U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–883 2011

IMPROPER PAYMENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION 

OF REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 25, 2011 

Serial No. 112–OS4 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

KENNY MARCHANT, New York 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
iii 

C O N T E N T 

Advisory of May 25, 2011 announcing the hearing .............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Steven Miller, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service ............................................................................................. 5 

Honorable J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Taxpayer Administration, U.S. Department of the Treasury Accompanied by Mike 

McKenney, Assistant Inspector General for Audit ............................................ 23 

Mr. Michael Brostek, Director, Tax Policy and Administration, Strategic 

Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................................................. 36 

Ms. Nina E. Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate, Internal Revenue Service 

Testimony ............................................................................................................. 55 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
(1) 

HEARING ON TRANSPARENCY AND FUNDING 

OF STATE AND LOCAL PENSION PLANS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in 

room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

Boustany Announces 

Hearing on Improper Payments in the 

administration of Refundable Tax Credits 

Thursday, May 26, 2011 

Congressman Charles W. Boustany, Jr., MD, (R–LA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced 

that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on improper tax payments in the administration of refundable tax credits. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, May 

25, 2011, in room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:30 

A.M. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. A 

list of invited witnesses will follow. 

BACKGROUND: 

While some tax credits reduce a taxpayer’s liability to zero, refundable credits can 

also result in a taxpayer receiving money from the government even if they have 

paid no taxes. In recent years, the number and dollar amount of improper payments 

arising from refundable tax credits has been increasing at an alarming pace. Over 

the last few years, the rampant abuse and misapplication of these credits has cost 

taxpayers an estimated $106 billion. 

Despite this alarming abuse of taxpayer dollars, the Treasury Inspector General 

for Tax Administration has noted that the IRS has made little progress in reducing 

improper payments since being required to report these figures to Congress and the 

Office of Management and Budget. In fact, the Government Accountability Office reported that in 2010, the EITC was the fourth largest source for improper payments 

among all Federal Government programs, with an estimated $16.9 billion in improper payments. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Boustany said, ‘‘At a time of record level 

Federal deficits, the last thing the government can afford is to be hemorrhaging tens 

of billions of dollars in improper payments. The Subcommittee needs to understand 

the current levels of waste, fraud, and abuse and what can be done to prevent billions of dollars of improper payments each year.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on the administration of refundable tax credits, with an 

emphasis on the level of improper payments attributable to refundable credits, and 

steps the IRS is taking to reduce the level of waste, fraud, and abuse related to 

these credits. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit written comments for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page 

of the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here 

to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. Attach your submission as a Word document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
3 

business on Wednesday, June 8, 2011. Finally, please note that due to the change 

in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries 

to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, 

please call (202) 225–3625 or (202) 225–5522. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. This Subcommittee hearing will come to 

order. Good morning to everyone. I would like to welcome everyone 

to this morning’s hearing on improper payments in the administration of refundable tax credits. 

In the course of less than a decade, improper payments arising 

from refundable tax credits have cost taxpayers an estimated $106 

billion, according to government reports. To put this amount of 

money in perspective, it’s more than the fiscal year budgets of the 

Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, and Transportation, combined. 

Refundable tax credits not only reduce an individual’s tax liability, they can also result in payments from government when credits 

exceed one’s tax liability, meaning that millions of Americans have 

been able to eliminate any income tax liability, and even get a 

check back from the government via refundable credits. Not surprisingly, this makes them an attractive target for those willing to 

claim more than they are legally due, or otherwise to cheat the system. 

The problem is so widespread that the inspector general has even 

found IRS employees abusing refundable tax credits. Some improper payments can also result from honest errors that are an inevitable result of our complex and convoluted Tax Code. But 

whether caused by innocent mistakes or outright fraud, improper 

payments cost the taxpayer dearly. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
4 

For instance, the earned income tax credit consistently ranks 

among one of the most vulnerable Federal programs, with improper 

payments totaling nearly $17 billion in 2010, according to GAO. 

This is roughly a quarter of the program’s total outlays. And this 

is not a new problem with this credit, as IRS has issued as much 

as $83 billion in improper payments since 2003. 

Another example is the additional child tax credit for which im- proper payments have reportedly risen from under $100 million in 

the year 2000 to well over $4 billion in 2010. And the list goes on. 

In the case of the first-time homebuyer credit, over half-a-billion 

dollars reportedly has gone to individuals who did not qualify for 

the credit. The inspector general recently found thousands of tax 

filers who claimed the first-time homebuyer credit by listing a P.O. 

box as their qualifying home. 

Thousands of prisoners successfully claim the first-time home 

buyer credit, as did hundreds of children. Hundreds more successfully claimed undecided or to-be-determined as their address, and 

still received the credit. 

Despite these numbers and examples, not enough is being done 

to stem the tide of improper payments. Reports suggest that IRS 

has failed to develop an effective way to measure progress at reducing these improper payments. The Agency has also failed to implement years of inspector general recommendations that, if accepted, 

could save the taxpayers billions of dollars. 

Given these staggering numbers, this morning’s hearing will explore the size and scope of these improper payments, and whether 

IRS is doing what is necessary to ensure the integrity of refundable 

tax credit programs. I am hopeful that the testimony provided by 

today’s panel will also help the Committee identify additional actions that might be taken to protect taxpayer dollars. 

Before I yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lewis, I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ written statements be included in 

the record. 

[No response.] 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Without objection, so ordered. 

I now—I like to recognize the Ranking Member for the purposes 

of an opening statement. 

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank you for holding this hearing today. The topic is both timely and important. But I must say that I am troubled. I am concerned by the current path of this Committee. 

I continue to ask, ‘‘Who is next? What else is on your list?’’ We 

started the year with seniors and proposals to end Medicare. The 

committee then moved to teachers and their pensions, and then to 

women, health, and uninsured. And today the target is middleclass working families. 

In 2009 the tax credit discussed today delivered almost $160 billion to more than 100 million Americans. They help students pay 

for college. They help family care for their children. They help families adopt children. They help million buy homes. They help make 

work pay. They help middle class family do just a little bit better. 

Today we are here about a program for working families created 

over 35 years ago, the earned income tax credit, a program that encourages and rewards work and give dignity to people who work 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
5 

hard each and every day, a program that lifts families and their 

children out of poverty and into the middle class—over 70 million 

families last year alone. A program expanded by both Democrats 

and Republican, alike, including President Reagan. 

The administration of tax benefits for middle-class and working 

families is no different than from corporations and the wealthy. 

Tax benefits are complex. We all agree that we must improve the 

administration of our taxes. However, we should not use flawed estimates based on old data to single out working families, middleclass Americans. 

Why are we here today, putting tax benefit for middle class families in a bad light? 

Now, I stand for fairness in tax administration, and I stand for 

million of working American families. These families need our help 

today. I support these tax credits. And I will fight to improve these 

program and give these families a fair shake. 

I want to thank each and every one of the witnesses for being 

here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the Ranking Member for his 

statement. I now want to welcome our panel of witnesses. 

First we have Mr. Steven Miller, who is deputy commissioner for 

services and enforcement at the IRS. Mr. Miller, welcome. 

We have Mr. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for 

tax administration. Mr. George, we welcome you. And you are accompanied by Mr. McKenney, Mr. Mike McKenney, assistant inspector general for audit. Mr. McKenney, welcome. 

We also have Mr. Michael Brostek. He is the director for tax policy and administration at the government Accountability Office. 

Welcome, Mr. Brostek. 

And, of course, Ms. Nina Olson, who is the national taxpayer advocate at the IRS. Ms. Olson, welcome. 

We thank you all for being here today. 

You will each have 5 minutes to present your testimony, with 

your full written statements being submitted for the record. 

Mr. Miller, we will now begin with you. You may proceed with 

your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN MILLER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 

FOR SERVICES AND ENFORCEMENT, INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Lewis, Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Steve Miller, 

Deputy Commissioner at the Internal Revenue Service. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify on refundable tax credits. 

The IRS currently administers numerous refundable credits, including the earned income tax credit, first-time home buyer credit, 

additional child tax credit, adoption credit, making work pay, and 

the American Opportunity tax credit. As we administer these credits, we must balance two considerations: first, refundable credits 

are provided to achieve important Congressional purposes, such as 

relief from poverty or boosting the economy; second, a refundable 

credit allows the taxpayer to receive cash without regard to tax liability. As a result of these factors, the IRS must deliver the promVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:32 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070883 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70883.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70883

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
6 

ised refunds in the intended timeframe, while ensuring that appropriate controls are in place to minimize errors and fraud. 

To be more specific, let me outline some of the challenges in this 

area. The first is complexity. Complexity in the rules governing eligibility, and in the operation of certain refundable credits creates 

challenges for both taxpayers and the IRS. Mistakes in the application of the law are a significant portion of claims made in error. 

Second is the lack of third-party data. In many cases, the IRS 

lacks real-time third-party data to verify eligibility. For example, 

under one version of the home buyer credit, an individual must 

have owned and lived in a house for five consecutive years during 

an eight-year period prior to the subsequent purchase of a home. 

There is no third-party data to verify that requirement. 

Third, the timing of data. Even if third-party data does exist, the 

IRS often must decide on the validity of a refund before receiving 

that data. Now, I want to note that we are continuing to focus on 

getting more information in earlier than the filing season to do 

matching. But it is a challenge. 

