, where information for almost 28 percent of HHS obligations for end products in fiscal year 2017 was not captured in FPDS-NG because the obligations were reported in the system through the initial contracts rather than orders  As a result, the applicability of the Buy American Act for HHS contracts totaling almost $1 9 billion in fiscal year 2017 was unreported in FPDS-NG  DOD, DHS, and VA officials told us they identified FPDS-NG reporting as an area of concern  GAO Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government state that management should use quality information to support objectives, and that such data should be complete and accurate  In response to the 2017 Executive Order calling for federal agencies to assess their implementation of the Buy American Act requirement, OFPP officials told us they are identifying potential strategies for improving the information agencies submit to FPDS-NG  As OFPP weighs potential options for FPDS-NG reporting, implementing enhancements to reduce data entry errors and ensure that the data collected are complete and accurate would help enable the system to provide the most useful information possible  Ensuring information is correctly reported in FPDS- NG is critical because the data are used to inform procurement policy decisions and facilitate congressional oversight  The four agencies we reviewed—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—took different approaches to provide training and guidance for the Buy American Act requirements  Contracting officers faced challenges when procuring products subject to the Buy American Act  For example, we found instances in which contracting officers applied a waiver or exception to contracts where the waiver did not apply and did not have complete guidance for required determinations or reviews  There also were challenges in confirming product origin information when vendors did not provide consistent information  The four agencies we reviewed varied in the mix of training and guidance provided to aid contracting officers in implementing the requirements of the Buy American Act  Three of the four agencies—DOD, DHS and VA— supplemented the federal acquisition regulation, which implements the requirements of the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act, with their own acquisition regulations  In addition, DHS and DOD have recently updated existing training or added new training and guidance  VA issued policy memoranda in 2017, emphasizing the importance of meeting Buy American Act requirements, but has not added training or provided specific guidance  HHS does not provide department-level training or guidance related to the Buy American Act  Most of the DHS and DOD contracting officers we spoke to reported that they had attended training and several found the guidance provided by the training to be helpful  HHS and VA contracting officials described confusion due to the lack of resources available at their respective agencies  In 2017, in response to a series of recommendations from the DOD Inspector General to re-emphasize Buy American Act training and guidance, the Defense Acquisition University introduced an updated training course that specifically focuses on the requirements and implementation of the Buy American Act  While not mandatory, a June 2017 memo notified all DOD services and the defense agencies that members of their contracting workforce should complete this training as part of their professional development  At the current pace of enrollment, DOD officials anticipate approximately 18,000 people will have taken this course by the end of September 2018, which is a seven-fold increase over previous graduation rates  Incorporated into these trainings were supplemental on-the-job tools to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts for end products subject to the Buy American Act requirements  One such tool is a flowchart outlining applicable solicitation provisions or contract clauses based upon the awarded contract’s total dollar value  DOD contracting officials we interviewed from Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Land and Maritime division had completed the agency-level Buy American Act training and said it served as a good refresher, with some noting that most of the training they had received on the subject came when they were first hired  DOD provides regulations and guidance on Buy American Act requirements through both the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the accompanying Procedures, Guidance and Information  DOD contracting officers use the provisions and clauses in DFARS to address the public interest exception for DOD qualifying countries  In addition, as a part of the updated training, the Defense Pricing and Contracting Office developed two documents to provide additional Buy American Act guidance  One outlines a step-by-step approach contracting officers can follow to determine whether the Buy American Act applies to their particular procurement and, if so, whether the use of an exception or waiver is appropriate  The second assists contracting officers with evaluating all offers—foreign and domestic— when price is the determining factor  In addition, we found that DLA supplements the available Defense Acquisition University training and guidance with a robust level of support, including annual training and subject matter expertise  DLA contracting officers told us that while they found the updated training helpful, they also appreciated the training course internal to their agency, as it addresses the types of procurements they typically handle in their day-to- day work, such as buying spare parts  Further, DLA contracting officers noted that they use the job aid provided through the local training  DHS introduced training courses in 2017 that specifically focus on the requirements and implementation of the Buy American Act, including a mandatory training course for DHS contracting officers  DHS reported that 94 percent of contracting staff had taken the required course as of April 2018  DHS developed these courses in response to the 2017 Executive Order to ensure its staff was familiar with the Buy American Act requirements  Incorporated into these training courses are supplemental on-the-job tools to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts for end products subject to the Buy American Act requirements, such as a flowchart outlining applicable solicitation provisions or contract clauses based upon contract dollar value  Contracting officials generally view the training and tools they received as beneficial  For example, several DHS contracting officials we interviewed said that the agency’s new course provided a helpful review on the topic, while one contracting officer specifically noted that the course materials are useful to new staff, to help them understand the Act’s waivers and exceptions  DHS also revised its acquisition manual in December 2017 to add further detail regarding the Buy American Act requirements  Specifically, DHS updated its acquisition manual to provide contracting officers more explicit FPDS-NG reporting instructions for procurements subject to the Buy American Act, as well as discretion to purchase domestic end products at or below the micro-purchase threshold  Additional changes include increasing the documentation and level of managerial review required to use several of the exceptions to the Buy American Act  For example, prior to 2018—which includes the time period in which the DHS contracts and orders we reviewed were awarded—the head of individual contracting offices had the authority to approve domestic non-availability and unreasonable cost exceptions, with a notification made to the DHS Chief Procurement Officer  But under the new policy, the use of these exceptions must have the concurrence of the HCA—who is responsible for contracting activities within individual DHS components—and be approved by the department’s Chief Procurement Officer  Table 3 outlines these changes  In September 2017, VA issued guidance to reinforce existing Buy American Act requirements  The policy memorandum encourages the HCAs within VA to institute reviews of awarded contracts subject to the Buy American Act to ensure compliance  As of September 2018, policy officials did not know how many HCAs had taken this step  Further, the guidance emphasizes the importance of Buy American Act training for its acquisition workforce  VA policy officials explained that the Buy American Act is introduced in several VA training courses, but the agency does not have a specific course on implementing the Buy American Act requirements or provide additional instruction or tools  During the course of our review, VA officials said that some of the HCAs had added internal training on the Buy American Act  In addition, VA contracting staff has the option of taking training offered outside the agency, such as the updated Defense Acquisition University course on the Buy American Act  This training is not required  Contracting officials we spoke to at VA said they struggled with the details of awarding contracts subject to Buy American Act requirements because they are not provided sufficient agency-specific training and guidance on the topic  Moreover, several contracting staff noted an increased need for training due to recent changes in VA contracting practices  Specifically, in response to a 2016 Supreme Court decision, VA has increased contracting efforts with veteran-owned small businesses through the Veterans First Contracting Program  As a result, contracting officials explained they have reduced their use of schedule contracts, in which the determinations related to the Buy American Act requirements were made with the initial awards  As one contracting officer explained, prior to this change, more than 90 percent of her division’s procurements were through VA schedule contracts in which Buy American Act applicability had already been established  However, this shift in contracting practices means contracting officers will more frequently need to consider the applicability of the Buy American Act, but contracting officers have not received specific guidance or training to do so  Noting the significance of this change, one contracting officer stated she approached VA management to obtain Buy American Act training for her division, but such training was not available  Federal internal controls state that agencies should ensure that training is aimed at developing and retaining employee knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet changing organizational needs  In September 2018, we reported that VA was experiencing difficulties implementing