United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Committee on Finance, 

U.S. Senate 

TAXPAYER 

ADVOCATE SERVICE 

Caseload Has Grown 

and Taxpayers Report 

Being Satisfied, but 

Additional Measures 

of Efficiency and 

Effectiveness Are 

Needed 

February 2007 

 

GAO-07-156 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2007

TAXPAYER ADVOCATE SERVICE

Caseload Has Grown and Taxpayers 

Report Being Satisfied, but Additional 

Measures of Efficiency and Effectiveness 

Are Needed 

Highlights of GAO-07-156, a report to the 

Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate 

Congress created the Taxpayer

Advocate Service (TAS) to assist 

taxpayers in resolving problems 

with the Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) and to propose changes to 

IRS’s practices to mitigate

problems affecting taxpayers in

general. TAS uses case advocacy

and systemic advocacy, 

respectively, to address these two 

goals. GAO was asked to address 

(1) why TAS’s caseload has 

increased since 2004, (2) how well

TAS conducted its case advocacy 

activities in terms of measures 

such as customer satisfaction and

quality, and (3) how well TAS 

measures and reports its systemic

advocacy efforts. GAO interviewed 

TAS and IRS managers and other

staff, reviewed TAS and IRS 

documents, and analyzed TAS and 

IRS data. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that TAS add 

performance measures to assess 

the efficiency and cost of case

advocacy and the effectiveness of

systemic advocacy. TAS should 

also improve what it reports about 

systemic advocacy such as

describing actions taken to address 

taxpayers’ serious problems. The 

National Taxpayer Advocate

agreed with our recommendations,

noting that TAS has begun 

reporting about systemic advocacy

and is acting to implement the

other recommendations. TAS and 

IRS provided technical comments, 

and we incorporated them as 

appropriate. 

The number of individual taxpayer cases opened by TAS increased 

substantially in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 and our analysis of TAS and IRS 

data shows that these increases correlated with increases in IRS 

enforcement activities both overall and in some specific IRS enforcement 

programs. For example, changes in the number of tax refunds frozen by IRS 

coincided with changes in the number of frozen refund cases at TAS. While 

TAS made changes after fiscal year 2004 to its guidance for accepting new 

taxpayer cases, this did not notably influence TAS’s caseload increase in 

fiscal years 2005 and 2006. For example, TAS created two additional case 

acceptance criteria in fiscal year 2006 that resulted in a little more than 500 

of the approximately 244,000 cases received that year. 

TAS measures customer satisfaction and found that the taxpayers TAS 

serves remained satisfied from fiscal years 2002 to 2006. TAS also measures

the quality of its case advocacy and found that this improved from 2002 to 

2004 and stayed about the same in 2005 and 2006. While these case advocacy 

measures are sound, there is important missing information in that TAS does 

not have meaningful measures of case advocacy efficiency or cost. A 

meaningful measure of efficiency would consider the ratio of cases closed to

the time spent on them and take into account case complexity and the 

quality of the work, and unit cost information is needed to fully understand 

this information. TAS is developing the means to capture time per case, the 

key component of unit cost, and case complexity. 

TAS currently does not measure the effectiveness of its systemic advocacy

efforts. TAS is piloting a program to study systemic advocacy effectiveness 

in a few areas, but not broadly. Also, it is difficult to determine what actions 

were taken to address systemic issues raised in the annual report to 

Congress, TAS’s primary method for providing information to Congress and 

the public about its systemic advocacy efforts. For example, the report 

describes serious problems faced by the taxpayers but does not include the 

status of addressing those issues. 

Overview of TAS Functions 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-156.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact James White at 

(202) 512-9110 or whitej@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

Growth in TAS’s Caseload since Fiscal Year 2004 Correlates with 

Increases in IRS Enforcement Activity 12 

Taxpayers Report Being Satisfied, and Quality Improved in Most 

Years, but TAS Lacks Measures of Efficiency and Cost 22 

TAS Does Not Measure the Effectiveness of Systemic Advocacy, 

and Reporting on Systemic Issues Is Not as Useful as It Could Be 30 

Conclusions 35

Recommendations for Executive Action 36 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38 

Appendix II Process for Creating Immediate Interventions and 

Systemic Advocacy Projects 41 

Appendix III Information to Be Included in the National Taxpayer 

Advocate’s Annual Report to Congress 45 

Appendix IV Taxpayer Advocate Service Process for Selecting 

Problems to Include in the Annual Report to 

Congress 46 

Appendix V Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic (LITC) Grant Program 47 

Appendix VI Number of Taxpayer Advocate Service Cases by 

Primary Issue Code, Fiscal Years 2002–6 49 

Page i GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix VII Types of Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) Cases 

That Increased by More than 1,000 in Fiscal Years 

2005 and 2006 53 

Appendix VIII Taxpayer Advocate Service Customer Satisfaction 

Survey Results 55 

Appendix IX Comments from the National Taxpayer Advocate 56 

Tables 

Table 1: TAS Budget and FTE Staff Years, Fiscal Years 2001–6 12 

Table 2: Number of TAS Cases by Categories of Issues, Fiscal Years 

2002–6 17

Table 3: Increase in Non-Criterion-7 TAS Caseload Compared to 

Increase in Criterion-7 Cases 21 

Table 4: TAS Performance Measure Goals and Results 22 

Table 5: TAS Quality Standards and Point Values 23 

Table 6. Overview of Our Assessment of TAS’s Case Advocacy 

Measures 25

Table 7: TAS 2005 Annual Report to Congress Table Summarizing 

Status of the Advocate’s Legislative Recommendations; 

Actions Taken by the 109th Congress 32 

Table 8: Comparison of the Most Serious Problems Included in 

2005 Annual Report to Those in Previous Reports 34 

Table 9: Types of TAS Cases That Increased by More than 1,000 

Cases in Fiscal Year 2005 53 

Table 10: Types of TAS Cases That Increased by More than 1,000 

Cases in Fiscal Year 2006 54 

Table 11: Summary of Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) Customer 

Satisfaction Scores: Fiscal Year 2005 55 

Figures 

Figure 1: Primary TAS Functions 7 

Figure 2: Overview of Case Advocacy Process 9 

Figure 3: TAS Case Receipts and Cases Closed, Fiscal Years 2002–6 13 

Page ii GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Figure 4: Individual IRS Examinations 16 

Figure 5: Enforcement Revenue Collected 16 

Figure 6: Changes in IRS and TAS CI Cases 18 

Figure 7: Changes in IRS and TAS Levy Cases 19 

Figure 8: Changes in IRS and TAS Lien Cases 20 

Abbreviations 

ACS Automated Collection System 

AMT Alternative Minimum Tax 

CI Criminal Investigation 

EITC Earned Income Tax Credit 

ESL English as a Second Language 

FTE Full-time Equivalent 

IRM Internal Revenue Manual 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

LITC Low Income Taxpayer Clinic 

OAR Operations Assistance Request 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

PRP Problem Resolution Program 

QRP Questionable Refund Program 

SAMS Systemic Advocacy Management System 

SB/SE Small Business/Self Employed Division 

TAMIS Taxpayer Advocate Management Information System 

TAO Taxpayer Assistance Order 

TAP Taxpayer Advocacy Panel 

TAS Taxpayer Advocate Service 

the Advocate National Taxpayer Advocate 

TIGTA Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

W&I Wage and Investment Division 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

February 22, 2007 

The Honorable Max Baucus 

Chairman 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Finance 

United States Senate 

In response to concerns about the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) 

handling of taxpayers’ problems, Congress created the Taxpayer Advocate 

Service (TAS). TAS was designed to be largely independent of the rest of 

IRS and able to promptly and fairly handle taxpayer problems not resolved 

through normal IRS channels. TAS divides its work into two primary 

functions: assisting taxpayers in resolving individual problems with IRS, 

called case advocacy, and proposing administrative and legislative 

changes to mitigate problems affecting groups of taxpayers, called 

systemic advocacy. 

TAS deals with a range of taxpayer problems including delays in cases, 

lost payments, and economic hardship (for example, when a refund check 

needs to be expedited). In fiscal year 2006 TAS assisted over 240,000 

taxpayers, or about 0.2 percent of all individual tax return filers. Between 

fiscal years 2004 and 2006, TAS’s case advocacy caseload has grown 

substantially, increasing by 43 percent. Such growth matters for at least 

two reasons. First, it may be an indicator of TAS and IRS performance at 

preventing and resolving taxpayer problems. Second, it is relatively costly

for TAS to get involved in resolving taxpayers’ problems—TAS’s budget 

was about $170 million1

 and TAS employed 1,894 staff, or about 2 percent 

of IRS’s workforce, in 2006. 

Because of Congress’s concerns about whether taxpayers’ issues are 

addressed and the resources devoted to TAS, you asked us to review TAS’s 

performance. Specifically, you asked us to determine 

• why TAS’s caseload has increased since 2004, 

 1

TAS’s fiscal year 2006 budget included $8 million for Low Income Taxpayer Clinic grants. 

Page 1 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
• how well TAS conducted its case advocacy activities in terms of measures 

such as customer satisfaction and quality, and 

• how well TAS measures and reports its systemic advocacy efforts. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed and analyzed relevant documents 

including federal legislation and related legislative histories; sections of 

the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM); the National Taxpayer Advocate’s 

2002–5 annual reports to Congress on TAS activities and 2002–7 annual 

objectives reports to Congress; Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration (TIGTA) reports; TAS guidance related to handling 

individual and systemic advocacy activities and the criteria for accepting

individual cases, creating systemic advocacy projects, and for reporting 

systemic issues; TAS documents related to its performance measures; and 

TAS documents related to the Taxpayer Advocate Management 

Information System (TAMIS) and the Systemic Advocacy Management 

System (SAMS), the TAS information systems used to track individual and 

systemic advocacy activities, respectively.2

 We assessed the reliability of 

TAMIS data and determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. We compared the existing TAS performance measures to 

attributes of successful performance measures using criteria we have

previously developed.3

 In terms of reporting systemic advocacy efforts, we 

focused on the annual reports to Congress since they are the primary 

method used by TAS to report on systemic advocacy efforts. We 

interviewed the National Taxpayer Advocate (the head of TAS, hereafter 

referred to as the Advocate) and TAS officials involved with both case and 

systemic advocacy in both headquarters and TAS field offices. We also 

interviewed officials in the Wage and Investment Division (W&I), Small 

Business/Self Employed Division (SB/SE), and Criminal Investigation (CI) 

office to obtain their views about coordinating and collaborating with TAS 

in order to address taxpayers’ problems and why TAS’s caseload has 

increased. We performed our work from September 2005 through 

December 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Our scope and methodology are described in greater 

detail in appendix I. 

 2

To conduct our analyses, we associated cases with the fiscal year in which they were 

opened. Also, for cases that TAS closed and subsequently reopened, all of our analyses

relate to the original case. 

3

GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). 

Page 2 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
TAS’s caseload increased 43 percent from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 

2006—17 percent in 2005 and 23 percent in 2006—and, while the growth in 

the caseload was distributed over both enforcement- and nonenforcement-related cases, the overall increase correlated with increases 

in IRS’s overall enforcement activities since fiscal year 2004, as well as 

increases in particular IRS enforcement programs and the corresponding 

type of TAS case. For example, changes in the number of refunds frozen 

by IRS correlated with the number of refund-freeze-related cases coming 

into TAS. However, such a correlation between TAS cases and IRS activity 

was not always present for other types of TAS cases. IRS officials and 

others identified other factors that could also have influenced the increase 

in TAS cases, in particular changes to TAS guidance for accepting cases. 

However, our analysis of TAS data does not indicate that the TAS case 

acceptance guidance changes were a factor in the caseload increase. For 

example, TAS created two new criteria for accepting cases in fiscal year 

2006, yet of the almost 244,000 cases received by TAS in fiscal year 2006,

the new criteria resulted in just over 500 cases. 

Satisfaction among taxpayers who were served by TAS remained steady 

from fiscal year 2002 to 2006, consistently measuring between 4 and 5 on a 

5-point scale, while case quality improved from fiscal year 2002 to 2004

(moving from below 80 to over 90 on a 100-point scale), it stayed about the 

same in fiscal year 2005 and 2006. While two of TAS’s four measures are 

sound in terms of their clarity, reliability, and several other factors, TAS’s 

current efficiency measure, defined as the percentage of TAS cases 

involving a procedural burden, is not a true measure of efficiency and

provides no information on case advocacy efficiency. A more meaningful 

measure of efficiency would look at the ratio of cases closed to the time 

spent on those cases and take into account the quality of the work and the 

complexity of the cases. Also, to allow interpretation of efficiency 

information in light of cost effectiveness and to permit, for example, TAS 

to identify types of cases that are taking up an inordinate share of case 

advocacy resources, TAS would also need to develop a case advocacy unit 

cost measure. TAS officials have plans under way to capture case 

complexity and to begin tracking time in a way that will permit TAS to 

develop case advocacy unit cost information. 