Fourth, hard-to-detect fraud. The IRS confronts on an ongoing 

basis schemes involving erroneous refund claims, including claims 

made by prisoners, non-citizens, as well as schemes involving deceased persons. The problem is particularly acute in the case of 

prisoner refunds, and we have developed systems that provide special scrutiny in this area and, in fact, have doubled the number of 

refunds being stopped this year. 

Finally, tax law changes. The IRS often faces extremely compressed timeframes for implementing a new law. Let me take a moment to outline some of our work on the earned income tax credit. 

Fraud and error in the EITC is a significant problem, and a top 

priority for us. Because the eligibility requirements are numerous 

and complex, our work begins with informing people of these requirements before they file. 

Our enforcement tools recover or protect billions annually. These 

tools include examinations, math error, and document matching. 

The IRS started more than 500,000 EITC exams in 2010, most of 

which were pre-refund. Last year, using math error authority, IRS 

also blocked approximately 350,000 improper refund claims. We do 

matching of data that is effective, as well, finding 900,000 mismatched returns last year. And we have asked for additional enforcement resources for next year in the 2012 budget. 

While traditional compliance efforts are effective, we continue to 

explore other ways to combat non-compliance. The cornerstone of 

these efforts is our return preparer approach. More than 60 percent 

of EITC returns are from preparers. Our work begins with outreach, but includes thousands of contacts, including 10,000 notices 

and more than 1,000 due diligence visits. Most importantly, we 

now require registration of return preparers, and will shortly require testing and continuing professional education. More than 

700,000 have registered with us. 

Finally, in 2011, return preparers who file an EITC return will 

have to attach the current form 8867, detailing the due diligence 

they performed in preparing the EITC claim. More changes in the 

due diligence requirements will be proposed later this summer. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
7 

Let me conclude. Refundable tax credits play an important role 

in fulfilling congressional policies. But, as I have mentioned, they 

pose challenges. I believe we are improving our administration of 

these credits. But much work remains. And toward that end, as 

part of our 2012 budget, in addition to the enforcement resources 

that we have outlined above, we have also requested funds to create a refundable credits office that will centralize planning and 

oversight in this area. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I will be 

glad to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
8 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.001
9 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.002
10 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.003
11 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.004
12 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.005
13 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.006
14 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.007
15 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.008
16 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.009
17 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.010
18 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.011
19 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.012
20 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.013
21 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.014
22 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert miller.015
23 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. George, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF J. RUSSELL GEORGE, TREASURY INSPECTOR 

GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL E. MCKENNEY, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL 

FOR AUDIT 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Boustany, 

Ranking Member Lewis, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify on the Internal Revenue Service’s administration of refundable tax credits. 

As noted, refundable credits were designed to help low-income individuals reduce their tax burden, or to provide incentives for other 

activities. The earned income tax credit, created in 1975, is used 

to offset the impact of Social Security taxes on low-income families, 

and to encourage them to seek employment rather than public assistance. 

More recent refundable credits provide incentives for other activities such as, as you noted Mr. Chairman, buying a home, obtaining 

a college education—Ranking Member, you pointed that out—and 

adopting a child. The two largest refundable credits, the EITC and 

Additional Child Tax Credit, receive a much larger appropriation 

than the IRS’ own budget. The appropriations for these credits in 

Fiscal Year 2010 were approximately $55 billion for the EITC, and 

$23 billion for the Additional Child Tax Credit. In contrast, the 

IRS’ total Fiscal Year 2012 budget request is just over $13 billion. 

Although each of these refundable credits provides benefits to individuals, the unintended consequence of these credits is that they 

are often the target of individuals who file erroneous claims for the 

credits. In a 2010 report to TIGTA, the IRS noted that refundable 

credits present an additional avenue for individuals to commit filing fraud. 

Nonrefundable tax credits are limited to the amount of an individual’s income tax liability. As such, the maximum benefit an individual would receive if a nonrefundable credit is claimed inappropriately is to fully offset his or her tax liability resulting in owing 

nothing. Refundable credits do not have such limitations. In essence, individuals can obtain money they did not earn, and to 

which they are not entitled, simply by claiming a refundable tax 

credit. Refundable credits can result in tax refunds, even if no income tax is withheld or paid. 

The total amount of improper payments relating to refundable 

credits far exceeds the amount of fraudulent tax returns the IRS 

identifies and stops as part of its Taxpayer Assurance Program. 

The IRS continues to report that 23 to 28 percent of EITC payments are issued improperly each year. In fiscal year—as pointed 

out earlier, in fiscal year 2009, this equated to $11 billion to $13 

billion in improper EITC payments. Although the IRS has annually 

reported billions in EITC improper payments, little improvements 

have been made in reducing these payments. 

TIGTA has conducted a number of audits that have identified opportunities to reduce EITC improper payments. We have provided 

the IRS with specific actions that could have been taken to reduce 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
24 

improper payments, and allow the IRS to establish measurable reduction targets. While the IRS has implemented some of our recommendations, it has not taken action to address key recommendations aimed at preventing or reducing improper EITC payments. 

The IRS does not require individuals to provide any supporting 

documentation to verify eligibility for claiming the EITC, although 

it piloted such a plan a few years ago. 

In 2009 we reported a significant increase in the Additional 

Child Tax Credit claims by filers who were unable to obtain a Social Security Number or were not eligible to receive a Social Security Number. These individuals were not authorized to work in the 

United States and filed tax returns using an Individual Taxpayer 

Identification Number, referred to as an ITIN. 

The refundable credit claims made by these filers have grown 

substantially. For Tax Year 2000, a total of 62,000 ITIN filers received $62 million in Additional Child Tax Credits. This has since 

grown to 2.3 million ITIN filers, claiming the credit totaling $4.2 

billion in 2010. As part of our Recovery Act oversight, we are in 

the process of completing a review assessing the effectiveness of 

the IRS’s processes to identify erroneous American Opportunity 

Tax Credit claims. 

The Recovery Act amended the HOPE Scholarship Credit to 

allow a refundable tax credit. This program allows individuals to 

receive a credit for higher education expenses up to $2,500 per year 

for Tax Years 2009 and 2010, with up to $1,000 being refundable. 

The IRS requires no documentation to be provided to verify eligibility, including whether an individual claimed as a student even 

attends a required accredited educational institution. Our review is 

identifying significant improper payments being made to taxpayers 

claiming the credit and using ineligible students. 

The Adoption Credit was changed to recognize the amount—to 

increase the amount, and made the credit refundable. Recognizing 

that this could increase the risk for erroneous claims, the IRS developed a strategy to attempt to reduce this risk. However, our 

analysis found that while the IRS requires individuals to provide 

documentation that verifies their eligibility, the IRS does not have 

the authority to deny the Adoption Credit if the documentation is 

not provided. Without this math error authority, the IRS cannot 

deny the credit during processing of tax returns, but must instead 

deny the credit post-processing, through the examination process, 

which is a much more costly, resource-intensive, and burdensome 

process. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we take our mandate 

seriously at TIGTA, and we want to help you conduct your oversight of this most important responsibility. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. George follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
25 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.001
26 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.002
27 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.003
28 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.004
29 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.005
30 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.006
31 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.007
32 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.008
33 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.009
34 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.010
35 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert george.011
36 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. George. 

Mr. Brostek, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BROSTEK, DIRECTOR, TAX POLICY 

AND ADMINISTRATION, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BROSTEK. Chairman Boustany, Ranking Member Lewis, 

and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss IRS’ pre-refund compliance checks. 

To provide an idea of the universe that these checks could affect, 

in 2010 IRS processed 137,000,000 individual income tax returns 

and issued about 107,000,000 refunds, totaling over $312 billion. 

Its compliance checks thus could affect millions of taxpayers and 

billions of dollars of refunds by identifying taxpayers who overclaim 

refunds and taxpayers who underclaim benefits to which they are 

entitled. 

My statement focuses on pre-refund checks and their benefits, 

how those checks can be enhanced immediately, and how they may 

be enhanced in the future. 

Pre-refund checks take several forms. When tax returns are received, the initial process helps correct taxpayer identification errors, and ensure that taxpayers have filled in all required fields. 

Then, return information is captured in IRS’ systems. 

At this point, IRS applies additional computerized filters. Some 

filters identify errors that can be corrected using IRS’ math error 

authority. Others identify errors that can be addressed through audits. Finally, still others identify possible fraud. 

When IRS identifies errors that can be corrected with virtual certainty, they are correctable under IRS’ math error authority. Despite the name, math errors encompass much more than simple 

arithmetic errors. They also include, for instance, identifying incorrect Social Security or other taxpayer identification numbers, problems with taxpayers’ filing status or claiming of dependents, and 

missing schedules and forms. Some of these errors are detected 

from information included on the tax return, and some are detected 

by comparing the return to IRS databases or to databases obtained 

from other parties, such as the Social Security Administration. 

IRS staff manually review the math errors and enter codes that 

automatically generate a notice to the taxpayer explaining the 

error, identifying the revision in the taxpayer’s refund amount, or 

possibly a new balance due to IRS, and instructing a taxpayer on 

how to respond if she or he disagrees. 

When math error authority cannot be used, the return is placed 

in queue for possible pre or post-refund audit. Depending on available resources, IRS will audit a portion of these returns, generally 

through correspondence, before complete refunds are sent to taxpayers. To the extent returns are not handled in pre-refund audits, 

IRS will include them for possible post-refund audits. 