multiple aspects of the Veterans First policy, and we recommended that VA provide more targeted implementation training  As VA moves forward to implement this training, incorporating the Buy American Act requirements will be important to provide greater assurance that staff has the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the changing procurement environment  HHS does not have agency-level Buy American training or guidance  The HHS Acquisition Regulation Supplement does not address foreign acquisitions  HHS officials told us that efforts to develop guidance that would address Buy American Act requirements are underway, but they do not know when they will be finalized and made available to contracting officers, and could not describe the extent to which they will address Buy American Act implementation  The HHS contracting officers we interviewed discussed informal Buy American Act training their divisions had developed because department-level training was not available  For example, at HHS’ National Institutes of Health, a contracting official told us about a training course she recently developed because her office was taking on the administration of additional contracts for which the Buy American Act requirements would apply  Contracting officers at HHS’ Office of Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority described informal training on the agency’s contract writing system— included as part of their weekly internal staff meetings—that provides additional guidance on how to appropriately complete certain data fields relevant to the Buy American Act  In our analysis of 38 contracts from across the four agencies, we found that agencies faced various levels of challenge in applying the Trade Agreements Act waivers and Buy American Act exceptions to acquire foreign end products  This was particularly apparent in cases where contracting officers had to determine if a trade agreement applied or cases which required a determination that a domestic end product was not sufficiently available, in accordance with the domestic non-availability exception to the Buy American Act requirements  Contracting staff also had difficulty determining the origin of products in light of incomplete or conflicting information  Of the six contracts we reviewed reporting that a trade agreement applied to the foreign end products purchased, we found two cases in which this waiver did not apply to the contracts in question  The value of the contract is one determining factor for whether a trade agreement waives the Buy American Act requirements, although the FAR also states additional factors that would affect applicability under a trade agreement  The two contracts we found, both from VA, had total dollar values at award— $8,435 and $11,950, respectively—that were less than any of the thresholds at which trade agreement waivers of the Buy American Act are applicable  Both contracts were for products from countries that are party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, so the value of the acquisition would have to be equal to or exceed $191,000—the threshold that was in effect at the time of award—for waivers from Buy American requirements to apply  Contracting officials in both cases were generally unaware that the applicable threshold was not met, making the trade agreement waiver inapplicable  Although VA has added Buy American Act guidance since these contracts were awarded early in fiscal year 2017, the information currently available does not provide sufficient detail to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts in these situations  For example, the guidance VA provided contracting officers in September 2017 does not emphasize consideration of the applicable trade agreement thresholds or include information on how contracting officers should determine the applicable waiver or exception  When contracting officers procure foreign end products, the type of waiver or exception used to support the purchase matters—particularly when required additional steps and review are not completed because the wrong waiver or exception was applied  We found that the two VA contracts with foreign end products were incorrectly reported as the Trade Agreements Act waiver having applied  If one of the other Buy American Act exceptions permitting purchases of foreign end products had applied, contracting officers may have been required to obtain higher-level review or complete a written determination  In addition, we reviewed contracts that show some of the complexities contracting officers face beyond applying the dollar thresholds when determining if an award for foreign end products is eligible under the Trade Agreements Act waiver of the Buy American Act  Specifically, we found instances where DHS contracting officials took different approaches for non-competed awards for similar foreign-manufactured products  For example, we reviewed a non-competed $58 million DHS award for acquiring spare aircraft parts from an original equipment manufacturer located in a foreign country that is party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement  DHS reported in FPDS-NG that the procurement was waived by the Trade Agreements Act  However, we also reviewed two other sole-source awards from DHS for similar products—spare aircraft parts from two separate manufacturers in foreign countries that are also party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement—that were instead reported as subject to the Buy American Act, but excepted due to the non-availability of domestic products  Contracting officers may come to different conclusions for similar products, in part, because of the multiple factors that have to be considered when determining whether an acquisition is subject to the Buy American Act and whether any waivers or exceptions apply  However, available guidance does not always address these complexities  For example, agencies need to decide if other conditions, such as the procurement of products deemed indispensable for national security or national defense purposes apply to an acquisition that would make a trade agreement inapplicable  Further, if the product’s country of origin is considered a designated country under the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, officials need to determine that the product is eligible under that agreement  DHS updated its training and guidance for the Buy American Act, which includes a job aid outlining at what dollar values solicitation provisions and contract clauses under a trade agreement waiver are applicable  However, it does not address other situations in which contracts may not be eligible under the Trade Agreements Act, such as non-eligible products or products for national defense purposes  For the other agencies in our review, we found that DOD’s updated Buy American Act training and its acquisition supplement both address trade agreement eligibility, but HHS does not yet have Buy American guidance to address this topic  Federal internal control standards state that agencies should communicate quality information internally to achieve their objectives and that they should select the appropriate methods of communication  When written guidance is not available, agencies may miss opportunities to ensure appropriate steps are taken to meet Buy American Act requirements  Our review of 38 contracts also included 8 contracts for foreign end products pursuant to the domestic non-availability exception  In certain situations, such as when contracts are awarded without full and open competition, this exception requires an approved written determination  The FAR establishes requirements for domestic non-availability determinations, but agencies can delegate the level of review required or specify information to be included in the determination  Three of the agencies we reviewed—DOD, DHS, and VA—provide supplemental guidance on the process for making determinations, including who must make the determination when applying a domestic non-availability exception  However, DHS policy officials told us that when the agency uses the domestic non-availability exception for a sole-source acquisition, the written justification that the FAR requires for non- competed awards should suffice as the documentation to support the non-availability determination as well  The practice of using sole-source justifications to support Buy American determinations is not addressed in DHS guidance  According to DHS policy updated in 2018, determinations of domestic non-availability must be concurred with by the HCA and approved by the Chief Procurement Officer  Federal and DHS acquisition regulations, however, state that some justifications can be approved at a lower level  In the absence of further guidance, this difference in approval levels could result in inconsistent application within the department  In addition, as previously noted HHS does not yet have Buy American Act guidance so the department does not provide information on how to make determinations  According to federal internal control standards, agencies should communicate quality information internally to achieve their objectives and that they should select appropriate communication methods  When written guidance is not available, agencies may miss opportunities to ensure that contracting officers take the steps needed to meet requirements when applying a domestic non-availability exception  Knowing the country of origin of the products the federal government buys is necessary to implement the Buy American Act, but contracting officers do not always have access to accurate information on originating countries  The FAR and the DFARS provide various clauses which, when incorporated into contracts, require vendors to certify that the end products they provide to the government are domestic and, if necessary, declare the foreign countries from which they provide products  Vendors frequently certify this information through the System for Award Management (SAM), the government-wide system used to collect vendors’ annual representations and certifications  Contracting officers may rely on the information vendors provide about their product origins, but they are generally expected to take actions to verify incomplete or conflicting information when they have reason to believe that a vendor will be providing a non-compliant product  We found that SAM certifications and offers did not always include accurate information on end products from foreign countries  In 6 of the 38 contracts that we reviewed—from DHS, HHS, and VA—the vendors certified that they only provided domestic end products although the end products provided were foreign  In all of these