United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate

For Release

on Delivery

Expected at

10:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday

February 5, 1998

TAX ADMINISTRATION

IRS Inspection Service and

Taxpayer Advocate Roles

for Ensuring That

Taxpayers Are Treated

Properly

Statement of Lynda D. Willis, Director, Tax Policy and

Administration Issues, General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-98-63

Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

Chairman Roth, Senator Moynihan, and Members of the Committee:

We are pleased to be here today to assist the Committee in its ongoing

oversight of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As you requested, my

statement today addresses four issues related to allegations of taxpayer

abuse and employee misconduct. They are

• the adequacy of IRS controls over the treatment of taxpayers,

• the responsibilities of the Offices of the Chief Inspector (IRS Inspection)

and the Treasury Office of Inspector General (Treasury OIG) in

investigating allegations of taxpayer abuse and employee misconduct,

• the organizational placement of IRS Inspection, and

• the role of the Taxpayer Advocate in handling taxpayer complaints.

The statement is based on our past report on IRS’ efforts to improve

controls for ensuring that taxpayers are treated properly1

 and preliminary

information from work we have just started to assess the effectiveness of

the Taxpayer Advocate.

In summary, my statement makes the following points:

• In spite of IRS management’s heightened awareness of the importance of

treating taxpayers properly, we remain unable to reach a conclusion as to

the adequacy of IRS’ controls to ensure fair treatment. This is because IRS

and other federal information systems that collect information related to

taxpayer cases do not capture the necessary management information to

identify instances of abuse that have been reported and actions taken to

address them and to prevent recurrence of those problems.

• Treasury OIG and IRS Inspection have separate and shared responsibilities

for investigating allegations of employee misconduct and taxpayer abuse.

IRS Inspection has primary responsibility for investigating and auditing

IRS employees, programs, and internal controls. Treasury OIG is

responsible for the oversight of IRS Inspection investigations and audits

and may perform selective investigations and audits at IRS.

The two offices share some responsibilities as reflected in a 1994 IRS

Commissioner-Treasury OIG Memorandum of Understanding. This

involves investigating allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse by IRS

employees. The investigations covered under this Memorandum

encompass a wide range of misconduct allegations including taxpayer

1

See Tax Administration: IRS Is Improving Its Controls for Ensuring That Taxpayers Are Treated

Properly (GAO/GGD-96-176, Aug. 30, 1996).

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

abuse. IRS Inspection is responsible for investigating allegations against

IRS employees who are GS-14s and below and who do not work in

Inspection. Treasury OIG Officials advised us that employees at this level

are the ones most likely to have direct interaction with taxpayers and are

most likely to be subject to allegations involving taxpayer abuse. Treasury

OIG is responsible for investigating allegations against senior level IRS

officials and IRS Inspection employees.

In the 1996 report on controls to ensure the proper treatment of taxpayers

that we prepared at your request, Mr. Chairman, we noted that officials

from both organizations thought that the arrangement was working well.

However, more recent information indicates there may now be some

concerns among those officials, particularly regarding timely referrals of

allegations by both offices.

• In the Committee’s September 1997 hearings, questions were raised about

the independence of IRS Inspection. Subsequently, suggestions have been

made to remove IRS Inspection from IRS and place it in Treasury OIG. We

have historically supported a strong statutory Treasury OIG. We also

believe that the IRS Commissioner needs an internal capability to review

the effectiveness of IRS programs. Regardless of where IRS Inspection is

placed organizationally, within IRS or Treasury OIG, mechanisms need to

be in place to ensure its accountability and its ability to focus on its

mission independent from undue pressures or influence. The Inspectors

General Act2

 as amended in 1988, provides guidance on the authorities,

qualifications, safeguards, resources, and reporting requirements needed

to ensure independent investigation and audit capabilities.

• In 1979, the Taxpayer Ombudsman was established administratively within

IRS to advocate for taxpayers and assume authority for IRS’ Problem

Resolution Program. In 1988, this position was codified in the Taxpayer

Bill of Rights 1.3

 In 1996, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 24 replaced the

Ombudsman with the Taxpayer Advocate and expanded the

responsibilities of the new Office of the Taxpayer Advocate. The Advocate

was charged under the legislation with helping taxpayers resolve their

problems with IRS and with identifying and resolving systemic problems.