IRS’ computer filters also identify some refund claims that may 

be fraudulent. These are forwarded to IRS’ criminal investigation 

division. In some cases, the investigation may be of a taxpayer, and 

in others it may focus on paid preparers or others who may be engaging in fraud affecting many returns. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
37 

IRS’ pre-refund checks can be enhanced if Congress provides 

greater math authority, math error authority, to IRS. We have suggested that Congress consider extending a broad math error authority to IRS with appropriate protections for taxpayers. Broad 

authority would be especially valuable for addressing possible noncompliance with newly created refundable tax credits. 

In terms of protections, Congress can specify the level of certainty that IRS needs to have that it will be correct in identifying 

and correcting an error. It might also require IRS to report to Congress or to a committee of Congress before or after they use math 

error authority. Or, Congress could require consultation with the 

National Taxpayer Advocate before IRS actually uses a new authority. 

Congress could also enact specific new math error authorities 

that GAO has suggested, such as allowing IRS to use prior-year tax 

return information to ensure taxpayers do not claim benefits in excess of lifetime limits, and enabling IRS to correct various age-related errors. 

Looking forward, IRS has significant opportunities to move more 

compliance improvement efforts into the pre-refund environment. 

IRS receives a substantial amount of documentation that is used 

after the filing season. Over time, this documentation may be usable pre-refund. This would, however, require significant investments in computer systems and likely changes in requirements for 

those who provide information to IRS. It’s a long-term endeavor. 

Further, IRS’ paid preparer regulatory regime may improve the 

accuracy of returns prepared by this industry when they are filed, 

and give IRS the ability to take corrective measures during the filing season as it identifies emerging error trends. 

This concludes my oral statement. I would be happy to answer 

questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Brostek follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
38 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.001
39 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.002
40 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.003
41 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.004
42 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.005
43 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.006
44 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.007
45 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.008
46 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.009
47 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.010
48 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.011
49 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.012
50 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.013
51 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.014
52 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.015
53 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.016
54 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brostek.017
55 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Brostek. 

Ms. Olson, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF NINA E. OLSON, NATIONAL TAXPAYER 

ADVOCATE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. OLSON. Chairman Boustany, Ranking Member Lewis, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me to testify today about improper payments of Federal funds. 

The Tax Code authorizes numerous refundable credits that may 

give rise to improper payments. These include the earned income 

tax credit, additional child tax credit, first-time home buyer tax 

credit, adoption credit, American Opportunity tax credit, and the 

fuel tax credit for businesses. 

It goes without saying that the job of the IRS in administering 

these provisions is to ensure that payments are made to eligible 

persons and only to eligible persons. But for context, it is important 

to keep in mind that the IRS has a lot on its plate. 

For tax year 2001, the tax gap was estimated at 345 billion a 

year. By comparison, improper payments related to the EITC constitute less than five percent of that amount. 

As money is fungible, overstatement of a refundable credit is economically equivalent to underpayment of tax for any other reason. 

They both have the same impact on the public treasury. The IRS 

must address both problems. And with limited resources, every additional EITC audit the IRS conducts cuts into the resources it has 

available to audit other areas of the tax gap. At present, the audit 

rate for returns with EITC claims is more than twice that for individual returns in general. Moreover, EITC audits constitute about 

a third of all individual audits, yet they yield, on average, only 

about a third as much tax per exam. 

For tax year 1999, an IRS study estimated that 27 to almost 32 

percent of EITC claims should not have been paid. For fiscal year 

2009 the IRS estimate of EITC improper payments was 23 to 28 

percent. Assuming that these IRS estimates are comparable, the 

compliance rate would have appeared to have improved by 4 percentage points. Taking a 27 percent non-compliance rate down by 

4 points to 23 percent would have reduced the gap by almost 15 

percent. And this is huge for any tax administration program. It 

suggests that over the last 10 years both the IRS and interested 

stakeholders may be making progress in addressing EITC non-compliance. 

That said, I believe all of these estimates substantially over-estimate the percentage of ineligible taxpayers claiming the benefit. 

Among other things, the EITC requires taxpayers to prove that 

they have a qualifying relationship with a claimed child, and that 

they lived with the claimed child for more than half the year. In 

many cases, these requirements are notoriously difficult to prove, 

and an IRS denial of claim in these cases proves simply that the 

taxpayer could not prove these elements, not that he or she didn’t 

actually meet them. 

Two taxpayer advocate service studies have found this to be the 

case. In one study, taxpayers had been confused by IRS audit procedures, notices, and documentation requirements. When TAS staff 

explained the requirements, reported eligibility increased. Notably, 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
56 

the percentage of taxpayers who received EITC increased in direct 

proportion to the number of telephone contacts that TAS had initiated. 

In other studies, taxpayers who were represented fared substantially better than taxpayers who were not. TAS has made numerous regulatory and legislative recommendations to improve the administration of refundable credits, particularly the EITC, and to reduce improper payments without unduly burdening taxpayer 

rights. Regulation of return preparers, including testing and continuing education on EITC and ethics, curtailment of refund anticipation loans, which has been statistically linked with non-compliance, enhanced preparer penalties, and strengthened due diligence 

requirements should all have a positive impact. 

If the IRS could receive and process third-party information returns before it issues refunds, and if Congress separated the worker portion of the EITC from the portion of EITC attributable to 

family size, and consolidated all family-related benefits into one 

provision, we could further reduce improper payments, incentives 

for fraud, and taxpayers’ compliance burden all in one stroke. 

Additional legislative action could also reduce improper payments, notably limiting public access to the database of decedents’ 

Social Security numbers and other personal information, and authorizing the use of math error authority for revisions that cap either the lifetime amount of a credit or the number of years for 

which a credit may be claimed. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you, and 

would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Olson follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
57 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.001
58 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.002 Insert olsen.003
59 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.004
60 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.005
61 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.006
62 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.007
63 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.008
64 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.009
65 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.010
66 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.011
67 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.012
68 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.013
69 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.014
70 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.015
71 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.016
72 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.017
73 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.018
74 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.019
75 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.020
76 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.021
77 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.022
78 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.023
79 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.024
80 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.025
81 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.026
82 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.027
83 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.028
84 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.029
85 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.030
86 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.031
87 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.032
88 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.033
89 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.034
90 

f 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Ms. Olson. Now we will proceed with questions. 

Mr. Miller, we are trying to get a handle on the magnitude of the 

problem. And in your testimony you sort of glossed over the magnitude. But I think there is broad recognition across the board that 

there is a problem with overpayments. The Subcommittee welcomes the move to register the tax preparers. This, I think, is good. 

And we also recognize the difficulties you have had with some of 

the newer tax credits, the compressed timeframe from implementation and administration, coupled with the complexity. 

But could you talk to us a little bit about efforts being made after 

the fact, after the fact that there have been overpayments? Recognizing that preventing overpayments is easier to do than after the 

fact, what efforts are being made at IRS to collect on overpayments? 

Mr. MILLER. If you are talking about post-refund, after the 

money has gone out? 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Post-refund. 

Mr. MILLER. Obviously, it is much more difficult for us to chase 

down that money once it’s outside, out the door. But we maintain 

a pretty robust system. So, since the mid-2000s we have increased 

our work in the under-reporter area to the point where, we do 

something in the realm of 900,000 matches and mismatches, and 

assess, with respect to those cases, about $1.4 billion, collecting 

about 90 percent of that. This is relatively new and enhanced. 

We also have quite a bit of post-refund examination. We do hundreds of thousands of exams post-refund, as well. Both of those are 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert olsen.035
91 

specific to the earned income tax credit. For example, in the child 

credit, we don’t do specific exams in that area. But within the 

EITC exams, 65 percent of those exams impact the child tax credit. 

So we look at that there, as well. The same is true for the American Opportunities tax credit, where some 300,000 exams involve 

that credit as a secondary issue. So we have major coverage in the 

area. 

But again, as has been made clear by this panel, it is much easier for us to stop the refund at the door, instead of trying to chase 

after it afterwards. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. There have been recommendations made 

by TIGTA, some of which you have followed, others which have not 

been implemented. Would you comment on the reasons behind not 

implementing some of the things that have been recommended? 

Mr. MILLER. So let me start, Mr. Chairman, by saying we have 

a very good relationship with the Inspector General and his office. 

And let me sort of put a baseline down, which is, by our count, 

something like 13 closed TIGTA reports, something just in excess 

of 40 recommendations. By our count, four of those we have disagreed on. So I don’t want to give you the sense that we disagree 

very often, because we don’t. 

Some of the ones that we have not completed yet include one 

where I think that TIGTA has requested or suggested that we require documentation on all EITC credits. And we are looking at 

that. But, quite frankly, that would require something in the realm 

of 26 million paper filings. This is going to cause a substantial 

delay, in terms of our compliance efforts, and it’s going to cause a 

substantial delay in refunds in that area. So we have to go very 

carefully in terms of what sort of documentation we require. 

The other part of this is the suggestion that we look at alternative means of enforcement here, and that we have done. The return preparer is a harbinger for our efforts in that area. TIGTA 

has also suggested math error authority. That is statutory, and I 

will rely on the good wisdom of those on the other side there to 

speak to whether we should have math error authority. But it’s 

certainly something we look forward to working with you on. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. We recognize that on the math error authority. 

Mr. George, your agency found instances where numerous IRS 

employees were themselves engaging in tax fraud through the refundable tax credits. In this case it was the First-Time Homebuyer 

Credit. Can you tell the Subcommittee a little bit about this investigation? 

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, those are active criminal investigations, and so I have been advised by counsel not to address it 

in a public forum, but would be happy to do so in private with you 

and your staff. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. We appreciate that. And, Mr. Miller, can 

you describe any steps you or IRS has taken to safeguard against 

this type of activity in the future -—— 

Mr. MILLER. So, Mr. Chairman, it is not a positive, by any 

means, to have IRS employees engaged in this sort of conduct. It 

is not welcomed by us. And, in fact, we fire a great number of people for this. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
92 

That said, I will say that the Internal Revenue Service, with 

100,000 people, is the size of a small city. And we, unfortunately, 

have people across the spectrum. The IRS’s tax compliance work 

for their employees is considerable. We are the most compliant 

Federal agency in government, and far outstrip, obviously, the public. But we take these things very seriously. There are going to be 

instances, unfortunately, where our folks do the wrong thing. We 

do follow up, we do take quick action. There is statutory authority 

for us to take aggressive action in those cases and dismiss those 

people. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

And now, the chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for 

questions. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank each of you for being here today. For each panelist, 

please answer yes or no. 

Are all EITC overpayment due to fraud or abuse? 

Mr. GEORGE. I am happy to start. While I cannot give you a 

definitive answer—— 

Mr. LEWIS. I just want yes or no. I have a limited amount of 

time. 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes and no, sir. Yes and no. I hate—I am not 

being coy here. 

Mr. LEWIS. That is okay. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. I mean they are subject, yes. 

Mr. MCKENNEY. Yes, some of them. 

Mr. BROSTEK. I think your question was are all claims due to 

fraud. 

Mr. LEWIS. Or abuse. 

Mr. BROSTEK. All due to fraud. And no, they are not all due 

to fraud. 

Mr. MILLER. Then my answer is no, because I misheard. I 

apologize. 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. Same here, sir. Not all. 

Mr. MILLER. Certainly not all. 

Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Olson? 

Ms. OLSON. No. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Miller, I understand that in 2009 over 

100,000,000 tax return claim refundable credits for tax benefits of 

more than 150 billion. Is this correct? Yes or no. 

Mr. MILLER. That is correct. 

Mr. LEWIS. Nine million claim education tax credit. Is that yes 

or no? 

Mr. MILLER. In 2009, that is our number, yes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Twenty million claimed child’s tax credit. Yes or no? 

Mr. MILLER. Again, our numbers would say yes. 

Mr. LEWIS. And 101 million claimed a making work pay credit. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Miller, further, the EITC overpayment estimate 

are based on tax return from 5 to 10 years ago. Please answer yes 

or no. Has the IRS made improvement in its computer systems in 

the way it processes return over the last 5 to 10 years? 

Mr. MILLER. We would say yes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Olson? 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
93 

Ms. OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LEWIS. It is good to see you again. 

Ms. OLSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LEWIS. Does a refundable nature of a credit increase noncompliance more than any other tax benefit? 

Ms. OLSON. I am sorry. Ask that question again. 

Mr. LEWIS. Does the refundable nature of a credit increase noncompliance more than any other tax benefit? 

Ms. OLSON. In my opinion, refundability does not increase noncompliance, per se. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay, Ms. Olson. Why refundable tax credit important for working American? 

Ms. OLSON. Well, first, it lifts—the earned income tax credit 

lifts millions of taxpayers out of poverty. It ensures that a taxpayer 

who is working at minimum wage full-time is not below poverty 

level, and also does not pay income taxes on poverty-level wages. 

It serves as an incentive for taxpayers to work, rather than not 

work. It reduces pressure on increasing the minimum wage. And 

it basically helps families, working families, be able to enter the 

work force. It has a very high impact in that threshold of people 

who are not working to entering the work force. 

Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Olson, the other witnesses have stated that the 

EITC overpayment rate is estimated to be 23 to 28 percent. Do you 

have concern with how this estimate was reached? If so, please describe. 

Ms. OLSON. Well, the estimate has a low and a high bound. And 

the high bound assumed that every taxpayer who did not respond 

to an IRS audit letter was non-compliant with the earned income 

credit, was not compliant. And the low bound assumed that the 

non-responders had the same compliance rate as the rest of the 

EITC population. 

We then did—my office of research did—significant studies in 

which we discovered, through representative samples of EITC taxpayers under audit, and in audit reconsideration, that, in fact, the 

lower bound estimate, where the non-responders had the same noncompliance rate as the responders, was, in fact, the accurate rate. 

And one study that we found, which was very telling, was that 

about 25 percent of the taxpayers who were under audit over a 

given period did not know that they were under audit when they 

received the IRS letter. They couldn’t understand that the IRS letter was telling them that they were under audit, which has an impact on whether you are going to respond or not. 

Mr. LEWIS. For each panelist, could you please answer yes or 

no? In any year is the EITC estimate or improper payment based 

on that year’s current tax return? 

Mr. GEORGE. The answer is no, right? 

Mr. MCKENNEY. No. 

Mr. MILLER. The answer is no. 

Mr. GEORGE. No. 

Mr. BROSTEK. No. 

Ms. OLSON. No. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I yield back. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
94 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. The chair now 

recognizes Ms. Black for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, panelists, for being here today. 

I want to go to the issue of requiring documentation. It seems to 

me that this is a huge issue in being able to get to just how much 

fraud is there or is not there. Because, obviously, if you don’t have 

the information to make that determination, you can’t really adequately make that determination. 

So, I know that, Mr. George, you did testify about the documentation and the lack thereof in so many of these cases. And 

some would say, well, this is more burdensome for the individual, 

and it is too burdensome. I would like for you, first, to speak to 

that. And then, I would also like any of the other panelists that 

would like to come behind. 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Ms. Black. That is a very important 

issue. Suffice it to say—and again, I am going to give you the 

abridged answer—as the IRS increases its efforts and has the systems in place which will allow for taxpayers to file, to scan in documents, to submit other paper material, it will make it a lot easier 

for the taxpayer to comply with his or her tax obligation. 

There is no question that if the IRS received more information— 

I believe that was acknowledged a moment ago by Mr. Miller— 

third-party information, that they would have an easier time in assessing whether or not someone is actually eligible for the credit 

that they seek. 

There is no question now that, if taxpayers are given a chance 

to submit paperwork or not submit paperwork, they are going to 

do what is easier for them. 

And I would just lastly like to point out that there are many 

other government programs, such as the ones for people seeking 

food stamps, which require other forms of documentation which are 

readily provided by the taxpayer. 

Ms. OLSON. I think that documentation is possible in certain 

circumstances. But let me tell you the experience with the firsttime home buyer credit which seemed fairly simple for the IRS to 

say, ‘‘In order to claim it you have to attach a HUD closing statement.’’ 

After the IRS pronounced that and said, ‘‘If you don’t, we will reject returns,’’ we found that 22 states do not require the use of the 

HUD closing statement. Therefore, we have to come up with 22 

variations of the acceptable documentation, or we will be discriminating against taxpayers who just happen to live in those states 

that don’t use the HUD closing statement. 

You can imagine what that would be like as you try to say, ‘‘How 

are you going to prove that a child lived with you for more than 

half the year,’’ or that this child has a proper relationship. We give 

an example in our testimony of trying to prove a grand-uncle who 

claimed a grand-neice, and he has to get four birth certificates. 

So, I think in some instances requiring documentation works. In 

others, it will really harm taxpayers getting the benefit to which 

they are entitled. 

And if I may make one more point, last year we identified a 

website called falsereceipts.com, where taxpayers could go to genVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:32 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070883 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70883.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70883

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
95 

erate a HUD closing statement that looked pretty good, and would 

go—so even though taxpayers were attaching that, we would not 

necessarily catch that that was a false piece of documentation. 

Ms. BLACK. Ms. Olson, I appreciate your testimony, and I appreciate your comments there. But I happen to really believe that 

if someone is going to get a benefit, that they do have a responsibility of—with documentation, to show that that benefit—and there 

are—there is paperwork that can be done in those situations where 

a child lives with you more than half of the year by court order of 

the—who the primary care giver is. 

I want to just go to another thing very quickly, and my time is 

very limited. But I wanted to deal with the issue of when someone 

is fraudulently found to have committed fraud. How vigorous is the 

penalties, applying those penalties to those individuals, so that we 

are showing by not only receiving the money back, but also holding 

them accountable with a penalty, that—are they put into the system that they have fraudulently filed a document, so we know that 

in the future, and we don’t have repeats? 

I don’t know whether Mr. George or Mr. McKenney can help out 

with that one. 

Mr. MCKENNEY. They—the IRS does have a recertification program, and there is different levels, depending on the level of noncompliance. It can—it means they have to recertify before they 

come back into the program. It can also bar them for two years 

from claiming the EITC, and then have to recertify it when they 

come to the program, or it can bar them for 10 years, depending 

on the level of negligence or intent. 

And what we found, in many cases, when the taxpayer does come 

in and try to recertify, in about 80 percent of those cases they are 

still not eligible. 

So, yes, they do have a mechanism for that. 

Ms. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the lady. The chair now recognizes Mr. Becerra for questioning. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

your testimony today, and for helping illuminate some of the issues 

that we all must confront as we try to make the Tax Code a document filled with laws that most people will voluntarily agree to 

comply with. And that is obviously what we are trying to get, is 

voluntary compliance. We don’t have police roaming the streets, 

forcing you to show how much you earned. And we are hoping that 

people will do the right thing and pay their taxes. 

You all pointed out some very important areas that we can explore. But my sense is that we are exploring more than other areas 

this issue of refundability and credits. I think, Ms. Olson, you mentioned that we do—what was it—a third more audits, but we get 

a third—why don’t you restate what you said? 

Ms. OLSON. EITC’s taxpayers are audited twice as much as all 

individual taxpayers. 