cases, the contracting officers knew that the acquisitions included foreign end products  For example, we reviewed two DHS awards for spare aircraft parts from an Italian-based company, one of which was reported in FPDS-NG under the domestic non-availability exception to the Buy American Act, and the other which was incorrectly reported as being manufactured in the United States but has since been corrected  Contracting officials said they knew the parts were made in Italy based on extensive experience contracting with the company and, in part, because they had visited the production location  Contracting officials—including some at HHS and VA—said they use SAM as their primary source to determine whether the vendor is offering domestic end products  Others reported some awareness of the limitations of SAM certifications  At all four agencies, contracting officials emphasized that it is important to ask questions when end product origin information is not readily available—or if there is conflicting information—but agency guidance that we reviewed does not address this need or provide information on how to do so  Only the local training offered by DOD’s DLA addresses other sources of information, which officials said was helpful because it is specific to the industries with which they work  Instead, some officials described how they rely on their experience to know how to verify products’ origins but this can be problematic, particularly with newer staff  For example, in one contract we reviewed VA contracting officials acknowledged that a new contracting specialist at VA did not follow-up when the product origin certification was not provided and assumed all of the items procured were domestic  During the course of our review, the contracting specialist’s supervisor said that she contacted the vendor and learned that some of the items provided were in fact foreign end products  The foreign products were not considered to account for the preponderance of the contract so were not reported in FPDS-NG, but the contracting officer was acting with incomplete information at the time of award  Further, in 4 of the 38 contracts that we reviewed, it is not clear how contracting staff took steps to obtain product origin information in situations where it was not provided in SAM  In these cases—which include contracts for both domestic and foreign end products—the vendors had opted not to certify their product origins in SAM, but instead said that they would provide the information with their individual proposals  However, based on the information in the contract files, the proposals did not include this information  For example: Three of the contracts we reviewed from HHS—all reported as purchasing end items manufactured in the United States—did not certify product origin in SAM  The supervising contracting officer for two of the awards explained that his contracting staff regularly check the vendor’s written representations and certifications provided in the offer, because the SAM certifications are general and do not always apply to the specific equipment they buy  However, the three contract files we reviewed did not include manufacturing or origin information  The vendor for a DHS contract that was reported as manufactured in the United States did not certify this information in SAM  The contracting officer said that he checks SAM for product origin information, but in the documents we reviewed there is no evidence of the information in the contract file  Federal internal control standards state that agencies should communicate the necessary quality information needed to achieve the agency’s objectives, thereby enabling personnel to address risks  Providing guidance regarding the situations in which contracting officers should verify product origin information with vendors may help agencies better meet the requirements of the Buy American Act  Although purchases for foreign end products account for less than 5 percent of federal procurement spending in fiscal year 2017, it is important that these purchases be consistent with the domestic- purchasing restrictions in the Buy American Act  This requires that Buy American Act exceptions and trade agreement waivers be used only when applicable, and that agencies report accurate data on the extent to which they are used  However, data reporting errors by contracting staff and FPDS-NG limitations mean that data on the use of exceptions and waivers are not fully captured  The federal agencies all have responsibilities to ensure Buy American Act data are accurate and complete  The lack of good data can hinder congressional oversight of the extent to which foreign end products are procured as authorized by one of the exceptions or waivers of the Buy American Act  Agencies have taken varied approaches for providing information to contracting officers that navigate the complexities and nuances associated with applying the different Buy American Act exceptions or trade agreement waivers  DOD has added such detailed information through its revised training course and policy guidance  Adding these types of targeted information to address challenging areas would help contracting officers at other agencies implement the Buy American Act’s domestic preferences, as well as related exceptions and waivers  Further, to accurately determine how exceptions and waivers apply requires complete product origin information  Although the responsibility to certify the origins of products supplied to the federal government rests with the contractors, contracting officers would benefit from resources that help them identify information that may be inconsistent, to ensure that accurate information is available  We are making four recommendations, one each to the Office of Management and Budget, DHS, VA, and HHS  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should instruct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy: To facilitate additional training to improve the understanding of the contracting workforce regarding the Buy American Act requirements; and To facilitate clarifying revisions to FPDS-NG, where needed, and provide training and guidance for recording Buy American Act information in FPDS-NG to improve the accuracy of the Buy American data  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Homeland Security should clarify existing guidance in the Homeland Security Acquisition Manual or update training to help contracting officials: Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; Document determinations of the use of Buy American exception for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained, particularly when such determinations are evidenced through justifications for other than full and open competition; and Identify sources of information available for determining product origin and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should clarify existing guidance, or provide training or other instruction, to help contracting officials: Address the applicability of the Buy American Act requirements and provide instruction on how to implement the requirements, including in any training developed to implement the Veterans First policy; Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; and Identify sources of information available for determining products’ origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services should provide guidance, training, or other instruction to help contracting officials: Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; Document determinations of the use of Buy American exceptions for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained; and Identify sources of information available for determining products’ origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to DOD, HHS, DHS, VA, and the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment  DOD reviewed the report, but did not offer comments  HHS, DHS, and VA provided written responses, which are reproduced in Appendices IV, V, and VI of this report, respectively  A senior official within the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) at the Office of Management and Budget provided a response via email  In addition, HHS, DHS, and OFPP provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate  In their responses, HHS, DHS, VA agreed, and OFPP generally agreed, with our findings and recommendations  The written response from HHS and DHS included information on the steps each agency plans to take to address the recommendations  Specifically, HHS stated that the agency will evaluate ways to provide additional training and guidance to contracting officials  DHS stated that it will provide guidance on the applicability of the Buy American Act and the Trade Agreements Act in certain situations and the documentation and approvals required when awarding non-competed contracts that require an exception  Additionally, DHS plans to update training regarding actions contracting officers should take when there are discrepancies in product origin information  VA concurred with our three-part recommendation and described some of the actions the agency plans to take in response  However, VA’s comments do not fully address our recommendation  Specifically, we recommended that VA clarify guidance or provide training to identify factors that could help contracting officers determine the applicability of Trade Agreements Act waivers of the Buy American Act  The comments from VA, however, only restate the existing Buy American Act exceptions and make no mention of Trade Agreements Act waivers  Further, we recommended that VA identify sources of information regarding product origin and the steps to be taken to verify inconsistent product origin information  VA’s response only noted that contracting officers are responsible for conducting market research and ensuring that all product origin requirements are met  VA did not outline any additional steps the agency would take to help contracting officers navigate the complexities inherent in this area  Going forward, VA will need to develop a more robust and responsive approach in order to fully implement our recommendation  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII  The objectives of this report are to assess the extent to which (1) the federal government procures foreign products through Buy American Act exceptions and waivers; and (2) selected agencies provide training and guidance to implement the Buy American Act requirements  To address both of these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and policies, such as sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); the Buy American Act as