It is now nearly 20 years after the creation of the first executive-level

position in IRS to advocate for taxpayers, and questions about the

effectiveness of the advocacy continue to be asked. These questions

2

Public Law 100-504 Oct. 18, 1988.

3

Public Law 100-647, Nov. 10, 1988.

4

Public Law 104-168, July 30, 1996.

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

involve the Advocate’s (1) organizational independence within IRS;

(2) adequacy of resource commitments to achieve its mission; and

(3) ability to identify and correct problems with IRS processes and

systems that adversely affect taxpayers.

Adequacy of IRS’

Controls to Ensure

Fair Treatment of

Taxpayers Cannot Be

Determined

The new IRS Commissioner and IRS management have expressed a

commitment to ensure that taxpayers are treated properly. Even so,

problems with current management information systems make it

impossible to determine the extent to which allegations of taxpayer abuse

and other taxpayer complaints have been reported, or the extent to which

actions have been taken to address the complaints and prevent recurrence

of systemic problems. That is because, as we reported to you in 1996,

information systems currently maintained by IRS, Treasury OIG, and the

Department of Justice do not capture the necessary management

information. These systems were designed as case tracking and resource

management systems intended to serve the management information

needs of particular functions, such as IRS Inspection’s Internal Security

Division. None of these systems include specific data elements for

“taxpayer abuse”; instead, they contain data elements that encompass

broad categories of misconduct, taxpayer problems, and legal and

administrative actions.

Information contained in these systems relating to allegations and

investigations of taxpayer abuse and other taxpayer complaints is not

easily distinguishable from information on allegations and investigations

that do not involve taxpayers. Consequently, as currently designed, the

information systems cannot be used individually or collectively to account

for IRS’ handling of instances of alleged taxpayer abuse.

Information Systems

Related to Taxpayer Abuse

Allegations

Officials of several organizations indicated to us that several information

systems might include information related to taxpayer abuse

allegations—five maintained by IRS, one by Treasury OIG, and two by

Justice. (See attachment for a description of these systems.)

The officials familiar with these systems stated that the systems do not

include a specific data element for taxpayer abuse that could be used to

easily distinguish abuse allegations from others not involving taxpayers.

For example, officials from the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys

stated that the public corruption and tort categories of their Case

Management System may include instances of taxpayer abuse. But, they

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

also said the system could not be used to identify such instances without a

review of specific case files.

Systems Do Not Have

Common Data Elements or

Unique Identifiers

From our review of data from these systems for our 1996 report, we

concluded that none of them, either individually or collectively, have

common or comparable data elements that can be used to identify the

number or outcomes of taxpayer abuse allegations or related

investigations and actions. Rather, each system was developed to provide

information for a particular organizational function, usually for case

tracking, inventory, or other managerial purposes relative to the mission

of that particular function. While each system has data elements that could

reflect how some taxpayers have been treated, the data elements vary and

in certain cases may relate to the same allegation and same IRS employee.

Without common or comparable data elements and unique allegation and

employee identifiers, these systems do not collect information in a

consistent manner that could be used to accurately account for all

allegations of taxpayer abuse.

IRS Has Adopted a

Definition for “Taxpayer

Complaints”

As we also reported in our 1996 report, IRS has not historically had a

definition of taxpayer abuse. In response to the report, IRS adopted a

definition for taxpayer complaints that included the following elements:

(1) allegations of IRS employees’ violating laws, regulations, or the IRS

Code of Conduct; (2) overzealous, overly aggressive, or otherwise

improper behavior of IRS employees in discharging their official duties;

and (3) breakdowns in IRS systems or processes that frustrate taxpayers’

ability to resolve issues through normal channels.

Also in response to the report, IRS established a Customer Feedback

System in October 1997, which IRS managers are to use to report

allegations of improper employee behavior toward taxpayers. IRS used

this system to support its first required annual reporting to Congress on

taxpayers’ complaints through December 31, 1997. IRS officials

acknowledged, however, that there were changes needed to ensure the

accuracy and consistency of the reported data.