TAS’s systemic advocacy function is very important because it is the 

means for TAS to eliminate taxpayer problems before they arise, and 

though TAS can point to many successes in this area, TAS’s systemic 

advocacy performance measurement does not provide important 

information to Congress on systemic advocacy effectiveness. In August 

2006, TAS began a pilot program to ascertain if progress is being made in

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
correcting a few systemic issues. The pilot is a worthwhile initiative to 

identify progress in a few important areas, but it will not measure the 

effectiveness of systemic advocacy on a broad basis. Also, TAS’s public 

reporting makes it difficult for Congress to determine what actions were 

taken to address systemic issues TAS has raised in the past. 

We are recommending that the Advocate add to TAS’s case and systemic 

advocacy performance measures and improve its reporting on systemic 

issues. Additional measures include case advocacy efficiency and systemic 

advocacy effectiveness. TAS should also take several steps to improve 

what it reports about systemic advocacy in the annual report to Congress 

such as describing actions taken to address taxpayers’ serious problems. 

The Advocate agreed with our recommendations and noted that TAS has 

already implemented part of one recommendation related to reporting 

about systemic advocacy and is taking steps to implement the other 

recommendations. For example, the Advocate reported that TAS has 

submitted work requests to collect information on the complexity of cases 

and time spent on cases to develop cost information. This will be added to

the data TAS collects to measure case quality. This information will then 

be used to develop a case advocacy efficiency measure. We have included 

the Advocate’s letter in appendix IX. TAS also provided technical 

comments which we incorporated as appropriate.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue was provided a draft of this report 

for review and comment. The IRS Office of Legislative Affairs provided 

technical comments, and we incorporated them as appropriate. 

TAS is an independent office within IRS created to assist taxpayers in 

resolving problems with IRS, identify areas in which taxpayers have 

problems in dealing with IRS, and propose administrative and legislative 

changes to mitigate such problems. TAS is the successor to the Problem 

Resolution Program (PRP) which IRS founded in 1976 to provide an

independent means of helping taxpayers solve problems that they 

encountered in dealing with IRS. Initially, PRP units were established in 

IRS district offices. In 1979, IRS expanded PRP to its service centers and 

created the position of Taxpayer Ombudsman to head PRP. Generally,

PRP personnel were district or service center employees who did not 

report directly to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman was appointed by and 

reported to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 

Congress has since renamed the Ombudsman the “National Taxpayer 

Advocate” and taken steps to enhance the independence of the Advocate. 

Background 

Page 4 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
While the Advocate continues to report to the Commissioner of Internal 

Revenue, the Advocate is now appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury 

after consultation with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the IRS 

Oversight Board.4

 In the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, 

Congress required that the individual not be an IRS employee for 2 years 

preceding his or her appointment and that the individual agrees to not 

accept a position elsewhere in IRS for 5 years following his or her tenure 

as the Advocate.5

 In addition, Congress replaced the prior PRP 

organization with an independent reporting structure of taxpayer 

advocates who report directly to the Advocate and mandated that a local 

taxpayer advocate be available to taxpayers in each state. TAS currently 

has 65 local offices with at least one in each state, Puerto Rico, and the

District of Columbia. TAS also has 10 offices located at IRS campuses. The 

current Advocate was appointed in 2001. 

Section 7803 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the 

Restructuring Act of 1998, provides that the National Taxpayer Advocate is 

entitled to compensation at the same rate as the highest rate of basic pay 

established for the Senior Executive Service under 5 U.S.C. Section 5382 

or, if the Secretary of the Treasury so determines, at a rate fixed under the 

streamlined critical pay authority set out in 5 U.S.C. § 9503 (up to the 

equivalent of the Vice President’s salary, or $212,100 in 2006).6 The 

Advocate is also eligible to receive bonuses. On January 10, 2001, the 

Secretary of Treasury approved the appointment of Nina Olson as the 

National Taxpayer Advocate under section 7803 and chose to set her pay 

 4

26 U.S.C. 7803(c). 

5

Pub. L. No. 105-206 (July 22, 1998). Service as an officer or employee of the Advocate’s 

Office is not taken into account for purposes of the 2-year and 5-year rules. 

6

Section 9503, added to Title 5 by the Restructuring Act, provides that the Secretary of the

Treasury may, for a period of 10 years after the date of enactment of the section, fix the

compensation of and appoint individuals to designated critical administrative, technical, 

and professional positions needed to carry out the functions of the Internal Revenue

Service, if certain criteria are met. Specifically, the relevant positions must require 

expertise of an extremely high level in an administrative, technical, or professional field. 

The positions must also be critical to the Internal Revenue Service’s successful 

accomplishment of an important mission. 

Page 5 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
using the streamlined critical pay authority.7

 The Advocate’s salary was 

$162,100 and her bonus was $22,900 in 2006. 

TAS has two primary functions—case advocacy and systemic advocacy, 

although it is also responsible for administering the Low Income Taxpayer 

Clinic (LITC) Grant Program and overseeing the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel 

(TAP). Figure 1 shows TAS’s primary functions as well as sources of work. 

 7

The terms of appointments made under section 9503 are limited to no more than 4 years. 

However, since the National Taxpayer Advocate was appointed under IRC Section 7803, 

which simply allows the compensation to be fixed under the streamlined critical pay 

authority of section 9503, IRS determined that the term limit does not apply.

Page 6 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Figure 1: Primary TAS Functions 

TAS receives case advocacy cases through several sources including 

referrals from IRS, direct taxpayer contact via walk-in, phone calls, or 

mail, and the National Taxpayer Advocate toll-free line. The acceptance 

criteria for case advocacy fall into four general categories: economic 

burden, systemic burden, best interest of the taxpayer, and public policy. 

Economic burden cases involve a tax-related issue that has caused 

financial difficulty for the taxpayer. Procedural burden cases involve an 

Page 7 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
IRS process, system, or procedure that has failed to operate as intended 

and, as a result, IRS has failed to resolve or respond to the taxpayer issue. 

Best interest of the taxpayer cases are those that raise questions of equity 

or taxpayer’s rights in how the tax laws are administered. Finally, public

policy cases are those that the Advocate decided should be worked based

on specific issues or areas of public concern. TAS uses TAMIS to track its

case advocacy activities.

In some cases, TAS is able to use its statutory or delegated authorities to 

take the necessary steps to resolve a case. When TAS does not have 

statutory or delegated authority to take action, TAS issues an Operations 

Assistance Request (OAR) to the function within IRS that can take the 

needed action to resolve the taxpayer’s problem. If IRS and TAS are 

unable to agree on the proper course of action, TAS might use a Taxpayer 

Assistance Order (TAO) to require IRS to take a certain action as 

permitted by law, cease an action currently being taken, review an action,

refrain from taking any action, or release property previously levied.8

 In 

fiscal year 2006, TAS issued 46 TAOs. Figure 2 provides an overview of the 

case advocacy process. 

 8

IRC § 7811 authorizes the Advocate to issue a TAO when a taxpayer is suffering or about 

to suffer a significant hardship as a result of IRS’s administration of the tax laws. Any TAO

issued by the Advocate may be modified or rescinded by the Advocate, the Commissioner 

of Internal Revenue, or the Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue if a written 

explanation of the reasons for the modification or rescission is provided to the Advocate. 

Page 8 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Figure 2: Overview of Case Advocacy Process 

Does the case meet one of the 

nine case acceptance criteria?

In accordance with Service 

Level Agreements, advocate 

sends on OAR to IRS.

Identify reason why OAR 

was rejected and work with 

IRS to reach agreement.

If agreement cannot be reached, 

TAS may issue a TAO.

Close case and, if necessary, refer 

taxpayer to appropriate IRS office.

Based on delegated authorities, 

advocate takes the action.

Is the OAR 

rejected by IRS?

Once all actions have been 

completed and taxpayer has been 

educated, the case is closed.

Advocate reviews pertinent law, IRM, 

and other guidance to identify 

documentation requried for the action.

Advocate reviews pertinent law, IRM, 

and other guidance to identify 

documentation requried for the action.

Conduct analysis of the issue and 

determine what action is needed.

Does TAS have the authority to 

take the necessary action?

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Source: GAO.

Currently, TAS and IRS are renegotiating the procedures TAS and IRS 

functions will follow to process an OAR. Also, officials told us that the 

Advocate has reviewed TAS’s delegated authorities with Office of Chief 

Counsel, Appeals, Tax Exempt/Government Entities, W&I, and SB/SE 

officials and plans to make recommendations to the Commissioner on 

possible changes. 

Page 9 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
TAS receives suggestions for systemic advocacy projects from TAS and 

IRS employees and the public. Systemic advocacy officials evaluate each 

suggestion to determine if it meets the definition of an immediate 

intervention—an administrative issue which could cause immediate, 

significant harm to multiple taxpayers that needs quick resolution. For 

those issues that do not become immediate interventions, systemic 

advocacy officials apply the general criteria described in figure 1 in order

to score each issue. TAS creates a systemic advocacy project for those 

issues that meet or exceed the current threshold for converting an issue

into a systemic advocacy project. This threshold can change depending on

available resources to work on systemic advocacy projects. For immediate 

interventions and advocacy projects, systemic analysts research the issue 

and develop recommendations for IRS. For additional details about 

creating immediate interventions and systemic advocacy projects 

including a complete list of the criteria used to score systemic issues, see 

appendix II.

TAS also conducts systemic advocacy through participation in TAS and 

IRS research initiatives and task forces, hosting town hall meetings, 

conducting focus groups, and through TAS’s two required annual reports 

to Congress. One of the two reports, the annual report to Congress, 

hereafter referred to as the annual report, is due by December 31, and

summarizes TAS’s activities during the prior fiscal year. It must include, 

among other things, a discussion of at least 20 of the most serious 

problems encountered by taxpayers and administrative and legislative 

recommendations for resolving taxpayer problems.9

 For details about how 

the most serious problems are selected, see appendix IV. The other report, 

due by June 30 of each year, must identify the objectives of the Office of 

the Taxpayer Advocate for the fiscal year beginning in that calendar year.

Responsibility for the LITC Grant Program was transferred from W&I to 

TAS in May 2003. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 

established the LITC Grant Program to help accredited academic 

institutions and nonprofit organizations represent low-income taxpayers in 

controversies with IRS and operate programs to inform individuals for 

whom English is a second language about their rights and responsibilities. 

TAS has responsibility for selecting LITC grant recipients and conducting 

site visits to ensure that LITCs are fulfilling their obligations. See appendix 

V for more information on the LITC Grant Program. TAS also has 

 9

See app. III for a list of what must be included in the annual report. 

Page 10 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
responsibility for overseeing the TAP, which was established in October

2002 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act as a way of improving IRS 

responsiveness to taxpayers’ needs. The panel, consisting of 

approximately 104 volunteers nationwide including every state, Puerto 

Rico, and the District of Columbia, provides input on IRS’s strategic 

initiatives and provides a venue for raising issues identified by citizens. 

TAS’s budget is part of the overall IRS appropriation and does not have a 

separate line item in the budget. TAS resources are spread across three 

appropriations: processing, assistance, and management; tax law 

enforcement; and information systems. 

TAS’s budget increased from about $135.4 million in fiscal year 2001 to

about $170.3 million in fiscal year 2006.10 Over 86 percent of TAS’s fiscal 

year 2006 budget was for its case advocacy function, while the rest was 

split between systemic advocacy, the LITC Grant Program,11 TAP, and 

other expenses such as training, travel, and support. TAS’s full-time 

equivalent (FTE) staff years decreased slightly from 2,064 in fiscal year 

2001 to 1,894 in fiscal year 2006. Table 1 summarizes TAS’s budget and

staffing. 

 10In fiscal year 2006, Congress directed IRS to provide a specified minimum level of funding

for TAS. House and Senate versions of the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills continue 

this practice. 

11TAS serves as a conduit for channeling grants to LITC recipients. In fiscal year 2006, the

amount of the grants was $8 million. TAS was responsible for paying the expenses of

administering the LITC Grant Program out of its operating funds. 

Page 11 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Table 1: TAS Budget and FTE Staff Years, Fiscal Years 2001–6 

Fiscal year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Budget (dollars in millions) 

 Case advocacy $123.9 $134.4 $138.3 $140.3 $142.7 $146.0

 Systemic advocacya3.4 5.1 5.7 5.8 3.7 4.0

 LITCb— — — 8.4 9.2 9.4

 TAP 1.5 1.4 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5

 Otherc6.6 9.5 10.4 8.8 9.1 8.5

 Total

d

$135.4 $150.3 $156.7 $165.8 $167.3 $170.3 

FTEs

 Case advocacy 1,953 1,971 1,974 1,908 1,829 1,766

 Systemic advocacya38 53 58 56 32 32

 LITCb— — — 7 10 11

 TAP 16 16 17 21 21 21

 Otherc57 72 77 73 71 64

 Total

d

2,064 2,112 2,126 2,065 1,963 1,894

Source: TAS. 

a

Some staff in categories other than systemic advocacy also spend some of their time on systemic 

advocacy activities, such as preparing the annual report to Congress. 

b

The responsibility for the LITC Grant Program was transferred to TAS in May 2003; however, dollars

and FTEs were not allocated to TAS until fiscal year 2004. 

c

Other includes training, travel, and support for TAS headquarters management activities. These 

activities include strategic planning, communications and liaison, finance, equal employment 

opportunity and diversity, business systems planning, and employee development. 

d

Totals do not add due to rounding. 