amended; the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 as amended; federal acquisition regulation supplements from audited agencies such as the Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); the Executive Order “Buy American, Hire American” of 2017; the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement; and memorandums, policy, guidance, and instructions related to the Buy American Act  To assess the federal government procurement of foreign products, including those procured through citing exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act, we analyzed data from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) for fiscal year 2017, which was the most recent and complete data available at the time of our review  We analyzed procurement data in FPDS-NG across the federal government in fields relevant to the Buy American Act’s domestic preference requirements, including the product service code, country of product origin, and place of manufacture, in addition to fields such as the contract value and dollars obligated  We reviewed the place of manufacture field in particular as it contains information on how the Buy American Act applies to the contract, including whether the preponderance of the obligations is for manufactured end products and, if so, whether they are manufactured in or outside of the United States  When manufactured outside of the United States, this field also captures the reason the purchase was permissible, which we analyzed to assess the dollar obligations associated with the various Buy American exceptions or trade agreement waiver reported, as well as when products were used outside of the United States  We also analyzed data from FPDS-NG to identify the countries where foreign end products were reported to be manufactured and the associated dollars obligated in fiscal year 2017  In addition, we met with officials from the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Procurement Policy to better understand ongoing reviews of the data in FPDS-NG that pertains to the Buy American Act  In our analysis of FPDS-NG data, we took steps to minimize issues that might affect data reliability  Specifically, we analyzed FPDS-NG data to identify potential errors and inconsistencies, such as non-eligible agencies reporting the use of exceptions for DOD qualifying countries, or reporting trade agreement waivers for contracts valued less than minimum thresholds for trade agreements  We made minor adjustments to minimize potential data reporting issues, including aggregating the exceptions reported, and where appropriate, limiting our analysis to one year of data, fiscal year 2017  Based on these steps, we determined that FPDS-NG data were sufficiently reliable to allow us to calculate the approximate extent of obligations for foreign end products and the use of the Buy American Act exceptions and the Trade Agreements Act waiver  However, we are unable to precisely determine the amount spent on foreign end products through the use of exceptions and waivers because of the reporting errors and data system limitations we identified in this report  Using FPDS-ND data, we identified four agencies—the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA)—that had the highest fiscal year 2017 obligations in the product codes for manufactured products, which are potentially subject to the Buy American Act restrictions  In addition, to identify trends and determine if there were variations in reported obligations for foreign end products in the past, we reviewed FPDS-NG data on the Buy American exceptions and trade agreement waivers in fiscal years 2013 through 2017  To assess the extent to which selected agencies are providing training and guidance to implement the requirements of the Buy American Act, we reviewed training course materials and regulations, policies, and other guidance available at the four agencies in our review—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—to determine the extent to which they address the Buy American Act requirements  In addition, we reviewed training materials available to government employees through sources such as the Federal Acquisition Institute  We interviewed policy officials from the four agencies to understand how training and guidance had been implemented  We further reviewed relevant inspector general reports from the DOD Inspector General issued between 2015 and 2018, which made several recommendations to improve compliance with the Buy American Act, among other requirements  Within the four agencies, we selected contracting offices that reported obligating fiscal year 2017 dollars for awards with foreign end products and awards with US-manufactured end products  We specifically focused on offices that reported a sufficient amount of foreign end product obligations and a sufficient number of contract awards to allow us to select multiple contracts  We also considered offices with a variety of Buy American exceptions and waiver types reported, in order to select a mix of contracts  The contracting offices selected were as follows: DOD: Defense Logistics Agency, Land and Maritime HHS: National Institutes of Health and the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response DHS: United States Coast Guard VA: Veterans Health Administration From these offices, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts and delivery orders awarded in fiscal year 2017  At each agency, we selected awards to include a mix of end items produced by domestic and foreign manufacturers and, when products were reported as foreign manufactured, a mix of the various exceptions and waivers cited  We also include awards across a range of value for dollars obligated above the micro purchase threshold—ranging from approximately $5,000 to more than $100 million—to ensure we reviewed awards both above and below the various thresholds at which the Trade Agreements Act waiver might apply  Additionally, our sample included awards for similar types of end products across agencies, including aircraft parts at DOD and DHS and medical supplies at HHS and VA, to compare practices in different agencies  We originally selected 40 awards for review—10 from each agency—but removed two awards from our sample  One was an HHS award that we determined was awarded using Other Transaction Authority and was not subject to the Buy American Act  The second excluded contract was from DHS, which was modified after award to reflect that it was an information technology service rather than a product  As a service, it would not be subject to the Buy American Act  We reviewed the contract files for each of the 38 awards in our sample, including documentation such as the contract and task order award, solicitations, vendors’ offers or response to proposals, determination and finding memos, and FPDS-NG output documents  In addition, we reviewed the certifications each vendor provided in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of contract award  We interviewed contracting officials responsible for each of the 38 contracts and task orders to understand how they addressed the Buy American Act requirements, including how they determined exception or waiver applicability and product origin  We also reviewed any agency-specific or local training and guidance, tools, or job aids available to assist contracting officers in implementing the Act’s requirements We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to December 2018 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 audit objectives  The United States maintains trade relationships with other countries whose specific negotiated terms results in different levels and types of applicability for waivers and exceptions to the Buy American Act  Figure 4 depicts the range of relationships that the United States maintains with other nations that allow for less restrictive purchasing of foreign end products by the federal government  The federal government purchases foreign end products from various countries  Figure 5 highlights the different amounts of contract obligations for foreign end products from these countries for fiscal year 2017  The highest category, over $500 million, includes 4 countries that account for almost 40 percent of all federal procurement of foreign end products  Countries where the federal government obligated less than $5 million for the procurement of foreign end products are not included  In addition to the contact named above, Candice Wright, Assistant Director; and Jennifer Dougherty, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this review  Skip McClinton; Erin Stockdale; Adam Cowles; Stephanie Gustafson; Julia Kennon; Anne Louise Taylor; and Robin Wilson made key contributions to this report 
Report 2:  persons, shaped in part from risks in not meeting FATCA reporting requirements  Representatives of a banking association and an advocacy group told us that some FFIs decided to avoid doing business with U S  persons after they became concerned about potential penalties for failure to comply—either willfully or in error—with FATCA reporting requirements  One banking association added that such errors could affect other aspects of FFIs’ relationships with the U S  government, such as nonprosecution agreements made with the U S  Department of Justice  Officials from one consulting firm that helped FFIs meet FATCA reporting requirements added that FFIs’ determination of risk depends on many layers, such as the value of clients’ assets or the country in which clients reside or possess citizenship  After FATCA’s implementation, according to officials from the consulting firm, FFIs decided to turn away U S  persons in some cases because the benefits of doing business with U S  persons were less than the potential risks  For example, if a U S  person only maintained a payroll account, the FFI may determine it would not make enough money to account for risks in incorrectly identifying the status of the customer as a U S  or non-U S  person  However, focus group participants from two countries said that FFIs may agree to accept U S persons as customers if they have higher account balances that offset risks from FATCA reporting requirements  One focus group participant, for instance, said banks in his country will do business with a U S  person if he or she has more than $500,000 in assets  Additionally, U S  persons and tax practitioners we interviewed said that other factors such as language barriers and U S  regulations designed to prevent money laundering may also inhibit U S  persons’ access to brokerage accounts while overseas  Focus group participants and others we interviewed said that Form 8938 reporting requirements contributed to