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

Treasury OIG and IRS

Inspection Roles for

Investigating

Taxpayer Abuse

Allegations

The 1988 amendments to the Inspectors General Act, which created the

Treasury OIG, did not consolidate IRS Inspection into the Treasury OIG,

but authorized the Treasury OIG to perform oversight of IRS Inspection

and conduct audits and investigations of the IRS as appropriate. The act

also provided the Treasury OIG with access to taxpayer data under the

provisions of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code as needed to

conduct its work, with some recording and reporting requirements for

such access.

Treasury OIG’s

Responsibilities

Currently, Treasury OIG is responsible for investigating allegations of

misconduct, waste, fraud, and abuse involving senior IRS officials, GS-15s

and above, as well as IRS Inspection employees. Treasury OIG also has

oversight responsibility for the overall operations of IRS Inspection. Since

November 1994, Treasury OIG has had increased flexibility for referring

allegations involving GS-15s to IRS for investigation or administrative

action. The need to make more referrals of GS-15 level cases was due to

resource constraints and an increased emphasis by Treasury OIG on

investigations involving criminal misconduct and procurement fraud

across all Treasury bureaus.

In fiscal year 1996, Treasury OIG conducted 43 investigations—14 percent

of the 306 allegations it received—many of which implicated senior IRS

officials. Treasury OIG officials said that these investigations rarely

involved allegations of taxpayer abuse because senior IRS officials and

IRS Inspection employees usually do not interact directly with taxpayers.

IRS Inspection’s

Responsibilities

The IRS Chief Inspector, who reports directly to the IRS Commissioner, is

responsible for conducting IRS investigations and internal audits done by

IRS Inspection, as well as for coordinating IRS Inspection activities with

Treasury OIG. IRS Inspection is to work closely with Treasury OIG in

planning and performing its duties. IRS Inspection is also to provide

information on its activities and results, as well as constraints or

limitations placed on its activities, to Treasury OIG for incorporation into

Treasury OIG’s Semiannual Report to Congress. Disputes that the IRS

Chief Inspector may have with the IRS Commissioner are to be resolved

through Treasury OIG and the Secretary of the Treasury, to whom the

Treasury OIG reports.

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

Reporting Responsibilities

for Treasury Law

Enforcement Bureaus

In September 1992, Treasury OIG issued Treasury Directive 40-01, which

summarizes the authority vested in Treasury OIG and the reporting

responsibilities of various Treasury bureaus. Treasury law enforcement

bureaus, including IRS, are to (1) provide a monthly report to Treasury

OIG concerning significant internal investigative and audit activities;

(2) notify Treasury OIG immediately upon receiving allegations involving

senior IRS officials, internal affairs employees, or IRS Inspection

employees; and (3) submit written responses to Treasury OIG detailing

actions taken or planned in response to Treasury OIG investigative reports

and Treasury OIG referrals for agency management action.

Under procedures established in a Memorandum of Understanding

between Treasury OIG and IRS Commissioner in November 1994, the

requirement for immediate referrals to Treasury OIG of all misconduct

allegations covered in the Directive was reiterated and supplemented.

Treasury OIG has the discretion to refer any allegation to IRS for

appropriate action, that is, either investigation by IRS Inspection or

administrative action by IRS management. If IRS officials believe that an

allegation referred by Treasury OIG warrants Treasury OIG attention, they

may refer the case back to Treasury OIG, requesting that Treasury OIG

conduct an investigation.

How Treasury OIG Handles

Allegations Against IRS

Employees

During our review for the 1996 report, Treasury OIG officials advised us

that under the original 1992 Directive, they generally handled most

allegations implicating Senior Executive Service (SES) and IRS Inspection

employees, while reserving the right of first refusal on GS-15 employees.

Under the procedures adopted in 1994, which were driven in part by

resource constraints and Treasury OIG’s need to do more criminal

misconduct and procurement fraud investigations across all Treasury

bureaus, Treasury OIG officials stated they have generally referred

allegations involving GS-15s and below to IRS for investigation or

management action. The same is true for allegations against any

employees, including those in the SES, involving administrative matters

and allegations dealing primarily with disputes of tax law interpretation.