The growth in TAS’s caseload was not uniform over types of taxpayer 

problems, but was correlated with increases in IRS enforcement activity. 

Growth in TAS’s

Caseload since Fiscal 

Year 2004 Correlates 

with Increases in IRS 

Enforcement Activity 

Page 12 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
After decreasing from fiscal years 2002 through 2004, TAS’s case receipts 

increased 43 percent from fiscal year 2004 to 2006, as shown in figure 3.

Case receipts increased by 28,660 cases or 17 percent in fiscal year 2005

over fiscal year 2004 and another 45,021 cases or 23 percent in fiscal year 

2006. Since fiscal year 2004, by comparison, TAS staffing decreased by 171

FTEs as was shown in table 1. 

TAS’s Caseload Increased 

Significantly in Fiscal 

Years 2005 and 2006 

Figure 3 also shows that the number of cases that TAS closed each year 

followed a similar pattern as case receipts, with declines in fiscal years 

2002–4 and increases in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In the earlier years the

closure rate exceeded the number of cases coming in, so TAS was 

decreasing its backlog of cases. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, however, 

TAS closed fewer cases than it received, and its backlog of cases increased 

by around 7,500 cases in each of those years. TAS officials said that the 

growing number of cases is posing a challenge to staff, but that the 

challenge has not become overwhelming. 

Figure 3: TAS Case Receipts and Cases Closed, Fiscal Years 2002–6

Page 13 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
The growth in TAS’s caseload after fiscal year 2004 varied across types of 

taxpayer problems. (TAS tracks taxpayer problems by assigning one of 114 

primary issue codes to each case. Specific issue codes include processing

an original or amended return, lien release, and stolen identity. See app. VI

for a full breakdown of cases by issue code for fiscal years 2002 through 

2006.) Furthermore, the percentage of each type of issue, in terms of total 

caseload, varied over time. Data on taxpayer issues showed the following: 

• The growth in caseload was distributed across many issues with 7 issues 

increasing by more than 1,000 cases in fiscal year 2005 and 17 doing so in 

fiscal year 2006. (See app. VII for a breakdown of issues that increased by 

more than 1,000 cases in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.) 

• The growth in caseload was not uniformly distributed by issue over time. 

None of the 5 issues with the greatest growth in fiscal year 2005 were 

among the top 5 in fiscal year 2006. Also, the most common issue in both 

fiscal year 2005 and 2006, criminal investigation (CI), increased 

substantially in fiscal year 2005, but declined in fiscal year 2006.

12

• Total caseload was distributed over many issues with no single issue 

accounting for more than 8 percent of the total in fiscal year 2006. For 

example, although CI was the largest issue in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, it

accounted for only 14 percent of cases in fiscal year 2005 and 8 percent in

fiscal year 2006. 

• The issues with the highest number of cases varied from year to year. Of 

the 5 issues with the highest number of cases in fiscal year 2002, only 2 

remained in the top 5 in fiscal year 2006. 

According to the Advocate, the majority of the increase in TAS’s caseload 

in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 was due to an increase in IRS enforcement 

activities. For example, the National Taxpayer Advocate’s 2007 Objectives

Report to Congress states that “The impact of the IRS’s substantial 

increases in enforcement activities is evident in the corresponding 

increase in TAS Taxpayer Delinquent Investigation, Levy, and Automated 

Underreporter case receipts.” Data from TAS and IRS are consistent with 

this argument, showing a correlation between increases in TAS’s caseload 

and increases in IRS’s overall enforcement activities since fiscal year 

Growth in TAS’s Caseload 

since Fiscal Year 2004 Was 

Correlated with Increases 

in IRS Enforcement 

Activities and Specific 

Enforcement Programs 

 12According to the National Taxpayer Advocate 2005 Annual Report to Congress, the vast 

majority of TAS’s CI cases related to Questionable Refund Program (QRP) freezes. The 

QRP is a nationwide multifunctional program established in January 1977. The purpose of

this program is to detect fraudulent returns and stop the payment of false refunds claimed 

on income tax returns. If CI does not validate the taxpayer’s entitlement to a refund, it may 

“freeze” the refund until IRS assures itself there is no fraud.

Page 14 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
2004.

13 The data also show correlations between the growth in particular 

IRS enforcement programs and the corresponding TAS issues. 

However, IRS’s enforcement programs were also growing between fiscal

years 2002 and 2004, a time when TAS’s caseload was shrinking. A senior 

TAS official said that increases in IRS enforcement were leading to new 

TAS cases in fiscal years 2002–4, but that the increases in caseload were 

more than offset by declines for other reasons. For example, the official 

stated that in 2000–1, TAS was still clearing out a backlog of taxpayer 

problems from the late 1990s and new problems were also arising from 

confusion stemming from the major reorganization of IRS from divisions 

based on processes to divisions based on types of taxpayers being served. 

As TAS dealt with the backlog of cases and as the IRS reorganization was 

completed, the number of cases fell. Data for testing this explanation were 

not available. 

Overall, IRS enforcement activities have been increasing, as shown by the 

number of individual examinations in figure 4 and the amount of 

enforcement revenue collected in figure 5. 

 13We did not test for statistical correlation, rather we looked for positive associations

between IRS enforcement activity and related TAS cases. 

Page 15 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Figure 4: Individual IRS Examinations

a

Fiscal year 2006 results are preliminary. 

Figure 5: Enforcement Revenue Collected 

Page 16 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
At the same time, the majority of the growth in TAS’s caseload was due to 

issues that are enforcement related, as shown in table 2. Table 2 combines

TAS’s 114 types of taxpayer issues into a few broad categories. Categories

that consist largely of enforcement issues, as shown by the shaded rows in 

the table, accounted for over half of the growth in TAS caseload between 

fiscal years 2004 and 2006. Moreover, there are also enforcement-related 

issues in other categories. For example, a case that TAS classifies as 

“document processing” may involve a taxpayer having trouble filing an 

amended return after an audit. 

Table 2: Number of TAS Cases by Categories of Issues, Fiscal Years 2002–6 

Fiscal year 

Category of issue 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Document processing 57,143 39,289 32,646 36,815 52,850

Examination 52,452 51,335 38,051 40,213 47,951

Collection 28,833 25,274 23,887 29,210 43,625

Refunds 31,852 22,702 19,247 20,048 27,710

Appeals/other 11,397 19,691 19,903 31,936 24,770

Technical/procedural/statute 8,942 7,683 9,496 12,032 13,251

Penalty 14,700 10,155 9,133 10,032 12,397

Entity 9,337 7,270 8,176 9,760 11,617

Payments/credits 12,746 7,666 6,804 7,089 8,175

Interest 1,638 1,179 1,052 1,042 1,033

Not coded 95 3,925 1,734 612 431

Total 229,135 196,169 170,129 198,789 243,810

Source: GAO analysis of TAMIS data. 

Note: Shaded rows indicate issue categories that are primarily enforcement related. 

The correlation between TAS caseload growth and IRS enforcement 

increases can also be seen for particular enforcement actions. The two 

types of TAS cases that increased the most—CI cases in fiscal year 2005 

and levy cases in fiscal year 2006—are examples.14 While we could not 

verify that there was a causal relationship between IRS activity and TAS 

caseload, for CI and levy cases, we found a positive correlation. The 

number of CI refund freezes increased by 23 percent in fiscal year 2005 

 14We did not compare the increase in TAS’s fiscal year 2006 caseload to fiscal year 2006 IRS 

enforcement activities because fiscal year 2006 IRS data were not yet available. 

Page 17 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
over fiscal year 2004 and at the same time the number of TAS CI cases 

increased by roughly 71 percent, as shown in figure 6. In December 2005, 

the Advocate issued a report critical of the number of taxpayers whose 

refunds were frozen and then later released, as well as the lack of 

information given to taxpayers about the status of their refund in these 

cases and the number of years that freezes are in effect. CI officials said 

that they subsequently made significant changes to the program in early 

2006, freezing fewer refunds in 2006 and issuing fewer multiyear freezes. 

TAS and CI officials said that this likely caused the number of taxpayers 

seeking TAS assistance for refund freezes to decrease. While data on the 

number of CI refund freezes for fiscal year 2006 were not yet available 

when we completed our work, the number of TAS CI cases decreased by 

25 percent that year. 

Figure 6: Changes in IRS and TAS CI Cases 

Note: Number of CI refund freezes is reported by processing year and is an estimate.

Page 18 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Similarly, as shown in figure 7, the number of IRS levy cases increased 

between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, including a 35 percent increase in 

fiscal year 2005 over fiscal year 2004.15 The number of TAS levy cases also 

increased by 27 percent in fiscal year 2005 over fiscal year 2004. 

Figure 7: Changes in IRS and TAS Levy Cases 

Although there is a correlation between growth in overall IRS enforcement 

activity and growth in TAS caseload, as well as a correlation between 

growth in some specific IRS programs and corresponding TAS issues, the 

correlation does not always hold. For example, as shown in figure 8, the 

 15Under the Internal Revenue Code, “levy” is defined as the seizure of a taxpayer’s assets to 

satisfy a tax delinquency. IRS differentiates between the levy of assets in the possession of 

the taxpayer (referred to as a “seizure”) and the levy of assets, such as bank accounts and 

wages, which are in the possession of third parties, such as banks or employers (referred to 

as a “levy”). 

Page 19 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
number of TAS lien cases increased by 27 percent in fiscal year 2005 while 

the number of IRS liens decreased by 2 percent.16

Figure 8: Changes in IRS and TAS Lien Cases 

Other Factors Have Also 

Been Cited as Contributing 

to TAS’s Increased 

Caseload 

As previously shown in table 2, non-enforcement-related TAS cases also 

increased since fiscal year 2004. TAS officials said that increased TAS 

outreach and external factors, such as taxpayers with problems related to 

the disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina and changes in the overall 

economy, contributed to the caseload increase. 

IRS officials and others also said that changes made to TAS’s case 

acceptance guidance may have contributed to TAS’s caseload increase. 

However, our analysis of TAS data does not support this. The Advocate 

made changes to TAS’s case acceptance guidance twice since fiscal year 

 16A lien is a legal claim, filed in accordance with state property law, that attaches to 

property to secure payment of a debt. The effect of a lien may not be felt until the taxpayer 

sells the property or tries to obtain credit. 

Page 20 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
2004, which is when TAS’s caseload started to increase. On January 13, 

2005, the Advocate issued an internal memorandum to all TAS staff called 

“Common Sense and Good Judgment in Case Processing.” According to 

the Advocate, the memo did not change the criteria but sought to clarify 

the criteria and ensure that staff were not creating unnecessary obstacles 

for taxpayers seeking TAS assistance. In January 2006, TAS implemented 

an expanded version of its case acceptance criteria. The revisions included 

slight modifications to some of the existing criteria and the creation of 

criteria 8 and 9.17

The January 2005 memorandum clarified that TAS should accept all cases 

(1) where a taxpayer specifically requests TAS assistance and (2) that 

were referred from IRS even if the case does not meet TAS’s case 

acceptance criteria to avoid sending the taxpayer back to IRS.18 According 

to the memorandum, in these situations, the case should be classified as 

meeting criteria 7—a system or procedure failed to operate as intended or

failed to resolve the taxpayer’s problem. Therefore, if following the 

memorandum contributed to the increase in TAS’s caseload, we would 

expect to see a disproportionate increase in criterion-7 cases. However, 

criterion-7 cases did not increase disproportionately in 2005 and 2006, 

rather the number of these cases grew at a slower rate than other cases, as 

shown in table 3. Furthermore, the changes made by TAS in January 2006 

did not significantly affect TAS’s caseload given that the two added criteria 

resulted in just over 500 of the approximately 244,000 cases received in 

fiscal year 2006. 

Table 3: Increase in Non-Criterion-7 TAS Caseload Compared to Increase in

Criterion-7 Cases 

All non-criterion-7 cases Criterion-7 cases 

Fiscal 

year Number

Percentage

change Number

Percentage

change

2004 109,462 60,667

2005 128,134 17 70,655 16

2006 161,177 26 82,633 17

Source: GAO analysis of TAS data. 

 17See fig. 1 for a list of TAS’s current case acceptance criteria. 

18IRS officials told us that IRS has taken steps to reduce the error rate for referrals to TAS 

from IRS campuses. 