denials of employment and promotion opportunities for U S  persons living abroad  Treasury officials noted that requirements imposed by FATCA do not directly hinder U S  persons from gaining employment or promotion opportunities overseas  However, focus group participants, a consulting firm, and a foreign government agency noted that foreign-owned companies and nonprofit organizations such as churches did not want to hire or promote U S  persons because they wanted to avoid exposing information to the U S  government on their organizations’ accounts and client trust accounts where the U S  person would have signature authority  As noted above, a U S  person is generally required to report on the Form 8938 foreign financial accounts for which the person has signature authority if he or she has a financial interest in the account  Focus group participants and others noted that such requirements have adversely affected the ability of U S  persons to serve on a corporate board or in a nonprofit organization, or maintain business relationships  Treasury and Department of Commerce officials stationed in one country included in our review added that FATCA implementation has played a role in dissuading foreign-owned corporations in some Asian countries from considering U S  persons for corporate leadership positions such as directorships  This is in part because FATCA has triggered additional paperwork burden and operating costs for onboarding U S  employees since they have had to help them meet Form 8938 reporting requirements  Two advocacy groups representing U S  persons living abroad added that it is also harder for U S -based companies to justify relocating U S  persons overseas and paying for such relocations since they also have had to help their U S  employees meet Form 8938 reporting requirements in addition to meeting other tax filing requirements  U S  embassy documents indicate there was increased demand for Social Security Numbers (SSN) since FATCA’s passage in 2010, driven in part by U S  citizens applying for an SSN to gain access to foreign financial services or resolve outstanding U S  tax obligations before completing renunciation  However, officials from two organizations representing Americans living abroad cited significant challenges faced by some U S  persons living abroad in obtaining SSNs required to meet their U S  tax obligations or obtain financial services  U S  persons living abroad might not possess an SSN because their parents did not obtain one for them as a minor  Often, this may have been due to the parents leaving the United States when the child was young  State officials also said that U S  citizens applying for U S  passports while overseas frequently forget their SSNs or do not know if their parents ever applied for an SSN on their behalf  Officials from organizations representing U S  persons living abroad added that without an SSN, these persons are unable to claim refunds or other tax benefits when filing their tax returns, or participate in IRS programs to voluntarily disclose previously unreported tax liabilities and assets  Additionally, some might be unable to gain or maintain access to financial accounts or other assets in their countries of residence without an SSN  According to these officials and tax practitioners we interviewed, U S  persons living abroad face greater challenges in obtaining SSNs than those living in the United States  For instance, they faced difficulties obtaining documentation from the United States that the Social Security Administration (SSA) requires with SSN applications; traveling to Social Security offices and U S  embassies or consulates to certify documents or submit applications in person; and receiving valid SSNs from SSA in a timely manner to file tax returns or participate in offshore disclosure programs  SSA officials also identified several challenges U S  persons experience when applying for an SSN from abroad  For instance, SSA officials said that efforts to authenticate documents submitted with SSN applications can cause delays for U S  persons living abroad in obtaining an SSN  Additionally, SSN applicants living abroad face significantly longer wait times than applicants living in the United States once their applications are processed  According to SSA officials, after an application is processed, it can take 3 to 6 months–-depending on the country’s mail service–-for an individual to receive a Social Security Card  This is significantly longer than the 2-week period it takes SSN applicants to receive a card after mailing in their applications from within the United States  According to Department of State (State) data, the annual number of approvals of requests for renunciations of U S  citizenships increased nearly 178 percent during a 6-year period, from 1,601 in 2011—the year after FATCA was enacted—to 4,449 in 2016, the most recent year to which full data on renunciations were available  According to U S  embassy documents and information provided by focus group participants and interviewees across all the countries we examined, FATCA was the reason or a contributing factor in some of these decisions and the resulting increase in total renunciations  Specific effects of FATCA implementation contributing to decisions to renounce U S  citizenship included reduced access to foreign financial services and employment or promotion opportunities in a foreign-owned company—as identified above from our document reviews, focus groups, and interviews—and burdens in meeting FATCA reporting requirements  However, the extent to which FATCA implementation contributed to increased renunciations is unclear  State officials said that data are unavailable to determine the extent to which these renunciation decisions were the direct result of FATCA because State has no legal obligation to collect information on the motivation behind renunciation of citizenship  In response to concerns about the availability of foreign financial services, Treasury implemented regulations that allow certain low-risk local FFIs to be deemed compliant with FATCA, but only if the FFIs do not implement policies or practices that discriminate against opening or maintaining accounts for specified U S  persons  Treasury and State also previously established joint strategies to address these challenges  For instance, Treasury and State developed guidance on FATCA that was posted on embassy websites to educate U S  persons and others  Additionally, Treasury and State officials conducted outreach events and workshops through U S  embassies and American chambers of commerce worldwide to provide information on FATCA and other tax filing requirements, According to State officials, the U S  embassies in at least two countries—Switzerland and France—also worked with foreign officials and/or FFIs to increase access to financial services for U S  citizens residing in those countries  For instance, Treasury and State officials reached agreements with FFIs in Switzerland to provide a wider range of financial services to U S  persons  Similarly, in 2017, SSA and State implemented an interagency agreement to streamline processes for providing SSNs to U S  persons living abroad after FATCA’s implementation in 2010  SSA officials said they are also in discussions with State on improving SSA’s website to include more transparent, specific information for SSN overseas applicants about SSA documentation requirements  Tax practitioners, advocacy groups, and Treasury officials we interviewed said FFIs have become more willing to accept U S  persons as customers compared to when FATCA was enacted in 2010  However, U S  persons living abroad continue to face issues gaining access to foreign financial services  For example, in a September 2018 letter sent by the Chair of the Finance Committee of the Netherlands House of Representatives to a member of Congress, U S  citizens born outside the United States and who have never lived, studied, or worked in the United States are effectively being denied access to financial services in the Netherlands  Focus group participants added that some banks will reject U S  clients or charge heavy fees for them to open an account  Agencies have ongoing efforts to address FATCA-related issues, as listed below, but some are ad hoc, fragmented, or otherwise not part of a broader effort between Treasury and other agencies such as State or SSA to use ongoing collaborative mechanisms to monitor and share information on such issues, and jointly develop and implement steps to address them: Treasury officials said they are participating in discussions with FFIs to address residual issues with access to foreign financial services  However, they said they have not involved other agencies in these discussions  IRS officials, in response to concerns from the French government, said they are developing a program to help streamline foreign asset- related tax compliance requirements for a small group of U S  born citizens that have been French residents most of their lives without an SSN, and—according to State officials—did not wish to take the necessary steps to renounce their citizenship  However, no effort has been made to address these issues more broadly  State encouraged U S  citizens to alert the nearest U S  embassy of any practices they encounter with regard to the provision of financial services  State documents noted that some Americans have been turned away by banks or required to meet a higher deposit threshold in part because of FATCA reporting requirements  State documentation also noted that there have been cases of U S  citizens with existing bank accounts who have been asked to close them  However, State documentation we reviewed does not highlight collaborative efforts currently underway with Treasury or other agencies to address banking access issues U S  persons living abroad are presently encountering worldwide  As described above, SSA and State streamlined processes and policies for U S  persons abroad seeking to obtain SSNs  However, SSA officials said they have not been involved in any ongoing efforts involving Treasury to identify systemic issues and related solutions involving SSNs for the purposes of tax compliance and citizenship renunciations  Treasury officials said they spoke with SSA officials about problems U S  persons living abroad face in obtaining SSNs, but SSA believed that cycle times for processing SSN applications submitted by U S  persons living abroad were not significantly greater than for applications submitted by U S  persons living in the United States, although mailing times could vary significantly and take up to 3 to 6 months  We have previously identified