Treasury OIG officials said that a determination is made by Treasury OIG

after a preliminary review of the merits of the allegation as to whether it

should investigate, refer to IRS to either investigate or take administrative

action, or take no action at all. In fiscal year 1996, Treasury OIG received

306 allegations, many of which involved senior IRS officials. After a

preliminary review, Treasury OIG decided no action was warranted on 40

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

of the allegations; referred 214 to IRS—either for investigation or

administrative action; investigated 43; and closed 9 others for various

administrative reasons.

Treasury OIG officials stated that, based on their investigative experience,

most allegations of wrongdoing by IRS staff that involve taxpayers do not

involve senior-level IRS officials or IRS Inspection employees. Rather,

these allegations typically involve IRS Examination and Collection

employees who most often interact directly with taxpayers.

How Treasury OIG

Assesses IRS’ Action in

Response to Investigations

or Referrals

Treasury OIG officials are to assess the adequacy of IRS’ actions in

response to Treasury OIG investigations and referrals as follows: (1) IRS is

required to make written responses on actions taken within 90 days and

120 days, respectively, on Treasury OIG investigative reports of completed

investigations and Treasury OIG referrals for investigations or

management action; (2) Treasury OIG investigators are to assess the

adequacy of IRS’ responses before closing the Treasury OIG case; and

(3) Treasury OIG’s Office of Oversight is to assess the overall effectiveness

of IRS Inspection capabilities and systems through periodic operational

reviews.

In addition to assessing IRS’ responses to Treasury OIG investigations and

referrals, each quarter, the Treasury Inspector General, Deputy Inspector

General, and Assistant Inspector General for Investigations are to brief the

IRS Commissioner, IRS Deputy Commissioner, and Chief Inspector on the

status of allegations involving senior IRS officials, including those being

investigated by Treasury OIG and those awaiting IRS action.

In our 1996 report, we noted that officials from both agencies agreed that

the arrangement was working well to ensure that allegations involving

senior IRS officials and IRS Inspection employees were being handled

properly. Even so, Treasury OIG officials expressed some concern with

the amount of time IRS typically took to respond to Treasury OIG

investigations and referrals. IRS officials acknowledged that responses

were not always made within Treasury OIG time frames because, among

other reasons, determinations about taking disciplinary actions and

imposing such actions may have taken a considerable amount of time.

Also, the IRS officials said some cases had to be returned for additional

development by Treasury OIG, which may have prolonged the time for

completion. The IRS officials, however, also suggested that actions on

Treasury OIG referrals were closely monitored, as evidenced by the

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

referrals inclusion in discussions during quarterly Inspector General

briefings with the IRS Commissioner.

Since 1996, there has been some indication of problems between the two

offices. Specifically, in its most recent Semiannual Report to Congress,

Treasury OIG concluded, after reviewing IRS’ compliance with Treasury

Directive 40-01, that “both IRS and Treasury OIG need to make

improvements, particularly in the area of timely, prompt referrals.” It is not

clear what steps Treasury OIG officials plan to take to resolve the

problems.

Organizational

Placement of IRS

Inspection Remains

Subject of Debate

At the Committee’s September 1997 IRS oversight hearings, some IRS

employees raised concerns about the effectiveness of IRS Inspection and

its independence from undue pressures and influence from IRS

management. Since that time, debate has continued on the issue of where

IRS Inspection would be optimally placed organizationally to provide

assurance that taxpayers are treated properly. This is not a new issue.

During the debate preceding the passage of the 1988 amendments to the

Inspectors General Act that established the Treasury OIG and left IRS

Inspection intact, as well as on several other occasions since, concerns

have been raised about the desirability of having a separate IRS Inspection

Service.

Historically, we have supported a strong statutory Treasury OIG, believing

that such an office could provide independent oversight of the

Department, including IRS. That is, reviews of IRS addressed to the

Secretary of the Treasury, rather than the IRS Commissioner, should

improve executive branch oversight of tax administration in general and

provide greater assurance that taxpayers are treated properly, fairly, and

courteously. We have also noted that under the statute, Treasury OIG is

authorized to enhance the protection of taxpayer rights by conducting

periodic independent reviews of IRS dealings with taxpayers and IRS

procedures affecting taxpayers.

We have also recognized that, to meet his managerial responsibilities, the

IRS Commissioner needs an internal capability to review the effectiveness

of IRS programs. IRS Inspection has provided Commissioners with

investigative and audit capabilities to evaluate IRS programs since 1952.

IRS Inspection currently has roughly 1,200 authorized staff in its budget

who are split about equally between its two divisions, Internal Security

and Internal Audit.

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

The Treasury OIG, on the other hand, has fewer than 300 authorized staff

to provide oversight of IRS Inspection activities as well as to carry out

similar investigations and audits for Treasury and its 10 other very diverse

bureaus. IRS officials have been concerned that if IRS Inspection is

transferred to the Treasury OIG, the transferred resources will be used to

investigate or audit other Treasury bureaus to the detriment of critical IRS

oversight.

The Inspectors General Act provides guidance on the authorities,

qualifications, safeguards, resources, and reporting requirements needed

to ensure independent investigative and audit capabilities. No matter

where IRS Inspection is placed organizationally, certain mechanisms need

to be in place to ensure that it is held accountable and can achieve its

mission without undue pressures or influence. For example, a key

component of accountability and protection against undue pressures or

influence is reporting of investigative and audit activities and findings to

both those responsible for agency management and oversight.

Taxpayer Advocate’s

Ability to Bring About

Change Remains an

Open Question

Another IRS organization responsible for protecting the rights of taxpayers

is the Taxpayer Advocate. The position was originally codified in the

Taxpayer Bill of Rights 1 as the Taxpayer Ombudsman, although IRS has

had the underlying Problem Resolution Program (PRP) in place since

1979.

In the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, the Taxpayer Advocate and the Office of

the Taxpayer Advocate replaced the Taxpayer Ombudsman position and

the headquarters PRP staff. The authorities and responsibilities of this new

office were expanded, for example, to address taxpayer cases involving

IRS enforcement actions and refunds. The most significant change may

have been to emphasize that the Advocate and those assigned to the

Advocate’s Office are expected to view issues from the taxpayers’

perspective and find ways to alleviate individual taxpayer concerns as well

as systemic problems.

The Advocate reported that it resolved 237,103 cases in fiscal year 1997. Its

reported activities included establishing cases to resolve taxpayer

concerns, providing relief to taxpayers with hardships, resolving cases in a

proper and timely manner, and analyzing and addressing factors

contributing to systemic problems. The report also discussed activities and

initiatives and proposed solutions for systemic problems.

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

Even with the enhanced legislative authorities and numerous activities and

initiatives, questions about the effectiveness of the Taxpayer Advocate

persist. The questions relate to the Advocate’s (1) organizational

independence within IRS; (2) resource commitments to achieve its

mission; and (3) ability to identify and correct systemic problems

adversely affecting taxpayers. We have recently initiated a study of the

Advocate’s Office to address these questions about the Advocate’s

effectiveness.

The first question centers on the Advocate’s organizational placement at

headquarters and field offices. The Taxpayer Advocate reports to the IRS

Commissioner. Taxpayer Advocates in the field report to the IRS Regional

Commissioner, District Director, or Service Center Director in their

particular geographic area. Thus, these field advocate officials report to

the IRS executives who are responsible for the operations that may have

frustrated taxpayers and created the Advocate’s caseloads.

The second question involves the manner in which the Advocate’s Office is

staffed and funded. For fiscal year 1998, the Advocate’s Office was

authorized 442 positions to handle problem resolution duties. These

authorized Advocate Office staff must rely on assistance from more than

1,000 other field employees, on a full-time or part-time basis, to carry-out

these duties. These 1,000 employees are funded by their functional office,

such as Collection or Customer Service. While working PRP cases, these

employees receive program direction and guidance from the Advocate’s

Office. They are administratively responsible to their Regional

Commissioners, District Directors, or Service Center Directors—again, the

same managers responsible for the operations that may have frustrated

taxpayers.