Page 21 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
TAS tracks its case advocacy performance in several dimensions. Two of 

TAS’s performance measures, customer satisfaction and case quality, meet 

all of the criteria that GAO developed as attributes of successful 

performance measures. However, its employee satisfaction survey suffers

from a declining response rate and TAS does not measure some important 

dimensions of performance such as cost per case. 

TAS case advocacy performance measures include measures of customer 

satisfaction, case quality, and employee satisfaction. Table 4 shows TAS’s 

performance against its goals for fiscal years 2002–6. 

Taxpayers Report 

Being Satisfied, and 

Quality Improved in 

Most Years, but TAS 

Lacks Measures of 

Efficiency and Cost 

Taxpayers Report Being 

Satisfied, and Case Quality 

Improved since Fiscal Year 

2002 with a Slight Decline 

in Fiscal Year 2006 

Table 4: TAS Performance Measure Goals and Results 

Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Measure Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual

Customer satisfaction (scores out of a 

possible 5 points) 

a

4.33 a4.30 a4.30 4.35 4.39 4.40 4.34

Case quality (scores out of a possible 

100 points) 

80.0 78.5 90.0 84.7 90.0 90.5 91.0 91.6 91.5 89.7

Employee satisfaction (percent) 70 56 61 60 65 65 68 70 73 64

Source: TAS. 

Notes: Customer satisfaction figures are from a survey with a maximum score of 5.0 and confidence 

intervals of ±0.006 in 2002 and 2003, ±0.007 in 2004, ±0.006 in 2005, and ±0.005 in 2006, all at a 

confidence level of 95 percent. Case quality figures are from a survey of completed cases with 

confidence intervals of ±0.9 in 2002, ±0.7 in 2003, ±0.5 in 2004, and ±0.7 in 2005 and 2006, all at a 

confidence level of 90 percent. Employee satisfaction figures are from a survey of all employees, with 

response rates of 80–82 percent in 2002–4, 48 percent in 2005, and 33 percent in 2006. 

a

TAS did not have a customer satisfaction goal in that time period. 

Taxpayers who have used TAS have consistently reported being satisfied 

to very satisfied since fiscal year 2002, as shown by the customer 

satisfaction survey results in table 4. TAS determines customer 

satisfaction through an independent and confidential telephone survey 

process to gauge the opinions of a random selection of taxpayers and their 

representatives who had recently closed cases. The survey uses a fivePage 22 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
point scale where 5 represents “very satisfied” and 4 represents 

“somewhat satisfied.” TAS’s customer satisfaction scores varied only 

slightly from fiscal years 2002 to 2006 with customers remaining on 

average somewhere between somewhat satisfied and very satisfied. As 

shown in table 4, there was only a small amount of change in this measure 

from year to year, and only a small difference between actual performance 

and the goals for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. For additional information on 

TAS’s customer satisfaction results, see appendix VIII. 

TAS’s case quality improved between fiscal years 2002 and 2004 (the 

changes are statistically significant) and then leveled off, also shown in 

table 4. The slight increase in 2005 and the slight decline in 2006 are not 

different in a statistically significant sense from the 2004 results. As shown 

in table 4, TAS met its case quality goals for 2004 and 2005 but did not do 

so in 2006. To calculate the quality index, TAS randomly selects cases each 

month and measures them against eight quality standards. These standards 

are meaningful in that they cover aspects of quality—timeliness and 

technical correctness, for example—that IRS has found important to 

measure in other contexts, such as telephone service. The eight standards 

and their point values are shown in table 5. 

Table 5: TAS Quality Standards and Point Values 

Quality standard Point value

Did TAS make timely contact with the taxpayer? 5

Did TAS take initial action/request information within the specified 

time frame? 10

Did TAS take all subsequent actions timely from the time action could 

have been taken? 10

Did TAS resolve all taxpayer issues? 25

Did TAS address all related issues? 10

Were all actions taken by TAS and the IRS operations/functional 

divisions technically and procedurally correct? 15

Did TAS give the taxpayer a clear, complete, correct explanation at 

closing? 20

Did TAS educate the taxpayer regarding any of his/her actions that 

contributed to the problem? 5

Source: TAS. 

Page 23 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
In the past, TIGTA has raised issues with TAS’s timeliness and has made 

recommendations that TAS take additional steps to improve timeliness.19

TIGTA based its findings on a review of a sample of cases. Although the 

Advocate disagreed with TIGTA’s conclusions on specific cases, the 

Advocate agreed to make changes to improve timeliness by introducing 

two types of case management reviews. The first type is an early 

intervention review where a TAS manager must be involved in a minimum 

of 25 percent of open cases within 10 calendar days from the received date 

for criteria 1–4 cases and within 30 calendar days for criteria 5–9 cases.20

The second type of review is a 100-day review where a manager must 

review all cases that have been open for 100 days within 15 days of 

reaching the 100-day mark, and a minimum of once every 60 days 

thereafter. According to the Advocate, these reviews help ensure that 

cases are resolved in a timely manner. TAS’s efforts to improve timeliness 

are reflected in three timeliness standards that are part of the TAS quality 

standards shown in table 5. For example, the score for timeliness standard 

number 3, “Did TAS take all subsequent actions timely?” increased from 

81.5 percent in fiscal year 2004 to 86.5 percent in fiscal year 2005. Also, 

TAS improved on the average number of days it takes to close a case, 

which declined from 67.6 in fiscal year 2003 to 51.2 in fiscal year 2006. 

Employee satisfaction increased from fiscal year 2002 to 2004 but the 

results for 2005 and 2006 (all shown in table 4) may not be accurate

because of declining survey response rates. TAS determines employee 

satisfaction through an annual IRS-wide survey conducted by an 

independent organization using a five-point scale where 5 represents 

“extremely satisfied.” In fiscal years 2002 through 2004, 80 percent or more 

of TAS employees responded to the survey while only 48 percent and 33 

percent responded in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 respectively. Survey 

response rates also declined throughout IRS during this period. Response 

rates this low may bias the results if nonrespondents have different 

opinions than respondents. 

 19Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, The National Taxpayer Advocate

Has Improved the Quality of Casework, but Continued Vigilance is Needed to Increase 

Compliance with the Quality Standards, Reference No. 2003-10-074 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 10, 2003) and The Taxpayer Advocate Service Needs to Improve Case Management to

Ensure Taxpayer Problems Are Resolved Timely, Reference No. 2004-10-166 (Washington,

D.C.: Sept. 29, 2004). 

20See fig. 1 in Background section for a list of the case criteria. 

Page 24 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
The measures of customer satisfaction and case quality on which the 

previous description of case advocacy performance is based are sound, 

according to criteria we have previously used for assessing IRS’s 

performance measures.21 These two measures have all the attributes of 

successful measures as shown in table 6, including clarity, objectivity, and 

reliability. While it is conceptually sound to measure employee satisfaction 

with a survey, as already discussed, the employee satisfaction measure 

does not satisfy the objectivity and reliability criteria because of the 

possibility of nonresponse bias in the survey in recent years.

Table 6. Overview of Our Assessment of TAS’s Case Advocacy Measures 

GAO assessment of TAS measure 

Attributes of successful measures 

Customer 

satisfaction

Employee 

satisfaction

Case 

quality

Linkage—aligned with goals and mission and clearly communicated 3 3 3

Clarity—clearly stated and name and definition are consistent with methodology used 

to calculate it 

3 3 3

Governmentwide prioritiesa—covers a priority such as quality, timeliness, and cost of 

service 

3 3 3

Measurable target—has a numerical goal 3 3 3

Objectivity and Reliability—free from significant bias and reliable and produces same 

result under similar conditions

3 3

Core Program Activities—cover activities entity is expected to perform to support 

intent of program

3 3 3

Limited Overlap—should provide new information 3 3 3

Balance—suite of measures covers an organization’s priorities This attribute applies to the overall suite of 

measures. IRS considers these measures to 

be balanced since they address priorities 

such as employee and customer satisfaction

and business results. However, additional 

measures such as cost of service could 

improve the balance of TAS priorities. 

Source: GAO.

Note: A checkmark denotes that the measure has the attribute. 

a

While the current measures cover governmentwide priorities, TAS does not have a cost of service 

measure, which is another governmentwide priority. 

 21In previous work, we identified the eight attributes listed in table 6 as elements of 

successful measures. (See GAO-03-143). 

Page 25 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
TAS has an additional case advocacy measure called “efficiency” but it 

does not measure efficiency as conventionally defined. Nor does TAS have 

a measure of cost per case. The efficiency measure, which TAS defines as 

the percentage of total case receipts that are procedural burden cases 

(cases accepted under criteria 5–7) is missing important attributes of a 

successful performance measure, including linkage and clarity. TAS is 

working to develop processes to capture components of a meaningful case 

advocacy efficiency measure, which will be useful for the development of 

a useful efficiency measure in the future. 

TAS Does Not Measure 

True Case Advocacy 

Efficiency or Cost 

TAS’s case advocacy efficiency measure is not linked to TAS’s case 

advocacy mission. According to the Advocate, TAS developed its 

efficiency measure with the thought that the percentage of procedural 

burden case receipts should eventually decrease as IRS fixes systemic 

problems in response to TAS’s systemic advocacy efforts. However, the 

current TAS measure is really a measure of systemic advocacy

effectiveness rather than case advocacy efficiency. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) agrees. OMB’s Program Assessment 

Rating Tool (PART) review described TAS’s efficiency measure as a proxy 

measure for TAS’s success in helping IRS fix systemic problems. However, 

it provides only limited information on the success of TAS’s systemic 

advocacy mission because it is sensitive to a number of outside factors 

unrelated to TAS activities. For example, the number of procedural burden 

cases could increase because of an increase in new IRS errors, regardless 

of how well TAS had identified corrections for earlier systemic problems. 

In addition, TAS’s efficiency measure lacks clarity because it is not a true 

measure of efficiency. Simply put, efficiency is the ratio of the outcome or

output to the input of any program.22 TAS’s efficiency measure includes no 

information on inputs into the program, such as time, and does not 

adequately measure output. 

To develop a true measure of case advocacy efficiency, TAS would need 

information on case advocacy outputs, such as the number of cases 

closed, and inputs—primarily the amount of time spent on those cases. 

 22While productivity and efficiency are often used interchangeably and are closely related, 

they are not always synonymous. Productivity is a descriptive term defining what is

actually produced relative to the inputs used. Efficiency sometimes is a normative term 

evaluating productivity in relation to the maximum amount of output that could be

produced with a given level of input. For consistency, throughout this report we will use 

efficiency to represent both concepts in discussing TAS’s efficiency measure. 

Page 26 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Currently, TAS managers do not have information on inputs because TAS 

does not track the amount of time spent working each case; however, TAS 

plans on implementing a method to track time in January 2007. TAS would 

also need to adjust the number of cases closed for the complexity of the

cases and the quality of the work. In a past report, we said that efficiency 

measures that are not adjusted for quality and complexity could yield 

misleading information.23 For example, an increase in cases closed per 

case advocate would not be a true increase in efficiency if cases were 

becoming less complex. 

According to TAS officials, cases have been becoming more complex in 

recent years; however, we could not verify this because TAS only has a 

limited way to measure complexity. At this time, TAS classifies cases as 

routine or complex. However, TAS is in the process of developing a more 

sophisticated method for determining case complexity. TAS is currently 

testing a model for determining the complexity of a case and plans on 

making changes to TAMIS in order to collect complexity data. A more 

sophisticated complexity index should provide the ability to adjust case 

output to reflect changes in complexity over time.

TAS also does not have information on the cost of working each case, 

preventing interpretation of efficiency information in light of cost 

effectiveness. Having data on the cost of each case would allow TAS 

managers, and external stakeholders, to make better decisions about 

where to allocate both TAS’s case advocacy resources and systemic 

advocacy efforts. Without such data, TAS managers do not know if some 

categories of taxpayer issues are noticeably more costly to resolve than

others. The high cost of case advocacy might become a factor in deciding

how to prioritize systemic advocacy efforts. OMB also recommended in its 

PART report that TAS introduce a case advocacy unit cost measure. TAS 

officials indicated that they will start collecting unit cost data once they 

implement a method for tracking time on case. 

 23GAO, Tax Administration: Planning for IRS’s Enforcement Process Changes Included

Many Key Steps but Can Be Improved, GAO-04-287 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2004). 

Page 27 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
As discussed in the Background section, TAS has limited authorities to 

take action on some cases. When TAS does not have authority to take

action on a case, it must request that IRS take the action through an 

Operations Assistance Request (OAR).24 TAS and IRS operating divisions 

have agreements in place that govern the OAR process. Several IRS and 

TAS officials identified coordination problems regarding the OAR process 

that could delay the resolution of taxpayer problems. Some of the 

problems that IRS officials identified include the following: 

TAS and IRS Are Working 

Jointly to Improve 

Coordination 

• TAS sends OARs when TAS could have resolved the case using their 

authorities or conversely TAS takes the action when they should have sent

an OAR. 

• TAS does not always do the necessary research or collect the necessary 

documentation before sending an OAR. 