key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration, including defining and articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results  One goal in IRS’s strategic plan is to collaborate with external partners proactively to improve tax administration, while objectives in SSA’s strategic plan include improving service delivery and expanding service delivery options  Additionally, according to State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs website, one of State’s key priorities is to protect the interests of U S  citizens overseas, such as through ensuring responsive and efficient provision of consular services overseas  As noted above, there are a host of ongoing issues and challenges for U S  persons living abroad from implementation of FATCA, such as loss of access to foreign financial services, denial of employment and promotion opportunities overseas, and difficulty obtaining SSNs from abroad  However, Treasury currently lacks a collaborative mechanism to coordinate efforts with other agencies to address these issues, and Treasury officials said they do not plan to establish them  Without effective collaborative mechanisms to monitor and share information and implement cross-agency solutions, future efforts to address such issues will continue to be fragmented and less effective than they otherwise could be  In enacting FATCA, Congress sought to reduce tax evasion by creating greater transparency and accountability over offshore assets held by U S  taxpayers  Because of FATCA, IRS receives information on foreign financial assets from hundreds of thousands of filers annually  IRS could use this information to help ensure taxpayers holding offshore assets report and pay taxes owed on income generated from such assets  However, to take full advantage of the information, IRS must address key challenges  Specifically, Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN) reported by FFIs are often inaccurate or incomplete, which makes it difficult for IRS to match information reported by FFIs to individual taxpayers  As such, IRS must develop a plan to mitigate the risks that these data issues pose to agency efforts to identify and combat taxpayer noncompliance  Lack of consistent, complete, and readily available Form 8938 and related parent individual tax return data also affects IRS’s compliance activities, making it more difficult for IRS business units to extract and analyze FATCA data to improve tax compliance efforts and reduce tax revenue loss from income generated from offshore assets  At the same time, IRS has stopped following its FATCA Compliance Roadmap it developed in 2016 because, according to IRS officials, IRS moved away from updating broad strategy documents to focus on individual compliance campaigns  However, in light of the challenges IRS continues to face in fully integrating FATCA information into its compliance programs, it will not maximize use of such information and effectively leverage individual compliance campaigns unless it employs a comprehensive plan that enables IRS to better leverage such campaigns to improve taxpayer compliance  Our analysis of available data indicates that many of the Forms 8938 filed in tax year 2016 may have been filed unnecessarily  Factors that are contributing to this unnecessary reporting are unclear  While IRS has provided instructions and guidance on its website for completing Form 8938, focus group participants and tax practitioners reported confusion on whether and how to report investments in foreign accounts  Taking steps to identify and address factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting would help reduce taxpayer burden and reduce processing costs for IRS  Reporting requirements for foreign financial assets under FATCA overlap with reporting requirements under FBAR  These overlapping requirements—implemented under two different statutes—have resulted in most taxpayers filing Forms 8938 also filing FBARs with FinCEN  Duplicative filings on foreign financial assets cause confusion, frustration, and compliance burdens for taxpayers  Duplicative filings also increased costs to the government to process and store the same or similar information  Modifying the statutes governing the requirements can fully address the issues outlined above, and can allow for the use of FATCA information for prevention and detection of financial crimes  This is similar to other statutory allowances for IRS to disclose return information for other purposes, such as for determining Social Security income tax withholding  Lastly, FATCA has created challenges for some U S  persons living abroad that go beyond increasing their tax compliance burdens  Some U S  persons living abroad are still facing issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs  Treasury, State, and SSA have taken some steps to address these issues both separately and in coordination with each other  However, Treasury, as the agency ultimately responsible for effective administration of FATCA, currently lacks a collaborative mechanism with State and SSA to address ongoing issues  Establishing a formal means to collaboratively address burdens faced by Americans abroad from FATCA can help agencies develop effective solutions to mitigate such burdens  We are making the following matter for congressional consideration: Congress should consider amending the Internal Revenue Code, Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and other statutes, as needed, to address overlap in foreign financial asset reporting requirements for the purposes of tax compliance and detection, and prevention of financial crimes, such as by aligning the types of assets to be reported and asset reporting thresholds, and ensuring appropriate access to the reported information  We are making the following four recommendations to IRS: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop a plan to mitigate risks with compliance activities due to the lack of accurate and complete TINs of U S  account holders collected from FFIs  (Recommendation 1) The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should ensure that appropriate business units conducting compliance enforcement and research have access to consistent and complete data collected from individuals’ electronic and paper filings of Form 8938 and elements of parent individual tax returns  As part of this effort, the Commissioner should ensure that IRS provides clear guidance to the business units for accessing such data in IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse  (Recommendation 2) The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should employ a comprehensive plan for managing efforts to leverage FATCA data in agency compliance efforts  The plan should document and track activities over time to ensure individuals and FFIs comply with FATCA reporting assess and mitigate data quality risks from FFIs; improve the quality, management, and accessibility of FATCA data for compliance, research, and other purposes; and establish, monitor, and evaluate compliance efforts involving FATCA data intended to improve voluntary compliance and address noncompliance with FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 3) The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should assess factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting and take steps, as appropriate, to address the issue  Depending on the results of the assessment, potential options may include: identifying and implementing steps to further clarify IRS Form 8938 instructions and related guidance on IRS’s website on determining what foreign financial assets to report, and how to calculate and report asset values subject to reporting thresholds; and conducting additional outreach to educate taxpayers on required reporting thresholds, including notifying taxpayers that may have unnecessarily filed an IRS Form 8938 to reduce such filings  (Recommendation 4) We are also making the following recommendation to Treasury: The Secretary of the Treasury should lead efforts, in coordination with the Secretary of State and Commissioner of Social Security, to establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues— including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 5) We are also making the following recommendation to State: The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of Social Security, should establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues—including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 6) We are also making the following recommendation to SSA: The Commissioner of Social Security, in coordination with the Secretaries of State and Treasury, should establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues—including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 7) We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of State and the Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Acting Commissioner of Social Security  IRS provided written comments that are summarized below and reprinted in appendix VI  IRS did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with our four recommendations but otherwise provided responses  Regarding our recommendation to develop a plan to mitigate risks with compliance activities due to the lack of accurate and complete TINs of U S  account holders collected from FFIs (recommendation 1), IRS reiterated that it provided a transition period, through the end of 2019, for compliance with the TIN requirements for FFIs in countries with Model 1 IGAs with the United States  IRS also said that it continued to make progress on improving FATCA filing compliance, citing efforts such as initiating a campaign addressing FFIs that do not meet their compliance responsibilities  While these efforts may help IRS obtain more accurate and complete information from financial accounts, IRS did not specify how it will mitigate the ongoing hurdles it faces in matching accounts reported by FFIs without valid TINs to accounts reported by individual tax filers and ensure compliance  Regarding our recommendation that appropriate business units have access to consistent and complete data collected from Forms 8938 and tax returns filed by individuals (recommendation 2), IRS reiterated that RAAS has been working to obtain read-only access to the IPM database but that limited budgetary resources are delaying implementation  Enabling access to consistent and complete Form 8938 and tax return data would help IRS better target compliance initiatives and leverage limited available enforcement resources  While IRS continues to work on enabling access to IPM, it could still provide clear guidance to its