Mr. BECERRA. And how much—do we reap—do we yield the 

benefit of having that many audits on those middle class—— 

Ms. OLSON. No. The dollars of the EITC exams are, on average, 

over the last few years, about a third of what comes from other examination issues in an individual area. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
96 

Mr. BECERRA. And I think one of the things that was pointed 

out by, I believe, most of you was that one of the issues with regards to the earned income tax credit compliance is that, often 

times, we find that many of the errors or mistakes that are made, 

or fraudulently claimed EITC reimbursements, are the result of 

paid preparers who have prepared these returns for, often times, 

middle and modest income families. 

Is it the case that, with these new changes that the IRS has 

made to require more integrity in the process for these paid preparers, could help us reduce the error rate, or the wrongly submitted EITC claims? 

Mr. MILLER. So that is certainly our hope, in rolling out the return preparer initiative. And we hope, in fact, that, as we require 

the form 8867, which right now, a preparer is supposed to fill out 

as they question the individual on their eligibility, they are supposed to put that in their drawer. We are now going to require that 

to be filed with the return. And we hope that has a salutatory effect, as well. 

Mr. BECERRA. I hope you move aggressively on the issue of getting people who get paid a good chunk of money to help file returns 

for folks who are getting a very modest return—because, in my city 

of Los Angeles, and in particular, my congressional district, I have 

the vast majority of constituents who are working class, make a 

modest income, who don’t own their homes, and who constantly tell 

me the stories of how they got ripped off by their preparer, and 

now they are being audited by the IRS because of some erroneous 

entry into the form. And ultimately, they correct it, but meanwhile 

they have got IRS breathing down their necks, and it is costing 

them probably more money than they paid these preparers, just to 

correct their tax filings. So, I think it’s a big problem. 

Mr. Brostek? 

Mr. BROSTEK. If I could contribute on this, I definitely agree 

that the paid preparer regime has promise for addressing issues 

like this. 

About six years ago we did some undercover visits to major paid 

preparer organizations, and had tax returns prepared for us. In 5 

of 10 cases, the paid preparers claimed a child for EITC when the 

child was not eligible. We were honest taxpayers, we made sure 

they understood that the information we were providing indicated 

the child wasn’t eligible. Sometimes they ignored our responses, 

sometimes they changed the answer from what our responses were. 

So, I don’t want to impugn that the whole industry has a problem here, but I do think that addressing the industry and improving its understanding and addressing some bad actors is a very important thing. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you for that point. Because I think what 

we are looking at here are some extremely important programs. 

Some of these programs have helped lift families out of poverty, 

working families. Because now they get to keep a little bit more 

money that they would have otherwise paid in taxes. 

And so, I think it’s important that we not try to undermine programs that have helped a middle class family afford college for 

their child, working families who are better off working than going 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
97 

on welfare. And so it’s very important that we try to get them 

right, no doubt. 

Now, Ms. Olson, you pointed out something else that I think is 

important. I think you said that the earned income tax credit overpayments constitute about 5 percent of the tax gap from all sources 

of individuals and corporations that either don’t pay their taxes, or 

pay them incorrectly. It sounds to me like we need to do a lot more 

research into the 95 percent of other areas where folks aren’t paying their taxes properly or making mistakes before we go after middle class families and target them. So thank you very much for 

your testimony. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. I think you raise 

some important points, especially about after-the-fact and audits. 

And as we, in Congress, design these programs, we ought to be cognizant on how we design them with regard to the simplicity in administration. But we will eagerly await the results from the regulation of the tax preparers. I think this is an important step. But at 

the same time, we all have to ensure that the integrity of these 

programs is what it should be. So I thank the gentleman for raising those important points. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Buchanan for questioning. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the important hearing today. I also like to thank all our panelists, witnesses, for being here today. 

Mr. Brostek, let me ask you. The GAO has long viewed the EITC 

as the largest single type of improper refund payment. And I guess 

it amounts to about $16 billion in 2010. How does that stack up 

about other programs where you’ve got challenges? Is that the largest area of abuse, or potential abuse? Your number, I think, is— 

or GAO’s number is $16 billion in 2010 of improper payments. 

Mr. BROSTEK. Unfortunately, I can get back to you for the 

record on that. I don’t know for sure if that is the largest improper 

payment. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. But what’s your thought? I mean why is it 

such a huge amount? How did you come up with $16 billion? That 

is a huge amount of taxpayer money that is—— 

Mr. BROSTEK. Right. 

Mr. BUCHANAN.—that is flowing out—— 

Mr. BROSTEK. That $16 billion amount is our averaging of the 

upper and lower bound estimate that Ms. Olson referred to from 

estimates made by the Treasury Department, by IRS itself. 

In terms of what are the causes, there are many causes that are 

in play here, including the complexity of the credit, where people 

sometimes don’t understand. There are certainly, as we have 

heard, cases of fraud that occur. And there are certainly cases 

where the documentation that is required in order to prove eligibility is difficult for taxpayers to round up. 

So, there are lots of different causes. And I think, as is common 

across the tax gap in general, it is going to take multiple solutions 

in order to try to address the level of non-compliance. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. And is—what is your sense of how many people are, you know, deliberating trying to take advantage of a situation, in terms of fraud? How much of it is just mistakes, in general? 

I know this would be a guess, but I was just curious—— 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
98 

Mr. BROSTEK. I would like to be able to answer that, but there 

is no solid evidence, one way or the other, on what those proportions might be, that I am aware of. 

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Buchanan, if I may, though—— 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. 

Mr. GEORGE.—this is Russell George. If I may, I have an answer to your question—— 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes, go ahead. I appreciate it. 

Mr. GEORGE. GAO has estimated that earned income tax credit 

is the fourth largest, in terms of improper payments, that medical 

fee—service is $34.3 billion each year, Medicaid $22.5 billion each 

year, unemployment insurance $17.5 billion, Earned Income Tax 

Credit, again, around $16 billion to $17 billion, and the Medicare 

Advantage program $13.6 billion per year in improper payments. 

Mr. BROSTEK. Thank you for the assistance. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. And let me ask you, while you brought that 

up. What are we doing to try to minimize that effort? I know the 

IRS has, you know, a lot of things it is involved in every day. 

Someone said 73,000 pages, in terms of the Code. But what are we 

doing to try to move in that direction to minimize some of the 

abuse? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, first of all, I think it is extraordinarily important, what the IRS is doing as it relates to preparers, paid preparers. They are at the frontline of the effort for the IRS to ensure 

that people can—are able to voluntarily comply with their tax obligations. 

There is a statistic, sir, that I point out at every opportunity that 

I can about third-party information reporting. And by the IRS’ own 

information, the IRS estimates that individuals whose wages are 

subject to withholding report 99 percent of their wages for tax purposes, that self-employed individuals who operate non-farm businesses are estimated to report only 68 percent of their income for 

tax purposes. But the striking number is that self-employed individuals operating on a cash basis report just 19 percent of their income. 

So, there is no question that the more third-party reporting of information, the more likely people are to comply with their tax obligation, and help address both the tax gap issue, let alone this issue 

of improper payment, seeking credits that they are—and the refunds they are not entitled to. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Mr. Miller, just quickly, you stated 

that you are doing all you can to try to reduce or minimize improper payments. But it’s not clear in my mind—you get a bunch 

of recommendations, I guess, that were brought up. Are you really 

implementing a lot of these recommendations, as it relates to protect the $8.2 billion of taxpayer’s money? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, we believe we are. We believe a hunk of 

that—if you are referring to Mr. George’s reports talking about $8 

billion on the table—— 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER.—We have agreed to some of those, some of those 

are in process. A large hunk of that is math error authority, which 

is up to you all, and not us. And also, looking at alternatives to traVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:32 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070883 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70883.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70883

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
99 

ditional enforcement, which we have talked about here. Obviously, 

the stalking horse for that is the return preparer initiative. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. The chair now 

recognizes Mr. Kind for questioning. 

*Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony here today. And let me start—maybe Mr. 

George, Mr. Brostek, you guys might be the ones to have the answer to this. We have been focusing on the amount of improper 

payments, the amount of money, the number of people applying. 

But do we have good data on people who are eligible to claim these 

credits who are not seeking them, not filing and receiving it? 

Mr. GEORGE. I am not aware of that information. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Brostek? 

Mr. BROSTEK. We have a number of estimates, including estimates that GAO did a little over a decade ago, that the take-up 

rate, the number—percentage of people who are eligible, is very 

high for EITC. I believe it was around 90 percent for people with 

children, and maybe 85 percent or so overall who are eligible. 

And that does contrast some with more traditional discretionary 

spending programs, where take-up rates tend to be lower, and administrative costs much higher. 

Mr. KIND. And of that who are eligible, how many of them are 

actually applying? Do you have any percentage bases? 

Mr. BROSTEK. Well, those were the figures I meant to convey, 

about—— 

Mr. KIND. Oh, that was—— 

Mr. BROSTEK. About 90 percent of those eligible with children 

apply, and about 85 percent overall of those eligible apply. 

Mr. KIND. Okay. 

Mr. BROSTEK. That is my recollection of those figures. 

Mr. KIND. And, Ms. Olson, in your opinion, is there a greater 

need or effort, as far as education or outreach for the families that 

are eligible who, for whatever reason, aren’t applying right now? 

Ms. OLSON. Well, I think that there is—that outreach and education always help, and that that is a very important component 

of getting people to file appropriate claims. 

A really important fact of the earned income tax credit is that 

about a third of the population each year becomes ineligible, and 

a new third is eligible, because people’s family circumstances 

change. Another child is born, another—you know, somebody loses 

a job and has lower income, or gets a raise. And so that causes confusion with the earned income credit, and leads to some of the 

claims, too. You were eligible last year, not eligible this year. Why 

is that? 

Mr. KIND. And I think in your written testimony you indicated 

that a lot of the improper payments going out isn’t necessarily a 

result of out and out fraud or ineligibility, but also some other factors that are at play here. 

Ms. OLSON. Right. I think it’s very confusing for people. The 

dollar amount also of the increase in overclaims is attributable to 

changes in the law that Congress has made, you know, extending 

it to three children, as opposed to two, extending the phase-out 

rate, giving some married filing joint, married relief. And just the 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
100 

effect of inflation over the 10 years, as you look at the dollar and 

how it’s increased over the last 10 years. 

Mr. KIND. Right. Mr. George, you had indicated in your testimony that IG has made some specific recommendations to IRS to 

implement in order to deal with improper payments. I sense a 

source of frustration in your voice that they haven’t been able to 

make greater progress on all of the recommendations. How many 

of the recommendations have they, however, moved forward on? Do 

you know? 

Mr. GEORGE. I believe I have that information for you, sir, if 

you will bear with me for one moment. 

In terms of an actual number, I can’t give that to you. But in 

terms of just broad categories, seeking additional documentation, 

as we indicated before, making sure that information that is provided—that there is more sharing of information between various 

governmental agencies, such as Health and Human Services and 

the Department of Agriculture—— 

Mr. KIND. I think it is safe to say, according to your testimony, 

the IRS has made some progress in some of their recommendations. They haven’t just completed everything that—— 

Mr. GEORGE. That is correct. 

Mr. KIND.—IG’s office is recommending. 

Mr. GEORGE. That is correct. 

Mr. KIND. And have you gotten feedback from them why, or 

what is holding them up, as far as implementing the—— 

Mr. GEORGE. They have cited a lack of resources as a major 

hindrance to addressing many of our concerns. But I would actually 

defer to the IRS to respond to that in detail, sir. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. So, with respect to requiring documentation for all 

claims, resources is an obvious issue for us, and whether the cost 

benefit analysis—makes sense to do that or not. With respect 

to—— 

Mr. KIND. Well, Mr. Miller, I think that is helpful, and helpful 

to the committee, because some of us were also raising concerns 

about the budget proposal that was before us earlier in the year. 

It was talking about another $600 million in cuts to the IRS, about 

a billion dollars in additional cuts in the next fiscal year. 

So, almost 8 percent of the IRS budget that was being proposed 

for cut-backs under the budget proposal that was voted on by the 

other side. And now we are having a hearing, in some part criticizing the IRS for not doing a better job of enforcement or compliance issues. I just don’t think they can have it both ways, you 

know, demanding greater compliance and better enforcement, while 

at the same time drastically cutting your budget, which you need 

in order to accomplish what you are being asked to do. 

Now, I am not going to ask you to respond, because it is an opinion that I am expressing here. But it just seems logical, hearing the 

testimony that we had today, that we have to be a little bit more 

sensitive to the needs of the IRS resources as we move forward on 

these issues, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. The chair now 

recognizes Mr. McDermott for questioning. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
101 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have taken the 

liberty of passing out the tax gap map of the year 2001, so everybody could look here. I always think that Willie Sutton kind of had 

it right, that the reason you rob banks was because that is where 

the money was. So, when I see us spending a hearing on these 

folks on EITC, I have to—I figure, well, are they the only ones in 

the process that aren’t paying their taxes? And, lo and behold, we 

have got $290 billion worth of taxes not collected, and we are talking about $17 billion. 

Now, it isn’t as though we want people to file fraudulently. There 

is nobody up here wants that. But I don’t understand why we are 

focusing on $17 billion of earned income tax credits and child tax 

credits. Because I was sitting here, thinking about the fact that, as 

a Member of Congress, I live in two different places. I live here 

some and I live in Washington State some. And, on tax bases, I 

have to figure out every year how many days did I live in Washington, D.C. and how many days did I live in the State of Washington. I say to my secretary, ‘‘Will you take my schedule and count 

the days?’’ 

Now, I have a secretary to do that. So I am thinking about these 

people who cannot prove how long their kids lived with them, and 

I, being a child psychiatrist, I also know that when there is a divorce, sometimes the children live with the mother and sometimes 

they live with the father. And if the father is getting the tax credit 

because he is working, and he is taking care of the kid, that is one 

thing. 

But if the kid is living with the mother and he has to pay child 

support payments, does—Ms. Olson, how is that figured out? Does 

he get credit for when the child is living with the mother, but he 

is paying tax? 

Ms. OLSON. No, but this is—no, he doesn’t. And this is some of 

the complexity of the Code. The mother can release the dependency 

exemption, and the child tax credit will follow the dependency exemption. So the mother, the custodial parent, can release it to the 

non-custodial parent who is making the money. 

However, the earned income tax credit stays with the custodial 

parent, the person who has the child for more than half the year. 

And so, some of these errors are from confusion, because it 

makes—why would one provision go to the non-custodial, but the 

other doesn’t? 

I have seen court orders where family court judges are ordering 

the custodial parent, against the law, to give up the earned income 

credit to the non-custodial parent. And, you know, the Federal law 

says that the non-custodial parent can’t get it. And yet the family 

court judge is confused about it. That is just one layer of complexity with the earned income credit, and goes to how difficult it 

is for people to provide documents in these circumstances. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Well, as I look at this tax gap map here, I 

see that individual income tax under-reporting is $197 billion. Now, 

why are we doing twice as much scanning of these earned income 

tax credit folks than we are on others, where they are making almost 10 times—where we have got 10 times as much in play? Why 

would we be doing that? What is the purpose of that? 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
102 

Ms. OLSON. If you are asking me, I see no reason to do that. 

Earned income credit audits bring in less dollars than a audit on 

unreported business income or unreported individual income. That 

is what our numbers show. 

I think that it is just this sense that refundable credits are somehow worse to the public treasury than not—you know, overclaiming 

charitable contributions, or under-reporting your business income, 

or overstating your cost of goods sold. They all—the last few that 

I have just stated have a much greater impact on the public treasury in non-compliance than the earned income credit claims do. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Help me out here. Why do you spend twice 

as much money looking at these poor folks? They are all making 

less than a median income in the United States, less than $43,000. 

Why are you going after them, when you are not going after—you 

are going after them twice as often, as opposed to the business people. 

Mr. MILLER. So let me re-straighten the baseline here. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Okay. 

Mr. MILLER. About 30 percent of our audits are EITC audits. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thirty percent of your audits. 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Are on EITC? 

Mr. MILLER. That is correct. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. For 17 billion? Okay. 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. They are—the vast majority of them are 

campus examinations, which are a very efficient way to do an examination. We have purposely said, let’s maintain a balanced program, so that we have resources—and I believe we have resources 

within our constraints—to reach other areas. And so, we maintain 

coverage across all sorts of taxpayers. 

The two-percent rate versus the 1 percent rate—— 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. Miller, if you would wrap up, the 

gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. MILLER. Absolutely. The coverage rates we are talking 

about are all individuals versus EITC individuals. There are different coverage rates for different categories within the individual 

category. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I want to make the statement that, yes, we have a tax gap. And 

we—and this Committee has the obligation to examine all of the 

causes of the tax gap. 

I also want to make the point that we are talking about an estimated $106 billion over several years, based on GAO and TIGTA 

estimates. And this Committee has an obligation to investigate all 

of these problems with all these tax credits. And I think everybody 

has admitted that the refundable tax credits are problematic, from 

the standpoint of complexity. 

And so, yes, we are investigating this. We will investigate other 

areas of importance, as we look at the tax gap. But I think that 

point needs to be made. And this hearing is focused on not just the 

earned income tax credit, a very valuable program, but all of these 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
103 

refundable tax credits, and the problems that are inherent in the 

administration thereof. 

And, with that, the chair now recognizes Ms. Jenkins. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. Thank you all for your participation and 

being here today. 

Mr. George, last week TIGTA released a report showing that the 

IRS cannot determine whether taxpayers claiming residential energy credits were entitled to receive them. TIGTA was unable to 

verify homeownership for 30 percent of the sample returns. Home 

ownership, of course, being required to claim the credit. 

More troubling, TIGTA identified 362 ineligible recipients of the tax credit, totaling more than $400,000, including 262 prisoners because, according to the report, the IRS did not have a process in 

place to identify prisoners or individuals too young to buy a home, 

despite the IRS having data that could be used to identify the erroneous credits. 

In the report I believe you stated that, ‘‘I am troubled by the IRS’ 

continued failure to develop appropriate verification methods for 

distributing Recovery Act credits.’’ 

Can you just reiterate for the Committee what actions the IRS 

can take to prevent this sort of fraud in the future? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, Ms. Jenkins. It is a question of seeking information, getting third-party information, as it relates to who is eligible and who is ineligible for this. As a preface to this report, you 

rightfully pointed out—and I think the chairman did, also—the 

First-Time Homebuyer’s Credit, which was a complete example of 

where the IRS, if they had followed recommendations that we had 

identified early in the process, while they were first implementing 

that program, and that is requiring some sort of proof, whether it 

is the HUD–1 form, which ultimately Congress did require, or some 

other way of documenting that a person was eligible for the credit, 

that he or she would be able to receive it. 