• OARs have to either be mailed or faxed. 

• TAS routes OARs to the incorrect area.25

• TAS accepts cases that do not meet its criteria or where the taxpayer has 

not taken the necessary steps to resolve his or her problem with IRS, 

which increases OAR volume and circumvents normal case processing. 

Some TAS officials also reported some confusion over the OAR process. 

For example, officials stated that it is not always clear what 

documentation is required and the procedures for taking certain actions in

the Internal Revenue Manual are vague, leaving room for interpretation. 

The Advocate’s 2007 Objectives Report to Congress stated that it is a 

challenge for TAS employees to identify when an OAR should be sent, 

given the continuing state of change in IRS operating division personnel 

and procedures. These types of issues could lead to IRS rejecting more 

OARs, which causes delays for the taxpayer and unnecessary rework for 

TAS and IRS. 

The Advocate plans to take actions to reduce the number of rejected

OARs, including identifying TAS and IRS operating division training needs, 

improving the clarity of the IRM, and working with IRS operating divisions 

to ensure TAS routes OARs to the right place. TAS is also working with 

IRS operating divisions to develop a method to send OARs electronically.

 24TAS issued OARs on about 46 percent of cases in fiscal year 2006. Some cases involved 

more than one OAR, for a total of about 169,000 OARs. 

25TAS data do not indicate the reason for incorrectly routed OARs. An OAR could be 

misrouted because of a TAS mistake, or because a procedural or organizational change at

IRS was not adequately communicated to TAS. 

Page 28 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
TAS has taken actions to deal with past issues related to TAS-IRS 

coordination. In 2002, TIGTA found that TAS employees were taking 

actions on taxpayer cases that were outside of their authority.

26 In 

response to TIGTA’s findings, the Advocate agreed that there was 

confusion about the scope of TAS authorities and outlined corrective 

actions TAS had taken. As part of those actions, TAS provided additional 

training and modified the case quality review to include an accuracy 

standard that ensures actions taken are technically and procedurally 

correct and within TAS’s authorities. TAS is looking for ways to improve 

the quality review and one of the proposals is to isolate the OAR process 

during the review so that they can better identify gaps in the OAR process. 

Senior TAS officials have provided the Advocate with recommendations 

for improving the quality review. 

IRS and TAS are also currently reviewing the need to change TAS’s 

authorities. The Advocate said that she supports certain additional 

authorities, but only those that do not undermine the unique responsibility 

of TAS, namely, advocating for the taxpayer inside the IRS. The Advocate

said that she is concerned that her role may become blurred if she is 

asking IRS to take an action while simultaneously possessing authority to

take the same action directly. Furthermore, the Advocate said that there 

are benefits to having the IRS confront taxpayer issues and become aware 

of recurring issues, which may not happen if TAS had the authority to 

make the changes itself without IRS involvement.

 26Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Taxpayer Advocate Service 

Employees Made Adjustments to Taxpayer Accounts Without Proper Authorization, 

Reference No. 2002-10-079 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2002). 

Page 29 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
TAS’s systemic advocacy efforts have the potential to benefit large 

numbers of taxpayers. However, since TAS is just beginning to pilot a 

process to measure the effectiveness of its systemic advocacy efforts, TAS, 

IRS, Congress, and other stakeholders do not know how successful TAS is 

at accomplishing its systemic advocacy mission. 

TAS is piloting a process to analyze a few systemic issues in depth to 

assess progress in correcting underlying problems, but does not have a 

process for measuring systemic advocacy effectiveness more broadly. TAS 

worked with W&I to develop a process for using information from TAMIS 

and SAMS, feedback from TAS case workers on new problems observed in 

TAS cases, and input from the TAP to identify top systemic issues. TAS 

and the operating divisions will then collaborate to identify the root causes 

of those issues, implement needed changes to IRS procedures and 

systems, and assess whether progress is being made in correcting the 

underlying problems. If TAS management decides that the number of 

occurrences has been sufficiently reduced, the issues will be replaced by

others. TAS is now piloting this process. 

In August 2006, TAS used TAMIS data to identify the top issues. TAS and 

W&I officials agreed to address the issue of problems related to processing 

amended returns. If the pilot is successful, TAS plans to concurrently 

apply the process to three additional issues, replacing each one as the 

incidence of the issue has been sufficiently reduced. By using data to 

identify issues, testing to determine progress in addressing issues, and 

piloting the new process before determining if it should become standard 

procedure, TAS has taken the first steps towards developing a system to 

measure the effectiveness of its systemic advocacy activities. 

While gathering in-depth information about a few systemic advocacy 

issues is important, this approach will not provide TAS managers, IRS, or 

Congress with an assessment of TAS’s systemic advocacy efforts more 

broadly. Using information from TAMIS on the types of new issues coming 

in from individual taxpayers and the systemic projects being suggested 

through SAMS, TAS managers could develop measures of the extent to

which systemic issues are recurring, which would in turn, provide a 

TAS Does Not 

Measure the 

Effectiveness of 

Systemic Advocacy, 

and Reporting on 

Systemic Issues Is Not 

as Useful as It Could 

Be 

TAS Is Piloting Process to 

Measure the Effectiveness 

of Systemic Advocacy 

Page 30 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
measure of TAS success in identifying and addressing the root causes of 

these problems. Past reports by the IRS Oversight Board, TIGTA, and GAO 

have also noted the need for TAS to have better information about 

systemic advocacy effectiveness.27

The National Taxpayer Advocate’s annual report to Congress does not 

include adequate information about steps taken to address systemic 

issues, either new issues or issues raised in the past. IRS managers and 

other interested parties, including Congress, need this information to 

know whether issues have been addressed to TAS’s satisfaction and 

whether additional steps need to be taken. 

The annual report does not provide a way to track the status of TAS’s 

legislative recommendations. A table is included in the annual report but it 

provides only limited information (see table 7 for a copy of the 2005 table). 

We found that the table does not provide potentially useful information, 

making it difficult to determine what has happened as a result of a specific 

legislative recommendation. For example, the table 

Annual Report to Congress 

Omits Important 

Information about 

Whether Systemic Issues 

Were Addressed 

Report Does Not Include the 

Status of All Legislative 

Recommendations 

• does not list all past recommendations, listing only recommendations for 

which the current Congress took some action, 

• omits information about actions taken by prior Congresses either on the 

listed recommendations or on previous recommendations, 

• does not include summaries of the recommendations or how the 

recommendations are addressed by proposed legislation, and 

• does not show the date of the recommendations it includes. 

 27IRS Oversight Board, Oversight of the Office of Taxpayer Advocate: Principal Findings 

and Actions, (September 2002); Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, 

Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Internal Revenue Service Advocacy Efforts, 

Reference No. 199910061 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 1999)—this report addressed the 

PRP, which was the predecessor to TAS; GAO, IRS Management: IRS Faces Challenges as

it Restructures the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, GAO/GGD-99-124 (Washington, D.C.: 

July 15, 1999). 

Page 31 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Table 7: TAS 2005 Annual Report to Congress Table Summarizing Status of the Advocate’s Legislative Recommendations; 

Actions Taken by the 109th Congress 

Recommendation Bill number Sponsor Date Current status

Alternative minimum tax (AMT) 

Repeal the individual AMT HR 1186 English 3/9/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

S 1103 Baucus 5/23/2005 Referred to the Senate Finance 

Committee 

HR 2950 Neal 6/16/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

HR 3841 Manzullo 9/2/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

Index AMT exemption HR 703 Garrett 2/9/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

HR 4096 Reynolds 10/20/2005 Passed House 12/7/2005; placed 

on Senate legislative calendar

12/13/2005

Tax preparation and low-income taxpayer clinics (LITC) 

Matching grants for LITC for return preparation HR 894 Becerra 2/17/2005 Referred to the House Financial 

Institutions and Consumer Credit 

Subcommittee

S 832 Bingaman 4/18/2005 Referred to the Senate Finance 

Committee 

Regulation of income tax preparers HR 894 Becerra 2/17/2005 Referred to the House Financial 

Institutions and Consumer Credit 

Subcommittee

S 832 Bingaman 4/18/2005 Referred to the Senate Finance 

Committee 

Small-business issues 

Health insurance deduction/self-employed 

individuals 

S 663 Bingaman 3/17/2005 Referred to the Senate Finance 

Committee 

Married couples as business co-owners HR 3629 Doggett 7/29/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

HR 3841 Manzullo 9/2/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

Federal tax deposit avoidance penalty HR 3629 Doggett 7/29/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

HR 3841 Manzullo 9/2/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

Election to be treated as an S corporation HR 3629 Doggett 7/29/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

HR 3841 Manzullo 9/2/2005 Referred to the House Ways and 

Means Committee 

Source: TAS. 

Page 32 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Each annual report includes information on actions IRS has taken or 

intends to take related to the most serious systemic problems covered in

that report. The annual reports do not include such information related to 

the problems included in previous annual reports. By not including this 

information, it is difficult to determine which problems have been 

addressed and are no longer serious problems, and what actions, if any, 

have been taken or remain to be taken to address a particular problem. 

IRS Actions in Response to TAS 

Recommendations Are Unclear 

TAS sent the recommendations included in the 2004 and 2005 annual

reports to IRS. IRS provided information about the actions it had taken for 

the 2004 recommendations and, as of November 2006, was in the process 

of providing TAS with similar information for the 2005 recommendations. 

TAS officials said they plan to include an update of IRS actions in response 

to recommendations made in the annual reports and that this update may 

be included in the annual report or posted on the TAS Web site. 

By law, the annual report must include a summary of at least 20 of the 

most serious problems encountered by taxpayers. These do not have to be 

the 20 worst problems, however, and the Advocate is free to list different 

problems from year to year. The annual report does not explain this, 

however, and it does not explain what happened to the problems in the 

earlier reports. As a result, readers may have the impression that the 

problems described in an annual report are the top problems facing the 

taxpayers that year. Also, when a problem is included in one year’s annual

report and not in the next, readers may mistakenly think that the problem 

has been resolved. 

TAS Does Not Explain Why 

Most Serious Problems Are 

Different Each Year 

A discussion of prior serious taxpayer problems may be helpful to IRS 

stakeholders, including Congress, because the problems cited by TAS vary 

from year to year. For example, of the 21 most serious problems included 

in the 2005 annual report, only 4 were included in any of the prior three 

reports, as shown in table 8. 

Page 33 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Table 8: Comparison of the Most Serious Problems Included in 2005 Annual Report to Those in Previous Reports 

Most serious taxpayer problems included in the 

2004, 2003, and 2002 annual reports that are 

similar to the problems included in the 2005 

annual report

Most serious taxpayer problems included in 2005 annual report 

2004 annual 

report 

2003 annual 

report 

2002 annual 

report 

Trends in taxpayer service 

Criminal Investigation refund freezes X 

The cash economy 

Training of private debt collection employees

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) exam issues X X 

Levies on Social Security payments 

Appeals campus centralization

Refund application loans: Oversight of the industry, cross-collection techniques, 

and payment alternatives 

Identity theft 

Complexity of the Employment Tax Deposit system 

Automated Collection System (ACS) levy releases X 

Regulation of Electronic Return Originators 

Limited scope of backup withholding program

Accessibility of E-Services for tax practitioners 

Mandatory briefings for IRS employees about the Taxpayer Advocate Service 

Allowable expense standards for collection decisions 

Inadequate taxpayer service to exempt organizations resulting in unnecessary 

penalties 

Direct deposit of income tax refunds 

Innocent spouse claims X X 

Limitations of collection account databases 

Reasonable cause assistant 

Source: GAO analysis of TAS reports. 

Note: The issues may not be exactly the same, but the titles of the issues were either the same, 

similar, or included the same words or phrases in each. For example, the 2005 annual report included

ACS levy releases and the 2002 report included access to ACS. 

In addition, TAS’s analysis of the most serious problems included in the 

2005 annual report showed that nine problems had not been specifically 

addressed in previous reports while the remaining problems were related

to serious problems included in previous annual reports. For example, a 

serious problem included in the 2005 annual report was entitled “trends in 

taxpayer service” while a problem in the 2003 report was entitled 

Page 34 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
“taxpayer assistance centers” and a problem in the 2004 report was 

entitled “taxpayer access: face-to-face interaction.” 

The Advocate said that it is a balancing act each year to decide which 

taxpayer problems to include. She said that TAS should not issue an 

annual report that repeats many taxpayer problems from year to year 

because the annual report is the primary way that TAS informs Congress 

and the public about systemic problems. As there are more than just 20 

problems facing taxpayers, reporting on new problems every year is the 

best approach. Other TAS management officials expressed similar 

viewpoints. 

In addition, as previously described, the Advocate must also prepare 

another report that identifies TAS’s objectives for that year. According to

the Advocate, she uses the objectives report as TAS’s strategic plan and 

the report gives her a midyear chance to discuss the effect of IRS 

initiatives on taxpayers. The Advocate believes both reports are important 

and if they were combined, she would lose a communication tool that 

allows her to keep Congress informed about problems taxpayers are 

encountering and TAS’s plans to mitigate those problems. 