business units for accessing Form 8938 and tax return data in IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse, as we recommended  Regarding our recommendation to employ a comprehensive plan for managing efforts to leverage FATCA data in agency compliance efforts (recommendation 3), IRS said the resources that would be required to develop a comprehensive plan would be better spent on enforcement activities  While implementing enforcement activities could increase compliance with FATCA reporting requirements, it risks not maximizing the value of such efforts without a comprehensive plan to manage and address the myriad of challenges discussed in this report  Further, it is our belief that IRS’s failure to execute the FATCA roadmap is not justification for abandoning a strategic approach going forward  Regarding our recommendation to assess factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting and take appropriate steps to address the issue (recommendation 4), IRS said it will continue to observe filings of Form 8938 and, to the extent that there are unnecessary filings, assess options to inform account holders to reduce reporting and filing burdens followed by appropriate steps to implement any selected options  Our analysis of available data indicates that many Forms 8938 may have been filed unnecessarily  Implementing our recommendation reduces the risk that taxpayers file—and IRS processes—forms unnecessarily  Treasury provided written comments but did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with our recommendation that it lead efforts, in coordination with State and SSA, to establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements (recommendation 5)  Treasury said it will work collaboratively with State and SSA to answer questions that Americans abroad have regarding their tax obligations and, where appropriate, to direct U S  citizens to resources that will help them understand the procedures applied by SSA to apply for an SSN  However, Treasury said it is not the appropriate agency to lead coordination efforts involving foreign employment issues and issues regarding access to foreign financial services and obtaining SSNs  As we noted above, Treasury is ultimately responsible for effective administration of FATCA  As such, it is in a better position than State or SSA to adjust regulations and guidance implementing FATCA to address burdens FFIs and foreign employers face from FATCA implementation while ensuring tax compliance  Additionally, Treasury has an interest in helping U S  persons receive valid SSNs from SSA in a timely manner to meet their tax obligations  Treasury’s written response is reprinted in appendix VII  State and SSA also provided written comments in which they concurred with our recommendations to establish a formal means to address collaboratively together with Treasury ongoing issues that U S  persons living abroad encounter with FATCA (recommendations 6 and 7)  State and SSA’s written comments are reprinted in appendices VIII and IX, respectively  Treasury, State, and SSA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretaries of State and the Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9110 or mctiguej@gao gov  Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are on the last page of this report  GAO staff who contributed to this report are listed in appendix X  The objectives of this report are to (1) assess the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) efforts to use information collected under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) to improve taxpayer compliance; (2) examine available foreign financial asset reports submitted by U S  persons, including submissions that were below required filing thresholds; (3) examine the extent to which the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) administers overlapping reporting requirements on foreign financial assets; (4) describe similarities and differences between FATCA and Common Reporting Standard (CRS) reporting requirements; and (5) examine the effects of FATCA implementation that are unique to U S  persons living abroad  For our first objective, we reviewed Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reports and collected information from Treasury and IRS to summarize efforts to collect complete and valid Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN) from foreign financial institutions (FFI)  We identified criteria from our prior work identifying key practices for risk management  The key practices are derived from the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Development and Office of Management and Budget guidance  We applied these criteria to assess steps IRS has taken to manage risks in not receiving complete and valid TIN information from FFIs  We also applied criteria from our prior work on use of documented frameworks to IRS documentation on FATCA compliance activities to determine the extent to which IRS implemented a comprehensive plan to maximize use of collected data to enforce compliance with FATCA  For our second objective, we identified total maximum account values reported by individual filers of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114s (commonly known as the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or FBAR) in calendar years 2015 and 2016  See appendix III for more details on our methodology to evaluate these data  We also summarized the numbers of IRS Forms 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets (Form 8938) filed in tax year 2016, accounting for the data limitations described below  We also identified Forms 8938 filed in tax year 2016—the most recent year for which data were available—with available residency and asset information that reported specified foreign financial assets with aggregate values at or below end-of-year tax thresholds, which vary depending on the location of residence and filing status of such filers  For our third objective, we reviewed IRS and FinCEN documentation, and applied criteria from Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide to identify the extent to which IRS and FinCEN were engaged in overlapping activities, and collecting duplicative information on foreign financial assets held by U S  persons  We assessed the extent to which individual filers who submitted a Form 8938 in 2015 and 2016 also submitted an FBAR for the same year by determining the number and percentage of Forms 8938 with TINs that also match the TIN listed on the corresponding FBAR for the same year  For the three objectives described above, we assessed the reliability of data submitted on Forms 8938 filed by individuals for tax years 2015 and 2016, the most recent data available  These data were extracted from IRS’s Individual Return Transaction File (IRTF) and Modernized Tax Return Database (MTRDB) through IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW)  We also assessed the reliability of data from FBARs for calendar years 2015 and 2016 by (1) reviewing documentation about the data and the systems that produced them; (2) conducting electronic tests, such as identifying data with significant numbers of missing Form 8938 or FBAR records, or values of foreign financial assets reported outside an expected range; (3) tracing selections or random samples of data to source documents; and (4) interviewing IRS and FinCEN officials knowledgeable about the data  We also reviewed Form 8938 and relevant parent tax return data stored in IRS databases to determine whether IRS management is using quality information collected from Forms 8938 to achieve its objectives, as defined in our Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  We determined that data extracted from IRTF on characteristics of Form 8938 filers and from FBAR filings was sufficiently reliable for our purposes, subject to caveats identified in this report  However, we determined we could not obtain complete data on foreign financial assets reported on Forms 8938 filed on paper  For our fourth objective, we reviewed model international agreements and other documentation, and interviewed officials from Treasury, IRS, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to compare and contrast FATCA and CRS reporting requirements  We also used the collected information to identify what changes, if any, the United States and other countries could implement to align FATCA and CRS reporting requirements  For our fifth objective, we collected documentation and conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 21 U S  persons living abroad that were subject to FATCA reporting requirements  We also conducted focus groups and interviews with tax practitioners, banking and CPA organizations, government agencies, advocacy groups representing Americans living abroad, and other organizations from the United States and five other countries (Canada, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom)  We selected these countries based on geography, relatively high numbers of U S  expatriates and Form 8938 filers, tax information sharing agreements, and other tax treaties with the United States  The findings from the focus groups and interviews are not generalizable to other U S  persons, tax practitioners or organizations, but were selected to represent the viewpoints of U S  persons, FFIs, and host country tax authorities required to transmit information on foreign accounts and other specified foreign financial assets to IRS  We conducted a thematic analysis of the focus groups and interviews, and reviewed cables from U S  embassies to identify the unique effects of FATCA implementation on U S  persons living abroad  We collected documentation from and interviewed Treasury, IRS, Department of State, and Social Security Administration officials on steps to monitor and mitigate such effects  We also identified criteria from our prior work on key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration and mechanisms to facilitate coordination  We applied the criteria to agencies’ collaborative efforts addressing issues U S  persons living abroad faced from FATCA’s implementation, and identified the extent to which agencies established effective collaborative mechanisms to identify, assess, and implement cross-agency solutions to such issues  We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to April 2019 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  The following IRS databases store data collected from individuals’ electronic and paper filings of Forms 8938 and/or elements of individual parent tax returns—the filer’s address and filing status—used to determine specified reporting thresholds for Form 8938 filers: Individual Master File (IMF), which serves as IRS’s system for processing individual taxpayer account data  Using this system, accounts are updated, taxes are assessed, and refunds are generated as required during each tax-filing period  Individual Returns Transaction File (IRTF), which stores edited, transcribed, and error-corrected data from the Form 1040 series and related forms for the current processing year and two prior years  Modernized Tax Return Database (MTRDB), which serves as the official repository of all electronic returns processed through IRS’s Modernized e-File system  Tax return data is stored immediately after returns are processed  International Compliance Management Model (ICMM)-FATCA International Returns (ICMM-FIR), which collects, parses, and stores data from incoming form reports–such as Forms 8938 and 8966–into the FATCA Database (FDB), which serves as the repository where ICMM-FIR stores data and from which downstream applications can pull data  Integrated Production Model (IPM), which is a downstream data repository that houses IMF data, information returns, and other data  According to IRS officials, data from IPM are consolidated and made available to a variety of downstream, security certified, systems for use in conducive analysis, case selection, and report preparation  Additionally, data from these and other IRS databases are copied to IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW) periodically, which captures data from multiple production systems and organizes the data in a way that is conductive to analysis  Table 6 highlights several problems with the consistency and completeness of Form 8938 and relevant parent tax return data stored across the listed databases  Inconsistent and incomplete data on address and filing status of Form 8938 filers: As noted above, elements of parent tax returns— specifically the filer’s country of residence and filing status—are used to determine specified reporting thresholds for Form 8938 filers  However, IRTF and MTRDB have inconsistent and incomplete data on addresses linked to Form 8938 filers, and report inconsistent numbers of Forms 8938 filed from a U S  residence  For example, the variable identified as containing data on foreign countries of residence in IRTF shows approximately 8,100 foreign filers in tax years 2015 and 2016, whereas a similar variable in MTRDB shows approximately 89,000 foreign filers for those same years  Additionally, FDB does not contain country codes from paper filings of Form 8938  ICCM-FIR stores information from some elements from parent tax returns—such as TINs and document locator numbers  According to IRS officials, however, ICMM-FIR lacks data on country codes and filing status of Form 8938 filers  IRS officials said that ICMM-FIR was not designed or intended to store data on Form 8938 filers; rather, it was designed to be a database for use in comparing Form 8938 and 8966 data  In general, IRS officials indicated that they would like to adjust the way ICMM-FIR stores data, but that would require modifying the way the database was established  Incomplete data on assets reported on Forms 8938: MTRDB contains detailed information on specified foreign financial assets submitted on electronic filings of Form 8938 and the country code from which the Form 8938 was filed  IRS officials said it is not designed to store information submitted on paper filings of Forms 8938 and parent tax returns  IRS officials said that while IMF processes information transcribed from individual income tax returns, there is no requirement to cross-reference information from the tax return with information submitted with an accompanying Form 8938  Additionally, while IRS officials told us that IRTF is the authoritative source for filers of Form 8938, it does not store account and other asset information submitted from Forms 8938  When asked whether there is any move to store account and other asset information collected from Forms 8938 into IRTF, IRS officials said that the decision on what returns or portions of returns are transcribed are subject to resource constraints and are prioritized from year to year  Table 7 shows that more than 900,000 individuals filed Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114s (commonly known as the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or FBAR) in calendar years 2015 and 2016, and declared total maximum values of accounts ranging from about $1 5 trillion to more than $2 trillion each year  We are providing a range of estimates because we found a large number of filings made potentially in error  In some cases, for instance, FBAR filers reported more than $100 trillion in foreign financial accounts  We assume many of these filings are likely made in error, but have only limited means to determine which filings have errors, and which filings have accurate information  Because we cannot independently verify the accuracy of all self-reported FBAR data, we decided to present a range of data with (1) a lower bound discarding all FBAR filings reporting total values of reported foreign financial accounts at or above $1 billion; and (2) an upper bound discarding all filings reporting total values of such accounts at or above $5 billion  Table 2 excludes amended and duplicated FBAR filings  This table also excludes FBAR filings that reported a financial interest in 25 or more financial accounts, but reported total maximum account values of $0 from parts II and III of the FBAR  Although we identified problems with the data, we determined they were reliable enough to provide an estimated range of asset values to report the scale of foreign financial accounts held by U S  persons  Table 8 shows a detailed breakdown of 2015 and 2016 FBAR filings by residence and categories of total maximum account values reported on the FBARs  Appendix IV: Detailed Comparison of Individual Foreign Financial Asset Reporting Requirements 26 U S C  § 6038D; 26 C F R  §§ 1 6038D-1 to 1 6038D-8  26 C F R  § 1 6038D-2  Filers in this category include those who identify as single, married filing separately, “head of household,” or “qualifying widow(er) ” Includes maximum value of specified foreign financial assets (Form 8938) or maximum value of financial accounts maintained by a financial institution physically located in a foreign country (FBAR)  Under FATCA, any income, gains, losses, deductions, credits, gross proceeds, or distributions from holding or disposing of the account are or would be required to be reported, included, or otherwise reflected on a person’s income tax return  Under FBAR reporting requirements, a person has signature or other authority if he or she has the authority (alone or in conjunction with another) to control the disposition of money, funds or other assets held in a financial account by direct communication (whether in writing or otherwise) to the person with whom the financial account is maintained  The account itself is subject to reporting, but the contents of the account do not have to be separately reported  In addition to the contact named above, Brian James (Assistant Director), Mark Ryan (Analyst-in-Charge), Ariana Graham, George Guttman, Krista Loose, Daniel Mahoney, Cynthia Saunders, A J  Stephens, and Elwood White made key contributions to this report  Michael John Bechetti, Ted Burik, and Jacqueline Chapin also provided assistance 

ground_truth: The Buy American Act of 1933, as amended, is the main U.S. law promoting domestic purchasing. The Act permits agencies to buy foreign end products only under certain exceptions, such as when domestic items are not available at a reasonable cost. Further, U.S. trade agreements waive the Buy American restrictions for certain products. GAO was asked to review implementation of the Buy American Act. This report assesses the extent to which (1) the federal government procures foreign products through Buy American Act exceptions and waivers; and (2) selected agencies provide training and guidance to implement the Act. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and policies related to the Buy American Act and analyzed data for fiscal year 2017 from FPDS-NG. GAO also analyzed a non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts from DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—the agencies with the most obligations for products in fiscal year 2017. The 38 awards selected include a mix of foreign and domestic products, as well as dollars obligated. Finally, GAO interviewed cognizant contracting and policy officials from the selected agencies. According to data reported in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) in fiscal year 2017, foreign end products accounted for less than 5 percent—about $7.8 billion—of federal obligations for products potentially subject to the Buy American Act. Federal agencies procured foreign products using exceptions to Buy American Act requirements, as well as through waivers or when the Buy American Act did not apply, as shown in the figure. The amount of foreign end products purchased could be greater than reported in FPDS-NG, however, due to reporting errors and system limitations. GAO found that 6 of the 38 contracts reviewed from the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA) inaccurately recorded waiver or exception information. FPDS-NG system limitations compound these errors because it does not fully capture Buy American Act data. Among other things, the database does not always enable agencies to report the use of exceptions or waivers on contracts for both foreign and domestic products, reducing data accuracy. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is considering strategies to improve Buy American Act data. The four agencies GAO reviewed varied in their approaches to Buy American Act training and guidance. DOD reports that it will have trained more than 18,000 personnel by the end of 2018. DHS reports training almost 1,400 people—approximately 94 percent of its contracting staff—as of April 2018. Some VA courses mention the Act, but none is focused specifically on implementing its requirements. HHS does not have agency-level training or guidance on the Act. GAO found that contracting officers for the contracts it reviewed face challenges implementing Buy American Act requirements. Having specific and targeted Buy American Act guidance and training can better ensure that agencies meet the Act's requirements. GAO is recommending that OMB take steps to improve Buy American Act data and that HHS, DHS, and VA improve agency guidance and training on implementing the Act. All of the agencies either concurred or generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.