The third question was debated during oversight hearings last year

regarding the Advocate’s ability to identify and correct IRS systems or

processes that have frustrated taxpayers. The question historically has

been the amount of attention afforded the analysis of problem resolution

cases to identify systemic issues in light of the Advocate’s workload and

available staff. The more recent question, however, has been the ability of

the Advocate’s Office to bring about needed administrative or legislative

changes to address systemic problems.

Questions about organizational placement, dedicated staffing, and ability

to change IRS processes and systems all must be answered in assessing

whether the Advocate’s environment is free of undue pressures that may

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Statement 

Tax Administration: IRS Inspection Service

and Taxpayer Advocate Roles for Ensuring

That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly

detract from its ability to focus on its overall mission. Our recently

initiated study is designed to provide such an assessment of the

Advocate’s effectiveness.

Summary In summary, Mr. Chairman, we are unable to determine whether existing

IRS controls are adequate to ensure that allegations of employee

misconduct and taxpayer abuse are identified, investigated, and prevented

from recurring, because existing systems do not capture this information.

Both Treasury OIG and IRS Inspection have responsibility for investigating

allegations of misconduct. We supported the 1988 amendments to the

Inspectors General Act that established an independent Treasury OIG, and

recognized the IRS Commissioner’s need for an internal capability to

evaluate IRS programs. The Inspectors General Act provides guidance on

the authorities, qualifications, safeguards, resources, and reporting

requirements needed to ensure independent investigative and audit

capabilities.

Questions also remain unanswered about the effectiveness of the

Taxpayer Advocate in representing taxpayers. Regardless of where IRS

Inspection and the Advocate sit organizationally, to protect taxpayers they

must be able to discharge their responsibilities free of undue pressures or

influence and be held accountable for achieving their respective missions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my prepared statement. I will be

happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the

Committee may have.

Page 11 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Appendix I 

Information Systems Related to Taxpayer

Abuse Allegations

Two of the IRS systems—Inspection’s Internal Security Management

Information System (ISMIS) and Human Resources’ Automated Labor and

Employee Relations Tracking System (ALERTS)—are designed to capture

information on cases involving employee misconduct, which may also

involve taxpayer abuse. ISMIS is designed to determine the status and

outcome of Internal Security investigations of alleged employee

misconduct; ALERTS is designed to track disciplinary actions taken

against employees. While ISMIS and ALERTS both track aspects of alleged

employee misconduct, these systems do not share common data elements

or otherwise capture information in a consistent manner.

IRS also has three systems that include information on concerns raised by

taxpayers. These systems include two maintained by the Office of

Legislative Affairs—the Congressional Correspondence Tracking System

and the IRS Commissioner’s Mail Tracking System—as well as the

Taxpayer Advocate’s system known as the Problem Resolution Office

Management Information System (PROMIS). The two Legislative Affairs

systems are designed to track taxpayer inquiries, including those made

through congressional offices, to ensure that responses are provided by

appropriate IRS officials. PROMIS is to track similar inquiries to ensure

that taxpayers’ problems are resolved and to determine whether the

problems are recurring in nature.

Treasury OIG has an information system known as the Treasury OIG

Office of Investigations Management Information System. It is designed to

track the status and outcomes of Treasury OIG investigations as well as

the status and outcomes of actions taken by IRS in response to Treasury

OIG investigations and referrals.

Justice has two information systems that include data that may be related

to taxpayer abuse allegations and investigations. The Executive Office for

the U.S. Attorneys maintains a Centralized Caseload System that is

designed to consolidate the status and results of civil and criminal

prosecutions conducted by U.S. Attorneys throughout the country. Cases

involving criminal misconduct by IRS employees are to be referred to and

may be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney in the particular jurisdiction in

which the alleged misconduct occurred.

The Tax Division of Justice also maintains a Case Management System

that is designed for case tracking, time reporting, and statistical analysis of

litigation cases the Division conducts. Lawsuits against either IRS or IRS

employees are litigated by the Tax Division, with representation provided

Page 12 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Appendix I 

Information Systems Related to Taxpayer

Abuse Allegations

to IRS employees if the Tax Division determines that the actions taken by

the employees were within the scope of employment.

(268841) Page 13 GAO/T-GGD-98-63
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100