And so, there seems to be a pattern here where the IRS—again, 

I give them credit in terms of the inability to have resources to address every single one of these on an expedited basis—but again, 

with this modernized eFile system that should be up and running 

within the next 2 years, and they should no longer be able to rely 

on that as an excuse for not ensuring that people who are not eligible for these credits do not receive them. 

But there is—and again, to Mr. Miller’s credit and to the IRS’ 

credit, they do require math error authority. They need legislation 

from Congress which will allow them to prevent mistakes before 

they go out. Because the bottom line is if—once it goes out the 

door, it is almost next to impossible—with a few exceptions, like 

prisoners, because that is such a defined population, and in some 

instances, children—to identify those people and eventually attempt to recover the money. 

And again, I would have to defer to Mr. Miller, in terms of actually how much money they are able to recover, once it goes out the 

door. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. OLSON. May I make a comment? I think your question really goes to a major issue about these credits, which is the design of 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
104 

them, that some of the programs, the IRS could get documentation. 

But we would still, even with math error, we would still have to 

have the staff to look at them. And then they start turning into a 

traditional welfare program, which has very high costs, because everybody is looking at every single application that comes in. 

So, some of these programs really shouldn’t be run through the 

Internal Revenue Code at all, because we can’t do a good job of 

them, if we do it efficiently. And if we do it with great scrutiny, 

such as the inspector general is suggesting, then we start running 

up our costs of personnel, and things like that. 

So, I just wanted to make that point about maybe some of these 

programs shouldn’t come in. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. In addition, 

a 2009 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report 

found $39 million in Federal tax refunds were issued to prison inmates. That was nearly tripling the $13.4 million found in 2004. 

At the time, the IRS said it could not immediately determine how 

much, if any, of the fraudulent returns in 2009 has been recovered, 

because the recapture process can take several years. 

Following that report, Mr. George, you stated that if the IRS 

does not take action, the problem will only worsen, and more taxpayer dollars will be lost. So, Mr. George, since 2009, just please 

remind us what substantial action has the IRS taken to address 

this epidemic of inmates defrauding taxpayers? What further action might be required? And I think you have already hit on it, but 

what does the IRS need, in additional authority, from Congress? 

Mr. GEORGE. The interesting part, Ms. Jenkins, is that in this 

very hearing room almost 7 years ago I testified on this very issue, 

of the fact that prisoners and a propensity—an actual number of 

them were coming from Florida. And Congress did give the IRS a 

limited Federal authority to execute agreements with State prison 

officials in order to help educate both the IRS, as well as State 

prison authorities, about this growing problem. 

And our most recent report unveiled that the IRS has failed to 

complete many of these agreements. I think they now changed 

their attitude toward this, given—in the wake of the Homebuyer 

Credit and a few of the other credits that you have cited. But the 

IRS failed once again in that instance to comply with the recommendation that we believe, had they done so, that problem may 

not have been eliminated, but it would have been stemmed greatly. 

Mr. MILLER. So, Mr. Chairman—— 

Ms. JENKINS. Thanks. 

Mr. MILLER. I apologize for breaking in—and I will be glad to 

do this in a response for the record—but we have taken substantial 

steps, with respect to prisoners, substantial steps in the last 6 

months, coming to agreements with seven States, with the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, doubling the number of returns that we are 

stopping in our pre-refund. And I would be glad to—— 

Chairman BOUSTANY. If you would, Mr. Miller, provide a more 

detailed reporting. 

Mr. MILLER. I will do that, sir. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Of the steps taken, we would appreciate 

it. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Rangel for questioning. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
105 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy that this 

hearing—this is a very sensitive program, and we think when it is 

effective it really has pulled so many people out of poverty and 

given them the incentive to continue to work, rather than go on 

welfare. 

Mr. George, did you say that soon, and very soon, you expect that 

the new computer system is going to correct most of these errors? 

Mr. GEORGE. Not correct, but will enable the IRS to more efficiently process forms that would help provide documentation as to 

whether or not someone is eligible for a tax credit, or whatever 

they may be seeking. 

Mr. RANGEL. Is there any difference in the penalty if the taxes 

are made by a paid preparer, rather than the—the penalties are 

different? 

Mr. GEORGE. No, I am just saying that that is an issue because, 

ultimately, it is the taxpayer’s responsibility to ensure that the tax 

forms submitted are accurate. 

Now, some companies have a program which they would say they 

will seek—they will represent you before the IRS if they prepare 

your tax return and there happens to be a mistake, or the IRS 

questions something. But ultimately, it is the taxpayer who is obligated—— 

Ms. OLSON. Actually, if I may clarify that, there is—the taxpayer, if they are negligent in preparing their own return, or providing information to the IRS, has a negligence penalty. But that 

penalty can be waived if the taxpayer has reasonably relied on the 

return preparer. 

Mr. RANGEL. But the standard is higher with a professional 

preparer? 

Ms. OLSON. Actually, the taxpayer is—if the taxpayer goes to a 

preparer and it is a good preparer, then the IRS is very—is actually lenient to the taxpayer. What we have pointed out—— 

Mr. RANGEL. I don’t mean to the taxpayer. Is there a penalty 

for the professional preparer—— 

Ms. OLSON. Well, that is the question—— 

Mr. RANGEL [continuing]. when you see fraud? 

Ms. OLSON. The—I think that we really need enhancement on 

the preparer side for some of the penalties—— 

Mr. RANGEL. So all of you believe this Committee should look 

into the sanctions as relates to deliberate fraud by paid preparers? 

Mr. MILLER. We certainly would support that. And, in fact, in 

the 2012 budget proposal that has been set forth, there is a due 

diligence penalty. If a paid preparer does not exercise due diligence, a level of due diligence in the EITC area, there is a specific 

penalty. 

Mr. RANGEL. Okay. 

Mr. MILLER. We have actually asked for that to be multiplied—— 

Mr. RANGEL. Okay, we will look into that. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. by five. 

Mr. RANGEL. As it relates to the policy decision as to where you 

have the audits, I think Mr. Crowley and others were asking if you 

get less money for investing more time, why would you have that 

policy? 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
106 

[No response.] 

Mr. RANGEL. I think, Ms. Olson, didn’t you indicate that you 

thought that it was more attention being paid to these lower-income people than the corporate structure? 

Well, who would make a policy decision like that? I mean is that 

your—everybody’s understanding, is that you do spend more time 

auditing in these type of things than you would where there are 

larger amounts of moneys that could be collected? 

Mr. MILLER. So if I could—and I am sure the Taxpayer Advocate can chip in, but if I could—again, the 2 percent coverage rate 

for the EITC versus the 1 percent for all individuals is—— 

Mr. RANGEL. Why is that? 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. very high-level. For those who are over $200,000, that individual rate goes up to something like 6 percent. For those who are over a million, it goes up to 8 percent. So 

we try to maintain a balance. For very large corporations, it is in 

excess of 25 percent. 

Mr. RANGEL. I know Ms. Olson said—and no one challenged it, 

unless you are doing that now—that, based on the amount of 

money that is collected, and the amount of time that is being put 

in for the audit, that, by far, there is less money to be collected 

from this group. 

First, I want to make it abundantly clear. This program is so 

good that I would just want it to be as pure as the driven snow. 

And so, I do want everything done possibly so that people who are 

against the program for policy reasons won’t have an excuse that 

there is fraud, deliberate fraud that is going on. And the government should assist people not to make mistakes by educational programs. 

Did someone say that there is 75 or 80 percent participation with 

eligible people for this? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, I did say that. 

Mr. RANGEL. Wow. I don’t know whether other people on the 

committee find that high percentage, but we do a lot of educating 

on this subject. 

But you know what I am trying to say, Mr. Miller. Is this targeted for political reasons, this group of people? 

Mr. MILLER. No, sir, it is not. 

Mr. RANGEL. And you think this is the most efficient way to use 

the auditors’ time, to concentrate on this group more than you concentrate on others? 

Mr. MILLER. So you ask how is this set up. Frankly, it is set 

up in discussions with my boss, Mr. Shulman. But it is also our 

top-level group, including especially me, quite frankly, that sets an 

annual work plan and determines where, generally, we are going 

to be spending our time. 

Mr. RANGEL. Well—— 

Mr. MILLER. I believe that this is a balanced approach. 

Mr. RANGEL. Send something to me. 

Mr. MILLER. Surely. 

Mr. RANGEL. Because there has been other questions asked 

similar to the ones that I have asked. And, for whatever reason— 

I am not saying that they might not be a good reason to send a 

message out that if you find that there is more fraud in this parVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:32 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070883 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70883.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70883

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
107 

ticular tax benefit, that you may want to increase the penalty or 

increase the audits. But you are not saying that. 

And so, if you could send to me, like—the Google question is, 

‘‘Are there more—is there more oversight for EITC recipients than 

other taxpayers?’’ 

Mr. MILLER. Surely. 

Mr. RANGEL. And if I was to ask you that, what would you say 

right now? 

Mr. MILLER. It is really going to depend. I can’t answer that, 

based at 10,000 feet. Is there more on the EITC than there are on 

wealthy Americans? No, I can say that. Than there are on large 

corporations? No. Small corporations? No. 

Mr. RANGEL. Anybody else. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. Miller—— 

Mr. RANGEL. This—— 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. RANGEL. Okay. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman’s time has expired, but I 

appreciate the line of questioning. And I think Mr. Miller will respond to you—— 

Mr. RANGEL. Please, Mr. Miller, just—— 

Mr. MILLER. I will do that. Absolutely. 

Mr. RANGEL. Because I want to defend what you are doing. And 

the answers don’t just fit into a category that you can easily respond. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman from New York. 

The other gentleman from New York now is allowed to ask questions. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. 

I appreciate you for that. 

And first I will say, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lewis, I have some 

great concerns about the subject of the hearing today. The U.S. has 

a $14 trillion deficit, $14 trillion deficit. And I would argue that 

more than half of that was run up by the borrowing and spend policies of the previous Administration, from 2001 to 2009. And yet, we 

are starting today, this hearing, at the bottom, the very bottom of 

the scale. 

An Administration that oversaw the enactment of tax cuts for 

the wealthiest in this country, the start of two wars—some would 

argue three, now that we’re entered into what started with the first 

two—and the biggest bail-out in the history of the United States, 

TARP, for the wealthiest in this country. Yet we are still starting 

at the bottom today. 

But has my—but have my Republican colleagues in the Congress 

taken responsibility for the part that was started? Have they put 

forward a plan to remedy the situation to scale back spending? 

Well, kind of. They are not willing to admit that the policies of 

their party got us to this point in the first place, but they are willing to try to pay down the bills. Good news, right? 

Well, maybe not exactly. First, their budget proposal to eliminate 

Medicare as we know it, and in turn, drastically increasing seniors’ 

cost for their health care, I think I was home sick during my high 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
108 

school days when we were taught about how seniors have been 

fleecing America. I could have sworn they were the ones who actually paid their dues and living out their retirement years now. 

Now, my colleagues on the other side are making tweaks in the 

Tax Code to find savings. That is good news, isn’t it? 

Well, maybe not so much. Are Republicans returning tax rates on 

millionaires to what they were during the economically prosperous 

years of the nineties? No. Are they eliminating tax subsidies provided to the oil industry, an industry profiting from $4 a gas cost 

at the pumps, and the industry’s record profits? No. 

Here is a list of what tax benefits they are cutting—proposing to 

cut back on: the child tax credit, the adoption tax credit, the housing benefits for middle class credit. Republicans appear to believe 

the rich pay too much in taxes, and the middle class not enough. 

And that is the subject of this hearing today. 

That brings me to my first question. Mr. Miller, you are from the 

IRS. From preliminary returns from the 2010 tax year, 41,000 tax 

returns claimed the refundable adoption tax credit. Is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. I think our numbers are maybe updated to 70,000 

or so. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Seventy thousand? Who is eligible to claim this? 

Is it not for families who are adopting children? Or am I confused 

on what the adoption tax credit is for? 

Mr. MILLER. It is for adopting families. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. Mr. Miller, 7.9 million Americans 

claimed—have claims—claimed the refundable higher education 

tax credit. Is that correct, or has that number changed? 

Mr. MILLER. I think that number is correct, although I would 

have to check it again. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Isn’t that for families, again, who are sending 

their children to—or child to college, to make it more affordable, 

and to give them an opportunity, a better way of life, and to help 

our country expand and to grow? Well, at least isn’t it—don’t answer that. The end of the—I have the end part. But isn’t it to help 

make affordable more—college more affordable? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe it is. 

Mr. CROWLEY. These are tax benefits that my colleagues on 

this side want to repeal in the name of budgetary soundness. But, 

like the Republican Medicare voucher plan, the Republican plan to 

eliminate tax benefits, may save the government money, but it 

bankrupts these families, families like those that want to take such 

activities as adopting a child, sending a child to college, or trying 

to purchase a home. 

But what is even more ironic is, while the Republicans are ripping Medicare away from seniors and stealing tax benefits from the 

middle class, they uniformly oppose tax measures pushed by the 

Democrats to punish the wealthy Americans who hide their money 

in Swiss bank accounts. 

Yes. Hundreds of billions of dollars of money are hidden overseas. And my colleagues on the other side, including every member 

of this Committee but one—I believe Ms. Black—opposed—she 

wasn’t here—opposed legislation to track down and reclaim those 

hidden funds. They are protecting people who have money in Swiss 

bank accounts. How many of us have constituents with money in 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
109 

Swiss bank accounts? Anyone here? How many of us have constituents who use the child tax credit? Anyone here use that? 

They also oppose efforts to crack down on Federal contractors 

who owe back taxes. 

And in a press release from the Republican Committee majority, 

they have lambasted this administration for raising taxes on people 

in prisons. And I appreciate Ms. Jenkins bringing up the point—— 

Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I appreciate the gentleman’s statements 

of a broad political nature, but I want to point out that the purpose 

of this hearing was focused on the integrity of these programs. We 

all recognize the value of the programs. But we also have a responsibility to provide oversight as to the integrity of these programs. 

And we are—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman yield? One question, one—— 

Chairman BOUSTANY. We are going to look at tax reform, as 

the gentleman well knows, and it is going to be a fundamental look 

at the entirety of the Tax Code. And this is but a small part of the 

oversight of these specific refundable tax credits, which all the witnesses have proposed that there are endemic problems with the administration of those programs. 

And so, that is the purpose of this hearing. I want to get us back 

on track—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, can I—for the purpose of a question? 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Yes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Will this Committee consider a Committee hearing on the concept of a shared sacrifice in this country? Is that 

something that we could look forward to? 

Chairman BOUSTANY. This Committee is going to fulfill the 

functions that are outlined in the rules of the Committee, which is 

to look at the jurisdiction of the Full Committee, in concurrence 

with the other subcommittees. And since tax reform is a big part 

of what we are going to be doing over the course of this year, that 

will be the focus of the oversight function in this—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. I will take it as a yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. It is basically what the rules of the subcommittee and the Committee are. And I will leave it at that. 

And now the chair will recognize Mr. Marchant, who has waited 

patiently. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the panelists. 

Every time I stand before a group of taxpayers in my district, my 

constituents, the question comes up, ‘‘Congressman, what are you 

doing, and what is Congress doing, and what is the Federal Government doing, to cut waste, fraud, and abuse?’’ I don’t think there 

is a single congressman that does not get that question when they 

go home. 

So, I deeply appreciate the fact that you are at the hearing today, 

that the hearing has been called for this purpose, and I appreciate 

your comments, because I think this is the purpose of this—of Congress. This is oversight. And I have learned a great deal today. And 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
110 

to our constituents this Congress is going to do something with 

your help on this fraud and abuse, because I don’t think anybody 

here would deny that there is fraud and abuse going on. 

For Mr. Miller, when a person accepts a refundable tax payment, 

and they receive the cash, and they have done so fraudulently, 

have they committed a crime? 

Mr. MILLER. I suppose some have. There is civil fraud, as well 

as criminal fraud. So not necessarily in all cases, depending on various things that I am less familiar with than I should be. 

Mr. MARCHANT. But it is undoubtable that when they do receive that refundable tax credit, if they don’t deserve to receive it 

and they are audited, they have, in fact, created for themselves a 

tax liability, because they owe the money back. 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. 

Mr. MARCHANT. When the tax liability is created, does that tax 

liability take any kind of precedence over any other tax liability 

that the person—that any other taxpayer owes? Is the collection activity different from a collection activity from someone who owes 

$2,700 on last year’s taxes and have not paid? 

Mr. MILLER. So if I could rephrase the question, if—I think I understand it—in our collection operations, is $2,700 $2,700, regardless of whether it is—— 

Mr. MARCHANT. Yes. Is this a priority—— 

Mr. MILLER. It is not a priority. Whether it actually ends up 

being—moved up in line will depend on what else is there, and 

what our determination of the collectability of that amount is. 

Mr. MARCHANT. So, the collection activity will fall under the 

same criteria as all collection activity, and you are going to look at 

each individual taxpayer and say, ‘‘Is this a’’—you know, ‘‘How likely are we going to be able to collect this money back?’’ 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. 

Mr. MARCHANT. And do you take the next step and say, this 

person, or this taxpayer, whether it be corporate, energy, earned 

income credit, any of the tax refundable programs we have talked 

about today, does that person then earn a—the same kind of treatment that any taxpayer would have if they owed a tax liability? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I will note the EITC, as was mentioned earlier, there is a re-certification rule that can occur. We have the 

ability to ban a person from EITC under—all these things are statutory—for either 2 or 10 years. There are things that we can do 

that are different, with respect to this tax liability, than others. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Well, to the taxpayers in my district that consider it a duty to pay their taxes and to pay what they owe, it is 

demoralizing to them to pick up the newspaper or see a report that 

is given that reports these kinds of obvious fraud. It is demoralizing for them to pick up the Wall Street Journal or any newspaper and read that people—that prisoners, or people from—that 

don’t deserve the home buyer credit are getting it. I don’t give any 

more weight to the earned income credit as I do the energy credits 

or the homebuyer credit. Fraud is fraud. 

I agree that the preparer—we should begin to look more closely 

at the preparer. Because in my area most—I believe most of the 

fraud is aided and abetted by the preparer. In fact, I pick up the 

newspaper and you can see in the classified ads or on late night 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
111 

cable—I am a night owl, so I—you can see the preparers are enticing people into the scheme, and showing them how to get the 

money, and they are charging them exorbitant amounts of money, 

and the benefit to the taxpayer ends up that they actually are accruing the tax liability that probably will brand them for years. 

So, thank you for what you are doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank 

all the witnesses for being here today, and providing testimony. 

This has been very helpful to us. Please be advised that Members 

may have written questions that they will submit to each of you, 

and those questions and answers will be made part of the record, 

the official hearing record. 

So, thank you again. I thank the Members for their participation. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions for the Record follow:] 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert kind.001