Congress established TAS to help taxpayers with problems that were not 

resolved through normal IRS channels as well as to reduce the number of 

such problems through systemic advocacy. The recent increase in TAS 

caseload may raise questions about the effectiveness of TAS systemic 

advocacy at preventing new taxpayer problems from arising. However, the 

available data—particularly the varied makeup of TAS’s taxpayer cases 

from year to year—suggest that the increase in caseload may not be an

indicator of TAS and IRS performance at preventing taxpayer problems 

but be due to other factors such as increases in IRS enforcement activities 

or changes in the economy. As IRS’s enforcement actions have changed 

over time, so has the nature of the problems taxpayers bring to TAS. As 

certain problems have been reduced in number, other problems have 

taken their place. 

Conclusions 

On the other hand, conclusions about the effectiveness of both case and 

systemic advocacy are necessarily limited by a lack of some performance 

information. Without measures of case advocacy efficiency and cost, TAS 

management lacks information potentially useful for managing its case 

advocacy staff and prioritizing its systemic advocacy efforts. 

Understanding efficiency is especially important in light of the challenge 

posed by a growing caseload. Without a broad-based measure of the 

Page 35 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
effectiveness of systemic advocacy, TAS, IRS, and Congress lack 

information about whether efforts to prevent taxpayer problems, rather 

than resolve them after they arise, are achieving any success. Similarly, 

TAS’s current reporting leaves key information about the status of the 

issues it raises and IRS and congressional responses to past 

recommendations unmentioned. TAS may have options about the best way 

to provide more complete information to Congress and the public and to 

do so does not necessarily mean adding to the length of the annual report. 

For example, it might be preferable for TAS to use the Internet to make 

available tables listing both current and past recommendations and 

summarizing IRS and legislative actions to date. We note that TAS is 

already considering posting to its Web site the actions IRS has taken to 

address the recommendations related to the most serious problems in the 

2004 annual report. 

We recommend that the National Taxpayer Advocate 

• improve TAS case advocacy performance measures with the addition of a 

true measure of efficiency that incorporates case complexity and quality 

and a cost measure; 

• supplement the detailed information on specific systemic advocacy issues 

currently being developed with a broad measure of the effectiveness of 

systemic advocacy; and

• improve TAS reporting by (1) describing actions taken in response to TAS 

legislative recommendations, (2) describing actions taken by IRS to 

address the most serious problems encountered by taxpayers, and 

(3) making it clear that the most serious problems included in the annual 

report to Congress are at least 20 of the most serious problems but not 

necessarily all of the top problems faced by taxpayers. 

The National Taxpayer Advocate provided written comments on a draft of

this report in a February 12, 2007, letter which is reprinted in appendix IX.

The Advocate agreed with our recommendations. Her letter notes that TAS 

already collects quality data which will be needed to develop an efficiency 

measure, has taken the first steps to collect case complexity and time 

spent on cases to be used to develop cost data, and has submitted work 

requests to collect additional case complexity and time spent on case data. 

Her letter says that TAS will then use this data to develop a method for 

measuring case advocacy efficiency. She also noted that TAS recognizes 

the value of a broad measure of the effectiveness of systemic advocacy 

and said that TAS will develop one. TAS is implementing an enhanced 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 36 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
process to monitor actions taken in response to TAS legislative 

recommendations and the outcomes will be included in the annual report 

to Congress and be posted on the TAS web site. TAS will monitor the 

status of recommendations included in the annual report that address 

serious problems and post the results semiannually on the TAS web site. 

TAS included language in the 2006 annual report to Congress to clarify 

that the most serious problems included in the report are at least 20 of the 

most serious problems but not necessarily all of the top problems faced by

taxpayers. 

We also provided a draft of this report to the Commissioner of Internal 

Revenue for his review and comment. The draft report did not include any 

recommendations addressed to the Commissioner. The IRS Office of 

Legislative Affairs provided informal technical comments, and we 

incorporated them as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the National 

Taxpayer Advocate, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of 

Internal Revenue, and other interested parties. This report is available at 

no charge on GAO’s web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-

9110 or whitej@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were David Lewis, 

Assistant Director; Shellee Soliday; Lindsey Houston; John Mingus; Shirley 

Jones; and Jennifer Gravelle. 

James R. White 

Director, Tax Issues 

Strategic Issues Team 

Page 37 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Methodology 

Our first objective was to determine why the Taxpayer Advocate Service’s

(TAS) caseload increased since 2004. To address this objective, we 

reviewed the case advocacy process; TAS’s case acceptance criteria, 

changes made to the criteria by TAS, and TAS guidance for applying the

criteria; the legal requirements for TAS’s case acceptance criteria; TAS 

documents that included discussions of why their caseload was 

increasing, and the fiscal years 2002–5 National Taxpayer Advocate’s 

annual reports to Congress, hereafter referred to as the annual report. We 

analyzed TAS caseload data from the Taxpayer Advocate Management 

Information System (TAMIS) for fiscal years 2002–6. To conduct our 

analyses, we associated cases with the fiscal year in which they were 

opened. Also, for cases that TAS closed and subsequently reopened, all of

our analyses relate to the original case. To assess the reliability of the 

TAMIS data, we reviewed TAS documentation, conducted interviews with 

key officials, and conducted electronic testing of key variables. Based on 

this work, we determined that the TAMIS data were sufficiently reliable 

for our purposes. We also analyzed data related to Internal Revenue

Service (IRS) enforcement activities for fiscal years 2002–5 that were 

included in the IRS Data Books or obtained from IRS officials. We 

interviewed several TAS officials including the National Taxpayer 

Advocate, hereafter referred to as the Advocate, the Executive Director of 

Case Advocacy, the Acting Director of Management Accountability, Policy 

and Strategy, and Local Taxpayer Advocates in three state offices and one 

campus office. We also interviewed Wage and Investment (W&I), Small 

Business/Self Employed (SB/SE), and Criminal Investigation (CI) officials 

to obtain their views about why IRS referrals to TAS were increasing. 

Our second objective was to determine how well TAS conducted its case 

advocacy activities in terms of measures such as customer satisfaction and

quality. To address this objective, we reviewed TAS’s performance 

measures for case advocacy; TAS’s performance results and targets for 

fiscal years 2002–6; TAS’s fiscal year 2002–5 annual reports; previous GAO 

reports on performance measures and other performance measure 

literature; and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 2004 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) report that discussed TAS’s 

measures. We assessed TAS’s performance measures using criteria 

previously established by GAO.1

 We interviewed TAS officials, including 

the Advocate and the Executive Director of Case Advocacy. We also 

 1

GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). 

Page 38 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

interviewed W&I, SB/SE, and CI officials to obtain their views about 

coordinating with TAS to resolve taxpayer cases. In addition, we reviewed 

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s (TIGTA) report 

on the timeliness of TAS’s case advocacy process2

 and GAO’s report on 

restructuring the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, which included an 

evaluation of the adequacy of the Advocate’s measures.3

Our third objective was to determine how well TAS measures and reports 

its systemic advocacy efforts. To address this objective, we reviewed 

TAS’s performance measures for systemic advocacy to determine if they

addressed the effectiveness of systemic advocacy. We interviewed TAS 

systemic advocacy officials including the Executive Director for Systemic 

Advocacy, Acting Director of Systemic Advocacy Projects, Director of 

Immediate Interventions, the Project Manager for the Annual Report to 

Congress, and the Senior Advisor to the National Taxpayer Advocate and 

the Annual Report to Congress. In addition, we reviewed OMB’s report 

that summarized the results of its use of PART to assess TAS for the year 

2004, TIGTA’s report on the effectiveness of systemic advocacy efforts,4

and GAO’s report on restructuring the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate to

identify any issues raised related to measuring systemic advocacy 

activities.5

 We reviewed the 2002–5 annual reports to determine what 

information they included about actions taken to address systemic issues 

identified in them. We focused on the annual reports to Congress since 

they are the primary method used by TAS to report on systemic advocacy 

efforts. In addition, we reviewed the legal requirements for the annual

report and the Department of the Treasury report that summarized the 

actions TAS took to address the recommendations included in a 2003 

 2

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, The Taxpayer Advocate Service Needs 

to Improve Case Management to Ensure Taxpayer Problems Are Resolved Timely, 

Reference Number 2004-10-166 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2004). 

3

GAO, IRS Management: IRS Faces Challenges as it Restructures the Office of the 

Taxpayer Advocate, GAO/GGD-99-124 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 1999). 

4

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Opportunities to Improve the 

Effectiveness of Internal Revenue Service Advocacy Efforts, Reference Number 1999-10-

061 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 1999). 

5

GAO/GGD-99-124. 

Page 39 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report related to the 

management of systemic advocacy.

6

We performed our work from September 2005 through December 2006 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 6

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, The National Taxpayer Advocate

Could Enhance the Management of Systemic Advocacy Resources, Reference Number 

2003-10-187 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003). 

Page 40 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix II: Pr

Interv

ocess for Creating Immediate

entions and Systemic Advocacy Projects

Page 41 GAO-07-156 

Appendix II: Process for Creating Immediate 

Interventions and Systemic Advocacy 

Projects 

Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) systemic advocacy staff analyze 

systemic issues to determine if they meet the definition of an immediate 

intervention. Immediate interventions are administrative issues which 

cause immediate, significant harm to multiple taxpayers and demand an 

urgent response. Also, the issues have clear sources; are highly visible and 

sensitive locally, areawide, or nationally; and require that a resolution be 

identified within 3–5 calendar days. The staff does not have written 

guidance for determining if an issue meets the definition and instead use 

factors such as their knowledge of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

operations and problems taxpayers are having with IRS to assess whether 

the issues meet the definition. 

If the systemic advocacy staff determines an issue meets the definition of

an immediate intervention, they elevate the issue to the Director of 

Immediate Interventions who decides on whether to create an immediate 

intervention. If an intervention is not created, then the staff applies the 

TAS criteria used to determine if an issue should become a systemic 

advocacy project. These criteria are described in the following section. 

An example of TAS’s use of the immediate intervention process was when 

a taxpayer submitted an issue to TAS’s Systemic Advocacy Management 

System (SAMS) describing an experience while using a publicly shared 

computer at a library to access www.irs.gov. The taxpayer used the 

computer to complete and download IRS forms. After signing off and 

exiting the Web site, the taxpayer’s personal information remained on the 

computer. TAS immediately raised the issue to the level of an immediate 

intervention due to the sensitive nature of the issue and the potential 

disclosure of taxpayer information via the external IRS Web site. TAS 

worked with other offices within IRS and the software vendor to correct 

this problem. 

TAS systemic advocacy staff use written criteria to score each systemic 

issue that does not become an immediate intervention. The scores are 

used to determine which issues will become systemic advocacy projects. 

Such issues are systemic and affect a segment of taxpayers; require study, 

analysis, recommendations, and action to effect positive results; involve 

systems, processes, procedures, or legislation; and involve more than one

taxpayer. 

TAS systemic advocacy staff use the following 14 criteria, which are 

divided into five categories, to score the issues. 

Immediate 

Interventions 

Systemic Advocacy 

Projects

Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix II: Process for Creating Immediate

Interventions and Systemic Advocacy Projects

• Extent of the problem: The following three factors help determine how 

widespread a problem may be. The greater the number of taxpayers 

potentially affected, the more widespread the problem, and the greater the 

frequency of occurrence, the more criteria points awarded. 

• Potential volume of taxpayers affected within the identified segment 

(i.e., individuals, small businesses): Of the taxpaying population within 

the identified segment, how many could be affected by this issue? 

Designate as high, medium, or low the number of affected taxpayers 

relative to the overall segment of taxpayers. 

• Geographic scope: Does the issue affect taxpayers across the nation 

(national), in clustered areas (area, region), or only in certain places 

(local)? 

• Issue frequency: Does the issue happen on a recurring or cyclical basis, 

on a limited or sporadic basis, or only one time? 

• Interest/visibility/sensitivity: The following three factors help determine 

the amount of interest, visibility, or sensitivity associated with the 

problem. The higher the level of congressional, community, and media 

interest or support, the more criteria points awarded. 

• Congressional interest/support: How much support or interest has 

Congress expressed about this issue? Did the support or interest come 

from one member’s office or is it widespread in the House or Senate or 

both (high, moderate, or low)? 

• Community/external stakeholder interest/support: How much support 

or interest have external stakeholders expressed about this issue? Was 

the support from one specific group (i.e., AARP) or spread across 

various sectors such as accountants, lawyers, and other special interest 

groups (high, moderate, or low)? 

• Media interest/publicity: How much interest have the media shown in 

this issue? What level of coverage does this issue rate (high, moderate, 

or low)? 

• Taxpayer burden: The following four factors help determine the level of 

burden placed on the taxpayer trying to resolve the issue from the 

taxpayer’s point of view. The more effort, time, and money required to 

straighten out the problem, the more criteria points awarded. If taxpayers 

are treated disparately, the issue is awarded criteria points. 

• How long to resolve: How long does it take, from the taxpayer’s 

perspective, to resolve this issue? The choices range from “less than 3 

months” to “greater than 1 year.” The longer it takes, the more points 

are awarded.

• Effort: How much effort is required, from the taxpayer’s or other 

stakeholder’s perspective, to resolve this issue (minimal, moderate, or 

Page 42 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix II: Process for Creating Immediate

Interventions and Systemic Advocacy Projects

significant? The more effort it takes to resolve the issue, the more 

points are awarded. 

• Financial: What is the financial effect on the taxpayer excluding tax, 

penalties, and interest (minimal, moderate, or significant)? Factors 

include issues such as the cost of representation, whether the taxpayer 

has money available for this expense, the cost of repeated photocopies 

or express mail for documentation, and so on. 

• Fairness: Is this taxpayer treated disparately compared to other 

taxpayers? If the taxpayer is treated fairly, the issue is not awarded 

criteria points. If the taxpayer is not treated fairly, the issue is awarded 

criteria points. 

• Taxpayer rights: The following two factors help determine how the 

problem affects taxpayers’ rights. If rights are negatively affected, or if 

rights are enhanced, the issue is awarded criteria points. 

• Denial of taxpayer rights: Did the taxpayer have the opportunity to 

exercise a right or was he or she denied something that the taxpayer 

had the right to (i.e., privacy, collection, appeal)? If taxpayers’ rights 

are violated, the issue is awarded criteria points; otherwise no points 

are awarded.

• Enhancement of taxpayer rights: Does this issue enhance taxpayers’ 

rights? If taxpayers’ rights are enhanced, the issue is awarded criteria 

points; otherwise no points are awarded. 

• Ability to effect change: The following two factors help identify issues that 

may not be resolved without TAS intervention. If the operating division is 

likely to implement a change without TAS influence, minimal criteria 

points are awarded. If TAS is likely to influence operating division actions 

or influence change, more points are awarded. 

• Likelihood of independent operating division action: How likely is it 

that the operating division will fix the problem without TAS 

intervention? The higher the likelihood of independent action, the 

fewer criteria points awarded. 

• TAS ability to influence change: How likely is it that TAS will be able to 

influence the operating division to address the issue? The higher the 

likelihood of TAS influencing change, the more criteria points awarded. 

When applying criteria, staff use their knowledge of IRS operations; 

information contained in IRS systems, obtained from IRS officials, or 

developed by IRS Research offices; and current events. 

After the staff enter information into SAMS for each criterion, SAMS 

assigns a score. Each week, the staff then sends a list of scored issues to 

the Director of Immediate Interventions indicating which issues met or 

Page 43 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix II: Process for Creating Immediate

Interventions and Systemic Advocacy Projects

exceeded the current threshold for converting an issue into a systemic 

advocacy project. This threshold can change depending on available 

resources to work on systemic advocacy projects. The Director of 

Immediate Interventions, Director of Advocacy Projects, and the systemic 

advocacy portfolio managers review the issues and decide which will 

become systemic advocacy projects.

An example of a systemic advocacy project was the tip compliance 

project. The project stemmed from complaints from taxpayers and 

practitioners about the manner in which IRS was conducting tip 

compliance examinations. Problems included, among others, inconsistent

requirements for substantiating income, insistence that original tip diaries 

be sent to IRS, and refusal to provide detail supporting any IRS 

adjustments. The issue potentially affected a high number of taxpayers; 

was geographically national in scope; had high congressional, external 

stakeholder, and media interest; involved significant efforts by taxpayers 

to resolve the issue; and affected the equitable treatment of taxpayers, 

among other things, according to the scoring sheet used to rank the issue. 

TAS worked with Wage and Investment (W&I) and Small Business/Self 

Employed (SB/SE) staff involved in the examinations. TAS was able to 

resolve some of the issues at lower levels of W&I and SB/SE. For other 

issues, TAS submitted an Advocacy Proposal to the management of the 

Employment Tax Group within SB/SE. These SB/SE officials agreed to 

correct the issues TAS raised. TAS is monitoring these cases to make sure 

the problems are not experienced by other taxpayers. 

Page 44 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix III: Information to Be Included in 

the National Taxpayer Advocate’s Annual Appendix III: Information to Be Included in Report to Congress 

the National Taxpayer Advocate’s Annual 

Report to Congress 

The National Taxpayer Advocate is required1 to prepare an annual report 

that describes the Taxpayer Advocate Service’s activities for the previous 

year that shall contain full and substantive analysis, in addition to 

statistical information, and shall 

1. Identify the initiatives the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate has taken 

on improving taxpayer services and Internal Revenue Service 

responsiveness. 

2. Contain recommendations received from individuals with the authority 

to issue Taxpayer Assistance Orders under section 7811. 

3. Contain a summary of at least 20 of the most serious problems 

encountered by taxpayers, including a description of the nature of 

such problems. 

4. Contain an inventory of the items described in 1, 2, and 3 for which 

action has been taken and the result of such action. 

5. Contain an inventory of the items described in 1, 2, and 3 for which 

action remains to be completed and the period during which each item 

has remained on such inventory. 

6. Contain an inventory of the items described in 1, 2, and 3 for which no 

action has been taken, the period during which each item has

remained on such inventory, the reasons for the inaction, and identify 

any Internal Revenue Service official who is responsible for such 

inaction. 

7. Identify any Taxpayer Assistance Order which was not honored by the 

Internal Revenue Service in a timely manner, as specified under 

section 7811 (b). 

8. Contain recommendations for such administrative and legislative 

action as may be appropriate to resolve problems encountered by 

taxpayers. 

9. Identify areas of the tax law that impose significant compliance 

burdens on taxpayers or the Internal Revenue Service, including 

specific recommendations for remedying these problems. 

10. Identify the 10 most litigated issues for each category of taxpayers, 

including recommendations for mitigating such disputes. 

11. Include such other information as the National Taxpayer Advocate 

may deem advisable. 

 1

26 U.S.C. 7803(c)(2)(B). 

Page 45 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix IV: Taxpayer Advocate Service 

Process for Selecting Problems to Include in Appendix IV the Annual Report to Congress : Taxpayer Advocate Service 

Process for Selecting Problems to Include in 

the Annual Report to Congress 

Prior to 2006, Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) systemic advocacy 

officials who prepared the annual report to Congress used input from the 

National Taxpayer Advocate, the Advocate’s advisors, local taxpayer 

advocates, and Taxpayer Advocate Management Information System 

(TAMIS) and Systemic Advocacy Management System (SAMS) data to 

identify serious problems that taxpayers were encountering.1

 TAS officials 

considered several factors when developing the list including effect on 

taxpayer rights, the number or percentage of taxpayers affected, 

congressional interest, effect of noncompliance on tax administration or 

tax revenue, and barriers to taxpayer compliance. The Advocate and the 

systemic advocacy officials then met and developed a list of serious 

problems which was sent to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for 

comment. If IRS officials provided information that illustrated one of the 

proposed problems was not a serious issue, TAS dropped the issue. 

Systemic advocacy officials then prepared the final list of serious 

problems and the Advocate made the final decision on which problems 

were included in the annual report.

When preparing the 2006 annual report, TAS officials used essentially the 

same process, plus additional sources of information to identify the 

serious problems. First, TAS officials summarized an environmental scan 

of documents that described issues that taxpayers have with IRS. 

Examples of documents included newspaper articles, letters to the 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and a Department of the Treasury 

news release. Examples of issues included the alternative minimum tax 

and offers in compromise. Second, TAS officials analyzed the “most 

serious problems” included in the 2001–5 annual reports. This process 

involved ranking the problems as critical, high, medium, low, or resolved 

based on the steps IRS had taken to address them. Third, they reviewed 

information related to immediate interventions, task forces, operations 

assistance requests, and low-income taxpayer clinics. They combined 

these three sources of data with input from the Advocate, the Advocate’s 

advisors, and the local taxpayer advocates along with TAMIS and SAMS 

data in order to develop the proposed list of serious problems for the 2006 

annual report. The Advocate made the final decision on which problems to 

include in the report. 

 1

TAMIS and SAMS are the information systems TAS uses to track case and systemic 

advocacy activities, respectively. 

Page 46 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix V: Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic

Appendix V (LITC) Grant Program : Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic 

(LITC) Grant Program 

Responsibility for the LITC Grant Program was transferred from the Wage 

and Investment division (W&I) to the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) in

May 2003. The LITC Grant Program helps accredited academic institutions 

and nonprofit organizations represent low-income taxpayers in 

controversies with IRS and operate programs to inform individuals for 

whom English is a second language about their rights and responsibilities. 

TAS has responsibility for selecting LITC grant recipients and conducting 

site visits to ensure that LITCs are fulfilling their obligations. 

LITC grant applications go through a three-step selection process 

involving an eligibility screening, a technical evaluation, and a program 

office evaluation. To be eligible, grantees must offer services for free or for 

no more than a nominal fee and either represent low-income taxpayers in

controversies with IRS or provide information to English as a second 

language (ESL) taxpayers about their rights and responsibilities as U.S. 

taxpayers. Next, a panel of TAS staff knowledgeable about the purpose 

and mission of LITCs conducts a technical evaluation of the eligible 

applicants. Panel members rank each LITC applicant based on four 

weighted criteria: the quality of their programs, their experience in 

sponsoring a clinic, the quality of their grant administration and 

accounting procedures, and the number of low-income or ESL taxpayers 

in the geographic area. Finally, LITC program staff conduct the program 

office evaluation during which they evaluate the rankings for 

inconsistencies or discrepancies. The LITC Program Office Director makes 

recommendations to the National Taxpayer Advocate who makes the final

decision on who will receive the grants. 

TAS conducts several types of site visits to LITC grantees. Someone from 

the LITC Program Office visits each new clinic during the first 6 months to 

educate them on program requirements and to verify operational 

requirements listed in the grant guidelines such as keeping taxpayer 

information in a secure location and developing and maintaining 

relationships with other community-based organizations in order to reach 

targeted audiences. There are three tiers of additional site visits. The first 

tier visit is conducted by the local taxpayer advocate and includes 

checking items such as are the clinic’s hours posted and easily visible, are 

brochures and posters visible, and does file security appear adequate. The 

second tier site visit is usually done by someone from the LITC Program 

Office and is more in-depth than the first tier visit. He or she reviews 30 

items such as determining if the goals stated in the program plan are 

reflected in the program’s actual activities, client records are maintained 

in a confidential manner, and the clinic has a written process to control 

and monitor costs and expenditures. If as a result of the second tier visit, 

Page 47 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix V: Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic

(LITC) Grant Program 

the staff member identifies issues that need further review, then the LITC

Program Office Director conducts a third tier visit. During this visit, the 

Director reviews requirements including financial/Office of Management 

and Budget, personnel, and program requirements in addition to other 

items including standards of operation and ethical considerations. Third 

tier visits can result in freezing funds for a grantee. 

For the 2006 grant cycle, TAS awarded $8 million in matching grants, 

ranging from $5,000 to $97,250, to 150 nonprofit organizations and 

accredited academic institutions.1

 According to the National Taxpayer 

Advocate’s 2007 Objectives Report to Congress, during 2006, TAS 

expanded the coverage of clinics into rural and other areas where 

disadvantaged taxpayers had very limited access to assistance, funding 11 

new clinics in areas that were underrepresented.

 1

Under section 7526 of the Internal Revenue Code, no more than $6 million per year can be

allocated for grants unless otherwise provided for by a specific appropriation. The

Department of the Treasury’s 2006 Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 109-115, specifically 

provided $8 million for LITC grants. 

Page 48 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix VI: Number of Taxpayer Advocate 

Service Cases by Primary Issue Code, Fiscal 

Years 2002–6

Fiscal year 

Primary issue code 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Criminal Investigation (CI) 5,600 15,304 16,554 28,228 20,490

Processing Amended Return 32,254 18,282 11,211 12,214 17,195

Levy 8,413 9,104 8,208 9,279 14,651

Injured Spouse Claim 18 4,350 6,166 6,389 11,610

Processing Original Return 19,396 10,730 8,485 8,966 10,417

Reconsideration/Substitute for Return (SFR)/6020B/Audit 7,395 7,224 7,388 8,028 10,075

Expedite Refund Request 34 4,742 7,002 6,743 10,045

Closed Under Reporter Program (URP) 7,311 6,542 4,624 6,196 7,741

Open Audit (Non Remittance Processing System (RPS), Earned

Income Tax Credit (EITC)) 

6,104 5,780 4,660 5,343 6,969

Copies of Returns / Transcripts / Reports / Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) 

3,481 2,878 4,058 5,696 5,761

RPS (EITC Claim) 27,184 23,358 10,307 6,945 5,729

Other Document Processing Issues 878 1,316 2,149 3,050 5,631

Taxpayer Delinquent Return (TDI)–SFR / 6020B 4,017 2,172 1,585 2,184 5,102

Open URP 13 1,115 2,475 2,887 4,750

Other Refund Inquiries / Issues 20,119 8,493 3,578 3,397 4,510

Missing/Incorrect Payments 8,674 4,854 3,578 3,926 4,337

Combined Annual Wage reporting (CAWR)/Federal Unemployment 

Taxes (FUTA) 

3,337 3,665 2,697 2,684 4,244

Failure to File Penalty (FTF) / Failure to Pay (FTP) 39 1,817 3,162 3,832 4,232

EITC Reconsideration 16 43 867 3,628 3,915

Federal Payment Levy Program (FPLP) Levy-Social Security

Administration (SSA) Benefits

2 5 470 1,632 3,809

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Offset 2,687 2,228 2,084 2,741 3,783

Lost / Stolen Refund 7,770 3,939 2,953 2,634 3,627

Installment Agreement (IA) – Other 2,235 1,740 1,659 2,331 3,365

Lien Release 17 1,229 2,486 3,063 3,316

Account / Notice Inquiry 2,991 2,303 2,051 2,493 3,139

Other Collection Issues 2,261 1,745 1,732 2,310 3,104

Math Error 2,554 1,908 1,616 1,919 2,914

Returned/Stopped Refunds 13 1,666 1,900 2,262 2,852

Civil Penalties other than Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP) 18 788 1,718 1,926 2,754

EITC Recertification 51 2,515 2,739 2,333 2,676

Stolen Identity 4 67 460 1,185 2,514

Appendix VI: Number of Taxpayer Advocate 

Service Cases by Primary Issue Code, Fiscal 

Years 2002–6 

Page 49 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix VI: Number of Taxpayer Advocate 

Service Cases by Primary Issue Code, Fiscal 

Years 2002–6

Fiscal year 

Primary issue code 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Unpostable / Reject 535 935 1,772 2,478

Unable to Pay–(Currently Not Collectible (CNC)) 2,695 2,050 1,625 1,766 2,339

Multiple/Mixed Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) 1,598 1,665 1,705 1,632 2,066

Offer in Compromise (OIC)–Doubt as to Collectibility 4,487 3,383 2,500 2,047 2,042

Form W-7/Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN)/Adoption 

Taxpayer Identification Number (ATIN) 

2,319 2,429 2,626 2,592 1,990

Other Penalty Issues 11,283 4,670 1,337 1,332 1,929

Other Payment Issues 14 507 1,084 1,182 1,735

Bankruptcy 1,439 1,005 1,009 1,185 1,721

Failure to Deposit Penalty (FTD) 2,529 1,825 1,593 1,147 1,288

Lien–Other 3,124 1,757 786 1,048 1,249

Innocent Spouse Claim 1,791 1,230 960 1,040 1,208

Tax Questions 2,034 1,068 860 1,115 1,175

Other Entity Issues 515 514 794 992 1,126

Scrambled Social Security Numbers (SSN) 98 562 841 1,128 1,112

Refund Statute (Refund Statute Expiration Date (RSED)) 5 398 821 940 1,089

Other Exam 895 717 783 864 1,070

Treasury Offset Program (TOP) Offset 3 549 750 835 1,062

Other Technical, Procedural, or Statute Issues 13 363 734 908 1,002

Undelivered Refunds 902 675 570 757 987

Application for Exempt Status (F1023/1024) 680 387 479 620 977

CI (Return Preparation Program) 5 20 449 904

TFRP 828 784 774 793 894

Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Penalty 3 262 737 846

Carryback / Carryforward Claims (Net Operating Losses (NOL), 

F 1045/1139) 

17 591 733 747 717

Subchapter S Corporation 949 785 698 675 711

Examination Appeals 22 254 516 557 694

FTD/Estimated Tax (ES) 3,386 1,635 807 631 675

Appeals–Other 15 221 452 524 668

Name/Address Changes 4 176 372 613 663

Back-up Withholding (BWH) 664 332 759 783 660

Direct Deposit 3 169 223 433 577

Streamlined IA (Unpaid Balance of Assessment under $25k and 

able to full pay in 60 months) 

6 244 368 452 549

EITC Certification (Qualifying Child) 8 466 724 484

Other 5,704 3,110 846 588 460

Page 50 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix VI: Number of Taxpayer Advocate 

Service Cases by Primary Issue Code, Fiscal 

Years 2002–6

Fiscal year 

Primary issue code 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

ES Penalty 3 268 287 265 454

Penalty Appeals 5 262 516 488 454

Lien Withdrawal 7 138 242 338 438

Informal Interest Abatement Request 9 285 390 390 431

Lien Subordination 1 128 224 288 396

Original Lien Filing 3 151 256 327 370

Collection Due Process (CDP) Appeals 6 131 179 239 352

Taxpayer Rights 365 235 198 155 330

Lien Discharge 1 78 202 282 306

Excess Collection 5 145 242 290 304

Collection Statute Expiration Date (CSED) 28 172 320 259 290

Form 843 (other than interest abatement) 15 162 215 317 285

OIC Appeals 15 137 303 319 274

ITIN Merge 13 175 266

Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) 2 102 206 138 241

OIC–Effective Tax Administration 10 189 277 215 231

Unpostable Payment 1 66 114 131 213

Tax Exempt/Government Entity (TE/GE) (Employment 

Plans/Exempt Organizations (EP/EO)) Technical 

2 147 215 195 211

Formal Interest Abatement Request (F 843) 18 209 275 235 209

Seizure and Sale 115 128 127 163 197

SS-4, Application for Employer Identification Number (EIN) 3,170 685 188 148 192

Forms / Publication Request 22 93 198 231 191

Interest Calculation 8 86 177 203 185

Invalid Social Security Number (SSN) (Primary / Secondary) 321 241 173 159 177

OIC - Doubt as to Liability 14 248 295 246 175

Math Error ITIN 18 184 163

FPLP Levy-Fed. Empl. Salaries 38 85 158

Invalid Dependent SSN/Name 220 179 140 123 149

Innocent Spouse Appeals 20 82 143 120 137

FPLP Levy-Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Retirement 

Income 

41 101 129

Alien Taxation Problems/inquiries regarding determinations of alien 

status for income tax purposes. 

38 125 176 128

Other Interest 1,603 522 89 84 106

Guaranteed IA 28 40 75 100

ITIN Refund Inquiry 14 87 90

Page 51 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix VI: Number of Taxpayer Advocate 

Service Cases by Primary Issue Code, Fiscal 

Years 2002–6

Fiscal year 

Primary issue code 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Tax Treaties 1 30 79 76 85

Non-Master File 8 103 185 136 78

Exclusion of Foreign Earned Income Problems/inquiries regarding 

the exclusion of income. 

2 27 37 77 78

SS-8 Determinations 132 118 86 88 77

Restricted Interest 48 82 90 66

Assessment Statute (Assessment Statute Expiration Date (ASED)) 1 26 41 40 63

Invalid Spouse/Dependent ITIN 13 79 55

Refunds 17 1,194 372 97 53

Collection Appeals Program (CAP) Appeals 17 27 35 53

FPLP Levy–Federal Contractor/Vendor Payments 11 38 51

Foreign Tax Credit 1 25 31 30 51

Examination 21 672 296 84 47

Collection 11 344 200 72 43

EITC Certification (Filing Status) 2 660 244 40

Credit Interest 29 39 40 36

Technical/Procedural/Statute 2 179 89 58 33

Document Processing 10 433 153 50 33

Payments/Credits 12 423 217 53 30

Penalty 5 355 138 39 29

Disaster Relief Claim 6 5 15 28

Appeals/Other 10 120 88 24 15

Lockbox 25 14 8 10

Entity 3 94 52 24 9

EITC Certification (Automated Underreporter) 4 3 6

Interest 2 56 19 5 3

FPLP Levy-Federal Employment Travel and Reimbursement

Payments 

1 1 2

Total 229,135 196,169 170,129 198,789 243,810

Source: GAO analysis of TAS data. 

Page 52 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix VII: Types of Taxpayer Advocate

Service (TAS) Cases That Increased by More Appendix VII: Tthan 1 ypes of T ,000 in Fiscal Years 20

a

05 and xpayer Advocate 2006 

Service (TAS) Cases That Increased by More 

than 1,000 in Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 

Table 9: Types of TAS Cases That Increased by More than 1,000 Cases in Fiscal 

Year 2005 

 

Fiscal year 

2004 

Fiscal year 

2005 Change

Criminal Investigation 16,554 28,228 11,674

Processing Amended Return 11,211 12,214 1,003

Closed Under Reporter Program (URP) 4,624 6,196 1,572

Lien 4,196 5,346 1,150

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Reconsideration 867 3,628 2,761

Levy 8,769 11,136 2,367

Copies of Returns / Transcripts / Reports / 

Freedom of Information Act 

4,058 5,696 1,638

All Othera119,850 126,345 6,495

Source: GAO analysis of TAS data. 

a

“Other” consists of the remaining 114 issue codes that TAS tracks. The number of cases in each of 

these codes either increased by fewer than 1,000 cases or decreased. 

Page 53 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix VII: Types of Taxpayer Advocate

Service (TAS) Cases That Increased by More 

than 1,000 in Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 

Table 10: Types of TAS Cases That Increased by More than 1,000 Cases in Fiscal 

Year 2006 

 

Fiscal year 

2005 

Fiscal year 

2006 Change

Levy 11,136 18,800 7,664

Processing Original Return 8,966 10,417 1,451

Open Audit (Non Remittance Processing System, 

EITC) 

5,343 6,969 1,626

Processing Amended Return 12,214 17,195 4,981

Closed URP 6,196 7,741 1,545

Reconsideration/Substitute for Return/6020B/Audit 8,028 10,075 2,047

Other Refund Inquiries / Issues 3,397 4,510 1,113

Taxpayer Delinquent Return (TDI) – Substitute for 

Return (SFR) / 6020B 

2,184 5,102 2,918

Installment Agreement – Other 2,331 3,365 1,034

Stolen Identity 1,185 2,514 1,329

Combined Annual Wage Reporting/Federal 

Unemployment Taxes 

2,684 4,244 1,560

Open URP 2,887 4,750 1,863

IRS Offset 2,741 3,783 1,042

Other Document Processing Issues 3,050 5,631 2,581

Injured Spouse Claim 6,389 11,610 5,221

Expedite Refund Request 6,743 10,045 3,302

All Other 113,315 117,059 3,744

Source: GAO analysis of TAS data. 

a

“Other” consists of the remaining 114 issue codes that TAS tracks. These codes either increased by 

fewer than 1,000 cases or decreased. 

Page 54 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix VIII: Taxpayer Advocate Service Appendix VIII: TCustomer Satis axpayer Advocate Service faction Survey Results 

Customer Satisfaction Survey Results 

Table 11: Summary of Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) Customer Satisfaction

Scores: Fiscal Year 2005 

Survey question Fiscal year 2005

The TAS employee... 

gave you a way to directly contact them 95 percent

informed you of actions they were planning to take 91 percent

offered you an apology 70 percent

listened to your concerns 4.47

gave you an adequate opportunity to explain your problem 4.47

gave you a chance to present additional documents or information 4.35

treated you with courtesy 4.58

did their best to solve your problem 4.33

was knowledgeable about your problem 4.27

kept you informed about progress in resolving your problem 4.29

had a positive attitude 4.48

understood all the issues and requests that you presented 4.30

The TAS process... 

it was easy to reach the person helping you 4.25

written correspondence was easy to understand 4.33

you feel your problem was handled in a reasonable timeframe 4.11

you were treated fairly by TAS 4.38

overall satisfaction (unweighted) 4.39

as a result of your TAS experience, your opinion of the Internal 

Revenue Service 

3.63

Source: TAS. 

Note: The responses to the first three TAS employee questions represented the percentage of 

respondents who answered “yes.” The responses to the remaining TAS employee questions and the 

first four TAS process questions were based on a rating of 1–5, with 5 representing “strongly agree.” 

The response to the fifth TAS process question was based on a rating of 1–5, with 5 representing 

“very satisfied.” The response to the last TAS process question was based on a scale of 1–5, with 5 

representing “much more positive,” 4 representing “a little more positive,” and 3 representing “about 

the same.”

Page 55 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix IX: Comments from the National Appendix IX: Comments from the National Taxpayer Advocate 

Taxpayer Advocate 

Page 56 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix IX: Comments from the National 

Taxpayer Advocate 

Page 57 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix IX: Comments from the National 

Taxpayer Advocate 

Page 58 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix IX: Comments from the National 

Taxpayer Advocate 

Page 59 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix IX: Comments from the National 

Taxpayer Advocate 

Page 60 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
Appendix IX: Comments from the National 

Taxpayer Advocate 

(450446) Page 61 GAO-07-156 Taxpayer Advocate Service
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER