jurisdiction: US

text: b'TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With\n International Transactions Reported on\n Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n May 30, 2008\n\n Reference Number: 2008-30-114\n\n\n\n\n This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process\n and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.\n\n Redaction Legend:\n\n 1 = Tax Return/Return Information\n\n Phone Number | 202-622-6500\n Email Address | inquiries@tigta.treas.gov\n Web Site | http://www.tigta.gov\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n\n\n\n\nTREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL\n FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n May 30, 2008\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, LARGE AND MID-SIZE BUSINESS DIVISION\n COMMISSIONER, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED\n DIVISION\n\n FROM: Michael R. Phillips\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With\n International Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n (Audit # 200730IE028)\n\n This report presents the results of our review of examination referrals to international specialists\n (specialists). The overall objective of this review was to assess the timeliness of requesting and\n delivering the assistance of specialists in corporate examinations that have international features.\n We conducted this review as part of our planned Fiscal Year 2008 audit coverage.\n\n Impact on the Taxpayer\n Promoting voluntary tax compliance fairly and equitably is of paramount importance to the IRS.\n However, some in the taxpaying public could perceive inequities in the processes used to select\n and examine corporate tax returns because smaller corporations reporting international\n transactions are far less likely to be scrutinized than larger ones, even when the same types of\n transactions and similar dollar amounts are involved.\n\n Synopsis\n The compliance risk associated with international transactions continues to grow and to present\n tax administration challenges as companies both small and large expand operations across\n international boundaries. The tax issues associated with the expansion involve significant\n potential tax revenues and involve complex arrangements between related companies operating\n in a multinational environment. Because of these and other challenges, the IRS has specifically\n trained specialists to evaluate the risks posed and, if necessary, examine the tax issues to ensure\n that companies operating in a multinational environment are reporting and paying the proper\n amount of taxes.\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\nSpecialists generally do not have overall responsibility for the examination of a tax return.\nTherefore, examiners throughout the IRS have traditionally been required to manually request\ntheir assistance through the Specialist Referral System (SRS) when assigned to examine a tax\nreturn with international features. In Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006, IRS statistics show that\nspecialists nationwide spent about 1.2 million hours on corporate examinations and\nrecommended approximately $8.7 billion in adjustments to the taxable incomes and credits\nreported on corporate income tax returns. This represents nearly one-third of the estimated\n$27.5 billion in total recommended adjustments from these corporate examinations. The\nseemingly high return from the specialists\xe2\x80\x99 efforts did not come at the expense of increasing\ncycle time,1 which indicates that their assistance is generally requested and delivered in a timely\nmanner.\nTo ensure that specialists are involved in evaluating the risk with international transactions\nreported on corporate tax returns, the Large and Mid-Size Business (LMSB) Division uses an\narray of procedures and practices (management controls). For example, the Division enhanced\nits referral capabilities by linking its Workload Identification System2 with the SRS, so that\nbeginning in Fiscal Year 2005 many corporate tax returns with international tax transactions\nwere automatically delivered to examiners and specialists electronically through the IRS Intranet.\nDespite this automated feature, the enhancement is leaving a gap between the number of referrals\nmade to specialists and the number that should be made according to IRS procedures. Also, a\nmajority of tax returns not referred involved examinations that were started in one tax year and\nexpanded to other years when corporate tax returns were ordered by and forwarded to examiners.\nIn contrast to the control processes in the LMSB Division, those in the Small Business/Self-\nEmployed (SB/SE) Division primarily rely on first-line managers to ensure that the examiners\nthey supervise manually request the assistance of specialists through the SRS. These managers\ncan also have broad spans of control and many other administrative demands on their time. As a\nresult, a significant number of high-risk international tax issues that should be scrutinized for\nexamination are missed. We reconciled to the SRS the corporate tax returns containing\ntransfer-pricing transactions and/or foreign tax credits exceeding $25,000 that were listed in the\nSB/SE Division closed examination files for the period October 2005 through December 2006.\nWhile the SB/SE Division closed just 157 corporate tax returns with these international features\nduring the period, the assistance of a specialist was not requested in 143 of the tax returns\n(91 percent) as required.\nOn a larger scale, the limited number of corporate tax returns reporting foreign tax credits and/or\ntransfer-pricing transactions found in the SB/SE Division closed examination files raises\nquestions about how well the Division identifies and selects for examination corporate tax\nreturns with international features. IRS statistics show that the SB/SE Division annually receives\n\n1\n The IRS defines cycle time as the number of days that elapse between the dates tax returns are filed and\nexaminations are completed.\n2\n This application is primarily used by analysts to identify and send returns to first-line managers.\n 2\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\nalmost twice as many corporate tax returns reporting international transactions as the LMSB\nDivision. However, the corporate tax returns received by the SB/SE Division are far less likely\nto be examined, even when significant dollars are involved in the transactions. A high-ranking\nSB/SE Division official advised us that plans are underway to improve the way in which\ncorporate returns with international features are identified and selected for examination. Until\nthese changes have taken place, the IRS risks missing a significant number of high-risk\ninternational tax issues that should be examined.\n\nRecommendations\nWe recommended that the Deputy Commissioner, International, LMSB Division,\n1) re-emphasize to Examination function personnel the situations that require use of the SRS to\nmanually request the involvement of a specialist and 2) initiate an evaluation to help identify and\ndocument the full range of challenges the LMSB Division faces with automating the specialist\nreferral process. We also recommended that the Director, Examination, SB/SE Division,\n1) develop and implement a process to provide better assurance that mandatory referrals are\nbeing made by examiners, 2) expand the Embedded Quality Review System and/or the National\nQuality Review System to include evaluating how well the requirements for requesting specialist\nassistance are met, 3) ensure that examiners are knowledgeable of and use the transfer-pricing\ncompliance process, and 4) implement plans to use specialists in screening corporate tax returns\nwith international features for examination.\n\nResponse\nIn their response to the report, IRS officials agreed with our recommendations and outlined\nnumerous corrective actions to address them. The Deputy Commissioner, International, will\nprovide all LMSB Division personnel with additional guidance that stresses the requirement of\nmaking international referrals early in the examination process and re-emphasizes the need to\nmake a manual referral when prior or subsequent year returns are added to the examination\nprocess. The Deputy Commissioner, International, will also complete an evaluation of the\nautomated referral process to identify and recommend solutions to ensure that international\nexaminers are involved in examinations with international features.\nIn the SB/SE Division, the Director, Examination will ensure, among other things, that the\nEmbedded Quality Review System Job Aids are updated to provide additional guidance on\nrequesting the assistance of a specialist. The Director will also publish materials and provide\ntraining to enhance awareness of international issues. Finally, the Director will develop and\nimplement procedures to include international specialists in the SB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s process for\nscreening corporate tax returns for examination. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the draft\nreport is included as Appendix V.\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\nCopies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report\nrecommendations. Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or\nMargaret E. Begg, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Small Business and Corporate\nPrograms), at (202) 622-8510.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nBackground ..........................................................................................................Page 1\n\nResults of Review ...............................................................................................Page 3\n Additional Steps Are Needed to Ensure That Specialists Are Involved\n in Determining the Scope and Depth of Corporate Examinations With\n International Features....................................................................................Page 4\n Recommendations 1 through 3:.........................................Page 10\n\n Recommendations 4 through 6:.........................................Page 11\n\nAppendices\n Appendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology ........................Page 12\n Appendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ...............................\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\xa6.Page 13\n Appendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List .......................................................Page 14\n Appendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Examiner\xe2\x80\x99s Administrative Lead Sheet ..............................Page 15\n Appendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report .......................Page 18\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Abbreviations\n\nIRS Internal Revenue Service\nLIN Large and Mid-Size Business Image Network\nLMSB Large and Mid-Size Business\nLWIS Large and Mid-Size Business Workload Identification System\nSB/SE Small Business/Self-Employed\nSRS Specialist Referral System\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Background\n\nThe compliance risk associated with international tax transactions continues to grow and to\npresent tax administration challenges as both small and large companies expand operations\nacross international boundaries and engage in cross-border transactions. As described in a\n2006 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announcement,1 reproduced in part below, the related\ninternational tax issues2 associated with the expansion involve significant potential tax revenues\nand involve complex arrangements between related companies operating in a multinational\nenvironment.\n The Internal Revenue Service announced today that it has successfully resolved a transfer\n pricing dispute with Glaxo SmithKline (Americas) Inc. & Subsidiaries (GSK). This case,\n which is pending in the United States Tax Court, represents the largest tax dispute in the\n history of the Internal Revenue Service. Under the settlement agreement, GSK will pay the\n Internal Revenue Service approximately $3.4 billion, and will abandon its claim seeking a\n refund of $1.8 billion in overpaid income taxes, as part of an agreement to resolve the\n parties[sic] long-running transfer pricing dispute for the tax years 1989 through 2005.\n The agreement between GSK and the IRS brings to a conclusion a dispute dating back to\n the 1980s and involves adjustments to GSK\xe2\x80\x99s tax years from 1989 through 2000. The Tax\n Court case concerns \xe2\x80\x9ctransfer pricing,\xe2\x80\x9d an accounting method requiring that related\n parties engage in transactions at arm\xe2\x80\x99s length to ensure the proper reporting of taxable\n income. GSK and the IRS have also reached agreement for tax years 2001 through 2005\n with respect to the transfer pricing issues arising in those years.\n The Tax Court dispute for years 1989-2000 involves intercompany transactions between\n GSK and certain of its foreign affiliates relating to various GSK \xe2\x80\x9cheritage\xe2\x80\x9d\n pharmaceutical products. Specifically at issue is the level of U.S. [United States] profits\n reported by GSK after making intercompany payments that took into account product\n intangibles developed by and trademarks owned by its U.K. [United Kingdom] parent, and\n other activities outside the U.S., and the value of GSK\xe2\x80\x99s marketing and other contributions\n in the U.S. Under the settlement agreement, GSK has conceded over 60% of the total\n amount put in issue by the two parties for the years pending in Tax Court.\nTo address the challenges posed by international taxation, the IRS uses a variety of approaches to\nidentify and resolve tax issues as early as possible. Companies, for example, can work with the\nIRS in processes designed to resolve potential areas of disagreement before filing their tax\n\n1\n IR-2006-142, September 11, 2006.\n2\n Tax issues are potential areas of controversy because, from the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 perspective, they could represent\nnoncompliance.\n Page 1\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\nreturns. One such process that we have previously reported3 on is the Pre-Filing Agreement\nprogram. Unlike a regular examination, during which issues are often resolved long after the tax\nreturn has been filed, the objective of the Pre-Filing Agreement program is to resolve a\npotentially contentious tax issue before the tax return is filed. The Advanced Pricing Agreement\nprogram is another process that can be used in the pre-filing environment to avoid\nmultimillion dollar transfer-pricing disputes, such as the one initially discussed in this report.\nUnder the Advanced Pricing Agreement program, the IRS and participating companies agree on\nthe methods to determine the prices that related businesses charge each other when transferring\ngoods and services. To monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement, participating\ncompanies submit annual reports to the IRS.\nIn the post-filing environment, where a significant number of high-risk international tax issues\nare identified during the examination process, international specialists (specialists) are\nresponsible for evaluating the risk posed by the issues and, if necessary, examining them to help\nensure that companies operating in a multinational environment are reporting and paying the\nproper amounts of taxes. Specialists are generally selected from the ranks of experienced IRS\nexaminers and specifically trained to take on the complexities of the international tax laws.\nOrganizationally, the approximately 417 specialists are assigned to the Large and Mid-Size\nBusiness (LMSB) Division, even though the majority of corporate tax returns with international\nfeatures are filed with the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division.4\nSpecialists generally do not have overall responsibility for the examination of a tax return.\nTherefore, examiners throughout the IRS are required to request their assistance when assigned\nto examine a tax return with international features. To make requests for assistance faster and\nless cumbersome, the IRS replaced a paper process with the Specialist Referral System (SRS) in\n2002. The SRS allows examiners to request a specialist\xe2\x80\x99s assistance online. It also provides\nmanagement with a tool for easily monitoring the timeliness of service requests.\nThis review was performed in the LMSB and SB/SE Divisions, respectively headquartered\nin Washington, D.C., and New Carrollton, Maryland, during the period March through\nAugust 2007. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted\ngovernment auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to\nobtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\nconclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a\nreasonable basis for our finding and conclusions based on our audit objective. Detailed\ninformation on our audit objective, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major\ncontributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.\n\n\n3\n The Pre-Filing Agreement Program for Large Businesses Has Yielded Modest Results (Reference\nNumber 2005-30-151, dated September 2005).\n4\n The LMSB Division serves corporations with $10 million or more in assets, and the SB/SE Division serves all\nother corporations.\n Page 2\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Results of Review\n\nThe contributions that specialists make to the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 compliance efforts are substantial and\nexpected to increase. In Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006, IRS statistics show that specialists\nnationwide spent about 1.2 million hours on corporate examinations and recommended\napproximately $8.7 billion in adjustments to the taxable incomes and credits reported on\ncorporate income tax returns. This represents about 32 percent of the estimated $27.5 billion in\ntotal recommended adjustments from corporate examinations during these years. It also\nindicates that for each hour spent on a corporate examination, a specialist recommended about\n$7,275 in adjustments. Comparatively, examiners in both the LMSB and SB/SE Divisions\nrecommended about $5,233 for each hour spent on a corporate examination during this\n5-year period.\nAs reflected in Figure 1, the seemingly high return from the specialists\xe2\x80\x99 efforts did not come at\nthe expense of increasing cycle time,5 providing evidence that their assistance is generally\nrequested and delivered in a timely manner. This is important because IRS executives, as well as\nother stakeholders, have focused considerable attention on the need to reduce the time, costs, and\nburdens associated with lengthy cycle times.\n Figure 1: Cycle Time of Corporate Examinations\n in Fiscal Years 2002 Through 2006\n\n Average elapsed days from the date the corporate tax return\n was filed until the examination was completed\n Specialist assistance Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Year\n requested and delivered Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004 Year 2005 2006\n No 1,235 1,431 1,281 1,269 1,031\n Yes 1,211 1,336 1,148 1,027 934\n Difference 24 95 133 242 97\nSource: Our analysis of the IRS Audit Information Management System data.6\n\nAccording to the new Service-wide Approach to International Tax Administration, specialists are\nexpected to play an even bigger compliance role in the coming years, as the IRS has determined\nthat businesses of all types and sizes are increasingly engaging in cross-border transactions as\nparticipants in the expanding global economy. To meet the challenges associated with the tax\nissues and business structures that are evolving with globalization, the IRS expects that the\nspecialists will be a critically important component in its plans for expanding international\n5\n The IRS defines cycle time as the number of days that elapse between the dates tax returns are filed and\nexaminations are completed.\n6\n The Audit Information Management System is used to monitor and report on tax returns in the examination stream.\n Page 3\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\nexpertise organizationally, improving examination coverage, increasing specialization, and\nreducing the tax gap attributable to international transactions.\nDespite the important contributions that specialists are making to tax administration, the IRS is\nmissing opportunities to take greater advantage of their expertise in determining the scope and\ndepth of corporate examinations with international features. The missed opportunities in the\nSB/SE Division are a particular concern because this Division serves the majority of\ncorporations that report international transactions.\nAdditional Steps Are Needed to Ensure That Specialists Are Involved\nin Determining the Scope and Depth of Corporate Examinations With\nInternational Features\nThe Government Accountability Office Standards for Internal Control in the Federal\nGovernment provides an overall framework for control processes that, in short, require\nestablishing procedures and practices that ensure actions are taken to curtail risks. We used these\nstandards in assessing the degree to which LMSB Division and SB/SE Division procedures and\npractices provide reasonable assurances that international specialists have the opportunity to\nevaluate the international transactions reported on tax returns in the examination stream.\nSpecifically, we reconciled to the SRS the 1,987 corporate tax returns that reported\ntransfer-pricing transactions and/or foreign tax credits exceeding a certain amount and were\nlisted in LMSB Division closed examination files for the period October 2005 through\nDecember 2006. Although all the tax returns had been assigned to LMSB Division examiners\nand each required a referral to a specialist, our reconciliation showed that referrals were not\nmade in 1,069 (54 percent) of the 1,987 tax returns.\nTo determine if a referral problem might exist in the SB/SE Division, we similarly reconciled to\nthe SRS the corporate tax returns containing the same characteristics that were listed in its closed\nexamination files for the same 15-month period. Our results showed that an even higher\npercentage of required referrals were not made to international specialists. While the SB/SE\nDivision closed just 157 corporate tax returns with these international features during the period,\n143 of these returns (91 percent) were not referred as required.\nTo provide assurances of the accuracy of the SRS, we reviewed the case files associated with a\njudgmental sample of 32 tax returns that were included in our analysis. In three instances, the\nSRS showed that a referral was not made, but documentation in the case file showed that the\nexaminer included the issue in the scope of the examination after a telephone conversation with a\nspecialist. Because none of the case files showed that the specialist actually reviewed the tax\nreturn and/or the corporate records as required by IRS guidelines, we concluded that the SRS\naccurately reflected that a referral was not made in these instances. We did not identify any\ncases for which a referral was reflected in the SRS but was not in the case files reviewed.\n\n\n Page 4\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\nOf course, absent an examination by a specialist, we have no way of determining whether any of\nthe corporations that filed tax returns that were not referred avoided taxes that might have\notherwise been owed. Overall, the 1,212 tax returns that were not referred to an international\nspecialist (out of the 2,144 returns listed in the closed examination files for the period\nOctober 2005 through December 2006) reflected foreign tax credits and transfer-pricing\ntransactions totaling more than $72 billion. In addition, the LMSB Division control processes\nprovide a greater level of assurance that specialists will have an opportunity to evaluate the\ncompliance risk associated with international transactions reported on tax returns than those in\nthe SB/SE Division.\nAn array of procedures and practices in the LMSB Division emphasize the\nimportance of specialist involvement in corporate examinations with international\nfeatures\nSince the LMSB Division began operation in 2000, its control processes have emphasized the\nimportance of specialist involvement in corporate examinations with international features.\nThese controls include the Internal Revenue Manual,7 management directives, and the LMSB\nDivision quality measurement standards. One management directive issued in 2003, for\nexample, was part of a comprehensive transfer-pricing strategy coordinated with the Department\nof the Treasury Office of Tax Policy that instructed examiners to request the transfer-pricing\npractices from companies and to promptly refer the information to a specialist for evaluation of\nthe risk associated with the practices. The importance of obtaining and evaluating the\ntransfer-pricing practices from companies during examinations was subsequently expanded,\nelaborated on, and incorporated in the Internal Revenue Manual.\nThe LMSB Division Quality Measurement System staff evaluate several hundred examination\ncases each year and assess the degree to which examiners are complying with procedures for\ninvolving specialists in examinations with international features. A primary purpose of the\nevaluations review is to identify problem areas in the examination process so they can be\nelevated to management for corrective action. In recent years, the LMSB Division has moved\naway from a traditional, broad-based examination process to one that is focused on specific\nhigh-risk tax issues. To support its limited issue-focused examination process, the LMSB\nDivision is using evolving technologies to develop and introduce new compliance tools, such as\nthe LMSB Image Network (LIN) system.\nIntroduced in Fiscal Year 2004, the LIN system is designed to take advantage of the efficiencies\noffered by electronic filing by imaging paper returns filed with the LMSB Division and\ndelivering them to examiners electronically through an IRS Intranet site hosted by the Statistics\n\n\n\n7\n The Internal Revenue Manual is an official compilation of procedures, instructions, and guidelines that govern the\noperational features of the IRS; it includes guidance that examiners are required to follow for requesting the\nassistance of specialists in examinations with international features.\n Page 5\n\x0c Acfions Are Needed fo Confro/ Risks With lnfemationa/\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\nof Income Division.\' The LIN system provides an electronic image that is made available for\nassignment to LhdSB Division examiners via the LhISB Workload Identification System\n(LlVIS).9 In 2005, the LMSB Division enhanced its referral capabilities by linking the LIVIS\nwith the SRS, so that requests for assistance from specialists are automatically generated.\nImportantly, the enhancement is also intended to better ensure that specialists have the\nopportunity to be involved in determining the scope and depth of examinations with international\nfeatures.\nDespite the automated feature, the enhancement is leaving a large gap between the number of\nreferrals made to specialists and the number that should be made according to IRS procedures.\nAs summarized in Figure 2, we found that 257 (73 percent) of the 350 corporate tax returns in\nthe population analyzed were not referred as required after the link between the LIVIS system\nand the SRS was established.\n Figure 2: Corporate Tax Returns W t h Transfer-Pricing Transactions and/or\n Foreign Tax Credits Exceeding $25,000 in the LMSB Division October 2005\n Through December 2006 Closed Examination Flies\n Referrals tit the poplihtion anabred 1 Nzimber 1 Percetitage\n Retutns assigned to examiners .that required a referral to a specialist. 1\n I\n 1,987 1\n I\n 100%\n Retutns assigned to examiners and referred to a specialist as required. 918 46%\n\n Referrals befare Nitking the L FVIS system with the SRS\n Retutns assigned to examiners that required a referral to a specialist. 1,637 100%\n I I\n\n\n\n\n Referrals after liiikiiig the L F t l S system with the SRS\n Retutns assigned to examiners .that required a referral to a specialist.\n I\n 350 1\n I\n 100%\n Returns assigned to examiners and referred to a specialist as required. 93 27%\n Returns assigned to examiners and not referred to a specialist as required. 257 73%\n I I\n\nSoltrce: Our cmulysis of the IRS Audit Irorrnation .\\frniugement Systern, the L VfISsystem, and the SRS\nOur analysis showed that a substantial majority (179 of 257) of the tax returns that were not\nreferred to a specialist involved examinations that were started in one tax year and e o\nother years when corporate tax returns were ordered by and fonvarded to examiners.\n\n\n\' This Division is responsible for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information on Federal taxation for the\nDepartment of the Treasur~rOffice of Tax Analysis, Congressional Committees, the IRS in its administration of tax\nlaws?other organizations engaged in economic and financial analysis, and the geneml public.\n The LWlS application is primarily used by analysts to identify and send retutns to first-line managers.\n Page 6\n\x0c Acfiuns Are Needed tu C o n f d Risks Wifh Infemafiunaf\n Transacfions Repurfed un Curprrrafe Income Tax Refurns\n\n\n\n\n To its credit, the LMSB Division recognize\nautomated feature and has issued guidance to examiners. The guidance, among other things,\ninstructs examiners to access the SRS online and to manually request the assistance of a\nspecialist in certain situations, such as when expanding examinations with international features\nto other tax years.\nDespite the guidance to examiners, there are other problems with the 257 tax returns that were\nnot referred in the population we analyzed. Specifically, we found a code missing in IRS\ncomp~~ter records that is used to identi@ tax returns with international features. This might have\ncaused 26 of the 257 tax returns to not be referred as required. Finally, we were unable to\ndetermine n7hy 50 other tax returns were not referred, even though they collectively reported\ntransfer-pricing transactions and foreign tax credits totaling $1 billion.\nWhile these other problems might indicate deficiencies in the LIVIS system, the SRS, or the link\nbetween the two systems, the work needed to make that determination was beyond the scope of\nour review. We believe, however, that it would be useful for the LMSB Division to incorporate\nour observations in an evaluation of the issue with the personnel who were involved in planning\nand implementing the automated feature. This kind of internal evaluation would be in line with\nthe Government Performance and Results Act of 19931\xc2\xb0 in terms of identifying improvement\noptions and might help lay a stronger foundation to take full advantage of the efficiencies offered\nby electronic filing.\nCorporations served by the SB/SE Division that are enclaqincl in international\ntransactions are far less iikeiv to be examined than those served by the LMSB\nDivision\nIn contrast to the control processes in the LMSB Division, those in the SBi\'SE Division provide\nless assurance that specialists will have an opportunity to evaluate the risk posed by international\ntransactions reported on corporate tax returns. As a result, significant international tax issues\nthat should be examined can be missed, and implementation of the Service-wide Approach to\nInternational Tax Administration could be undermined.\nWe found that neither the SB/SE Division Embedded Quality Review System\'\' nor its National\nQuality Review System" specifically evaluate and report on the extent to which its examiners\ncomply with requirements for involving specialists. In addition, examiners have not recei~~ed\nwritten instructions on carrying out the transfer-pricing compliance process. The SBi\'SE\n\n\nl o Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.? 3 1 U.S.C.? and\n39 U.S.C.).\n\'\' The Embedded Quality Review System allows field managers to provide timely feedback to individual employees\nthrough performance case re\\ \'iews.\n \'\n\n" The National Quality Review System conducts closad case reviews and provides quality measurement results for\nthe SB/SE Division.\n Page 7\n\x0c Acfiuns Are Needed fu Cunfruf Risks Wifh /nfemationaf\n Transacfiuns Reported on Coporate /ncume Tax Refurns\n\n\n\n\nDivision instead primarily relies on first-line managers to ensure that the examiners they\nsupervise follow the requirements for involving specialists in examinations with international\nfeatures. These managers can also have broad spans of control and many other administrative\ndemands on their time.\nAlthough the first-line managers we surveyed were aware of the requirement to request the\nassistance of a specialist, some did not always follow the requirement because they saw no\npotential issues worth examining. Other first-line managers stated that they did not want to\ninvolve an "outside" specialist due to concerns that the process could be time consuming and\nthereby delay closing the examination. Our analysis of IRS examination closed case data,\nhowever, indicates that there is little justification for this concern. As discussed earlier,\ncorporate examinations with a specialist involved less cycle time than those without a specialist.\nIn addition, examinations with the involvement of a specialist resulted in significantly greater\nrecommended additional assessments than those with no specialist involvement.\nIn discussions about control processes, SB/SE Division officials noted that both the Embedded\nQuality Review System and the National Qudity Review System capture information on the\ndegree to which examiners are complying with procedures for involving all types of IRS\nspecialists in examinations. They explained that, besides international specialists, there are\nsituations in which examiners are required to request the assistance of other IRS examination\nspecialists. These other specialists include, among others, economists, engineers, and computer\naudit specialists. The officials also noted that SB/SE Division controfs include requiring\nexaminers to complete an Administrative Lead Sheet13to include in examination case files. The\nAdministrative Lead Sheet is a checklist designed to solicit answers to important procedural and\nprocess questions, such as whether specialists were involved in examinations when required.\nWe agreed to re-examine the SB/SE Division quality review systems and to review the\ndocumentation on the Administrative Lead Sheet in our sample examination case files. As\nSB/SE Division ofijcials indicated, we found that both the Embedded Quality Review System\nand the National Quality Review System have the capability to report on whether procedures for\ninvolving IRS specialists in general are followed in the examination process. However, neither\nSystem reports on the extent to which examiners comply with the specific requirement for\ninvolving international specialists. As a result, problems with involving international specialists\nin examinations could go undetected if the procedures for involving other specialists are\nfollowed. Further, the decision to evaluate whether examiners are following the procedures for\ninvolving international specialists in examinations is left to the discretion of the first-line\nmanager performing the review under the Embedded Quality Review System.\n\n\n\n\nl 3 See Appendix IV for a reproduction of the Administrative Lead Sheet that was available to examiners on the IRS\nIntranet in March 2008.\n Page 8\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Controf Risks Wifh intemationa/\n Transactions Reported on Corporate income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n The Lead Sheet solicited\nanswers about whether requests for various specialists were made as required and contained\n\n\n\n\nbe updated with the current Internal Revenue hdanual section1:\'on involving international\nspecialists in examinations, which was changed in 2002, and does not require first-line managers\nto sign the Lead Sheet certifying that the actions were properly completed. As we have\npreviously reported,15manager certifications can be an important control component to hold\npersonnef accountable for ensuring that required procedwes are completed properly.\nOn a larger scale, the limited number of corporate tax returns reporting foreign tax credits andi\'or\ntransfer-pricing transactions found in the SB!SE Division\'s closed examination files raises\nquestions about how well the Division identifies and selects for examination corporate tax\nreturns with international features. IRS statistics show that the SB/SE Division annually receives\nalmost twice as many corporate tax returns reporting international transactions as the\nLhISB Division. However, as shown in Figure 3, the corporate tax returns received by the\nSB/SE Division are far less likely to be examined, even when significant dollars are invohed in\nthe transactions.\n Figure 3: Examination Coverage for Corporations Reporting Transfer-Pricing\n Transactions on Tax Returns Filed in Processing Years 2003 Through 2004\n\n\n -\n $1 million or More -\n\n . ,\n Returns received\n ,\n Returns examined\n cv\'\n SB/SE\n LMSB\n 21,253\n 3-306\n 126 (I?/b)\n 436 (13?/b)\n . , I\n(4)- These figures include examinations of corporate tax returns that were completed or in process as of\n . ,\n\nNovember 30.2007.\nSotlrce. Our a?~aIysisof the Bzoi?~essRetzlt-lu Traluaction ~ i l e m\' ~~ the\n d A d i t Ir?formutio?~\n .\\fa~~agementSystem\n\n\n\n\'"he section referenced on the Lead Sheet should be revised from an Internal Revznue Manual pertaining to\nclassification of international feature returns to referral criteria and procedures.\n The Strategy to Re-emnph,size Penalties in C o r p r a f eE.~a?nirlutiorls Cotlld Be E r ~ h n c e d(Reference\nNumber 2005-30-123, dated August 2005).\n l6 The Business Returns Transaction File contains information transcribed from taxrctums filed by corporations,\npartnerships, and other business entities.\n Page 9\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\nDue to time constraints, we did not expand our work to include determining the various factors\nthat might be contributing to the low number of examinations the SB/SE Division is conducting\nof corporate returns with international features. However, we did discuss the issue with a\nhigh-ranking SB/SE Division official who told us that plans are underway to improve the way in\nwhich corporate returns with international features are identified and selected for examination.\nThe plans include using special audit codes to identify returns with specific international features\nand having specialists routinely participate in evaluating the compliance risk on the returns\nidentified by the special audit codes before examinations are initiated. These plans, coupled with\nactions to strengthen the control processes, should increase the involvement of specialists in the\nexamination process. However, until these plans are in place and the actions are completed, the\nIRS is at risk of missing significant international tax issues that should be examined.\nRecommendations\nRecommendation 1: The Deputy Commissioner, International, should re-emphasize to\nLMSB Division examination personnel the situations that require using the SRS to manually\nrequest the involvement of a specialist.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. The\n Deputy Commissioner, International, will issue a memorandum to all LMSB Division\n personnel reminding them of the requirement to make an international referral early in\n the examination process. The memorandum will also remind examiners that a manual\n referral is necessary when prior or subsequent year returns that meet the mandatory\n referral criteria are added to the examination process.\nRecommendation 2: The Deputy Commissioner, International, should initiate an evaluation\nto help identify and document the full range of challenges the LMSB Division faces with\nautomating the specialist referral process. The evaluation should include the observations\nidentified in this report and provide solutions to better ensure that specialists are involved in\ndetermining the scope and depth of examinations with international features.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. The\n Deputy Commissioner, International, will complete an evaluation of the automated\n referral process to identify and recommend solutions to ensure that international\n examiners are involved in examinations with international features.\nRecommendation 3: The Director, Examination, SB/SE Division, should develop and\nimplement a process to provide better assurance that examiners are requesting the assistance of\nspecialists. This could be accomplished by ensuring that the Administrative Lead Sheet refers\nexamination personnel to the correct Internal Revenue Manual sections for guidance and requires\nfirst-line managers to certify that procedures were properly followed.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. The\n Director, Examination, SB/SE Division, will ensure that the Administrative Lead Sheets\n\n Page 10\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n reflect the appropriate Internal Revenue Manual sections for guidance and that first-line\n managers review the Lead Sheets for international procedures during their scheduled\n reviews of cases.\nRecommendation 4: The Director, Examination, SB/SE Division, should coordinate with\nother decision makers in expanding the Embedded Quality Review System and/or the National\nQuality Review System to include evaluating how well the requirements for requesting specialist\nassistance are followed, so that problems can be identified, evaluated, and addressed.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. The\n Director, Examination, SB/SE Division, will ensure that the Embedded Quality Review\n System Job Aids are updated to include additional guidance to determine if the\n appropriate steps were taken to request a specialist in cases selected for review.\nRecommendation 5: The Director, Examination, SB/SE Division, should ensure that\nexaminers are knowledgeable of and use the transfer-pricing compliance process.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. The\n Director, Examination, SB/SE Division, will ensure that examiners\xe2\x80\x99 awareness of\n international issues is enhanced by 1) publishing an article concerning international\n referral criteria and procedures in the Technical Digest and 2) including a mandatory\n topic in the Fiscal Year 2009 Revenue Agents\xe2\x80\x99 Continuing Professional Education.\nRecommendation 6: The Director, Examination, SB/SE Division, should follow through and\nimplement plans to use specialists in the tax return screening process to increase the number of\ncorporate tax returns with international features that are identified and selected for examination.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. The\n Director, Examination, SB/SE Division, will coordinate with the Director, International\n Compliance, Strategy, and Policy, LMSB Division, to develop and implement procedures\n designed to include LMSB Division international specialists in the SB/SE Division\n corporate tax return classification process.\n\n\n\n\n Page 11\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n Appendix I\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nOur objective was to assess the timeliness of requesting and delivering the assistance of\ninternational specialists (specialists) in corporate examinations that have international features.\nDuring the review, we relied on IRS databases. Although we did not conduct audit tests to\ndetermine the accuracy and completeness of the information in any of the databases, we checked\nthe reliability of the information against source documents. Our checks are described below and\ndid not identify any material errors in the information used from the databases. To meet our\nobjective, we:\nI. Used the Government Accountability Office Standards for Internal Control in the\n Federal Government to assess the policies, procedures, and practices the IRS had\n established for ensuring that the assistance of specialists is requested and delivered in a\n timely manner.\nII. Used the IRS Audit Information Management System, Business Returns Transaction File,\n and Foreign Information System1 in conjunction with the SRS2 to evaluate statistics from\n corporate tax returns reporting transfer-pricing transactions and/or foreign tax credits.\nIII. Reviewed a judgmental sample3 of 32 of the 2,144 corporate cases (1,987 LMSB\n Division returns and 157 SB/SE Division returns) containing transfer-pricing transactions\n and/or foreign tax credits that were closed by examiners between October 1, 2005, and\n December 31, 2006, to evaluate whether required procedures were followed and the\n information in IRS databases was reliable enough to meet our objective.\nIV. Identified challenges to ensuring that tax returns with international features selected for\n examination are screened for potential international tax issues by interviewing a\n judgmental sample of 47 of the 185 first-line managers who supervised examiners that\n had closed 1 or more corporate tax returns from the examination stream with\n transfer-pricing transactions and/or foreign tax credits greater than a certain amount.\n\n\n1\n The Audit Information Management System is used to monitor and report on tax returns in the examination stream.\nThe Business Returns Transaction File contains information transcribed from tax returns filed by corporations,\npartnerships, and other business entities. The Foreign Information System contains information transcribed from the\nInformation Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations (Form 5471) and Information\nReturn of a 25% Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business\n(Form 5472).\n2\n The SRS allows examiners to request a specialist\xe2\x80\x99s assistance online. It also provides management with a tool for\neasily monitoring the timeliness of service requests.\n3\n Judgmental sampling techniques were used for all samples to conserve time and resources.\n Page 12\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n Appendix II\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nMargaret E. Begg, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Small Business and Corporate\nPrograms)\nPhilip Shropshire, Director\nFrank Dunleavy, Director\nRobert Jenness, Acting Audit Manager\nTimothy Greiner, Lead Auditor\nEarl Burney, Senior Auditor\nStanley Pinkston, Senior Auditor\nDebra Mason, Auditor\nAli Vaezazizi, Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n Appendix III\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nCommissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE\nDeputy Commissioner, Large and Mid-Size Business Division SE:LM\nDeputy Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S\nDeputy Commissioner, International SE:LM:IN\nDirector, Campus Compliance Services, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S:CCS\nDirector, Examination, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S:E\nDirector, Field Specialists SE:LM:FS\nChief Counsel CC\nNational Taxpayer Advocate TA\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nDirector, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O\nOffice of Internal Control OS:CFO:CPIC:IC\nAudit Liaisons:\n Commissioner, Large and Mid-Size Business Division SE:LM\n Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n Appendix IV\n\n Examiner\xe2\x80\x99s Administrative Lead Sheet\n\n Administrative Lead Sheet\nOverview of the Lead Sheet Workpaper System Yes No N/A Reference\nPre-Audit\n If applicable, follow TEFRA procedures (IRM 4.31.1.3)\n Is collectibility an issue? (IRM 4.10.2.4.3 & 4.20.2)\n Use \xe2\x80\x9cRevenue Agent Plan to Close\xe2\x80\x9d Check Sheet 110\n\nPower of Attorney (POA) (IRM 21.3.7.2) \xe2\x80\x93 ATTACH COPY OF POA TO RETURN\n Determine if valid POA exists (CC CFINK)\n Enter required information on POA and date stamp\n Route or Fax POA to CAF Unit within 5 days\n\nInitial Taxpayer Contact (IRM 4.10.2.7 & IRM 4.10.2.8)\n Use Initial Taxpayer Contact Check Sheet 120\n RRA \xe2\x80\x98Separate Notice Requirements (IRM 4.10.1.6.8)\n Unlocatable Taxpayer (IRM 4.10.2.7.2 & 4.10.2.8.6)\n\nInitial Appointment\n Use Initial Appointment Agenda 125-1\n Issue Initial Appointment Agreement (Optional)\n\nAbusive Tax Avoidance Transactions (ATAT) (IRM 4.32)\n Probe for participation in Domestic and Offshore Abusive Tax\n Schemes and Listed Transactions\n\nReferrals (IRM 4.10.2.6.7) Use Specialist Referral System\n Employment Tax , Employee Plans (IRM 4.10.5.9(1))\n Engineers (IRM 4.3.16, Section 1.5), International (IRM 4.60.5)\n Excise Tax (IRM 4.10.5.8(3)), Economist (IRM 4.49.1)\n Computer Assisted Audit (IRM 4.47)\n Estate and Gift\n TEGE (IRM 4.32.2)\n\nStatute of Limitations (IRM 4.10.2.2.1)\n Statute Extension (IRM 25.6.22)\n Provide and discuss Publication 1035\n\n\n Page 15\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Administrative Lead Sheet\nOverview of the Lead Sheet Workpaper System Yes No N/A Reference\nDate stamp original and duplicate copy of extension forms\nForward extension forms and case file to group manager\nAttach original extension form to tax return and return signed copy of\nconsent to taxpayer with Letter-929\n\nIssue Resolution (IRM 4.10.7.5)\n Consider partial agreement for unagreed cases\n Corrected Reports (IRM 4.10.8.12)\n Special Reports and Forms (IRM 4.10.8.13)\n Researching Tax Law (IRM 4.10.7.2)\n Offer Fast Track Mediation for unagreed issues Pub 3605\n Offer Manager\xe2\x80\x99s Conference\n Provide to taxpayer/representative Pub 3498 with initial\n RAR or 30-Day letter (send to each spouse individually)\n Previously issued RAR\xe2\x80\x99s, UNSIGNED (IRM 4.10.8.11) 105-1.3\n\nPayment (IRM 4.20.3 & 4.23.10)\n Solicit Payment (Full, Partial, Installment Agreement)\n Coordinate with Collection if applicable\n\nAdditional Procedural Items\n Information Report (Form 5346; IRM 4.10.8.13)\n IRC 6404(g), Suspension of Interest\n Innocent Spouse Provisions (IRM 4.10.1.6.4)\n Third Party Contacts (IRM 4.10.1.6.12)\n Summons (IRM 25.5, Summons Handbook)\n Claims for Refund (IRM 4.10.8.8)\n Nonfilers (IRM 4.10.6.8.3 & 4.10.5.2.5)\n Whipsaw Issues (IRM 4.10.7.4.9)\n No-Change Report (IRM 4.10.8.2)\n Unagreed Reports, T-Letter, etc. (IRM 4.10.8.10)\n Rules of Practice Before the IRS (Circular 230)\n Referral to the Office of Professional Responsibility\n (IRM 20.1.6.2.1 & Form 8484, Report of Suspected Practitioner\n Misconduct)\n SBSE Lead Development Center \xe2\x80\x93 referral of Promoters and\n Preparers of Abusive Schemes (Requires manually prepared referral\n form IRM 4.32.2)\n Inadequate Records Notice (IRM 4.10.8.16)\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Administrative Lead Sheet\n Overview of the Lead Sheet Workpaper System Yes No N/A Reference\n Was return prepared for compensation?\n (If yes, complete remaining items)\n Identification penalties required?\n Did preparer negotiate refund?\n Did taxpayer receive a copy of return?\n LMSB/Office Tax Shelter Administration (IRM 4.32.2)\n\n Case File Assembly (IRM 4.10.9.6)\n Form 3198 (IRM 4.10.3.16.5)\n Form 5344 (IRM 4.10.8.16.1)\n Complete EOAD Data\n Move case to Fileserver\n\nIRM = Internal Revenue Manual.\nSource: IRS Intranet, March 2008.\n\n\n\n\n Page 17\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\n Transactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n Appendix V\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\nTransactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\nTransactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\nTransactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\nTransactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\nTransactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Control Risks With International\nTransactions Reported on Corporate Income Tax Returns\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\x0c'


type: other

text:
PR 17/2019 s. 587 - Beck-online
 PR 17/2019 s. 587
 II. Zamýšlené a uskutečněné novelizace zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím
 III. Přijaté řešení
 IV. Další změny lze očekávat
 Právní rozhledy 17/2019, s. 587
 [Právní rozhledy 17/2019, s. 587]
 Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím byl na jaře tohoto roku předmětem poměrně zásadní novelizace. Za nejvýznamnější změny lze považovat zejména zavedení informačního příkazu, vyřešení balančního testu pro další využití zveřejněných osobních údajů a nové kompetence Úřadu pro ochranu osobních údajů v přezkumu vyřízení žádosti o informace. Nabízí se tak analýza změn i ve světle nové open data směrnice přijaté v rámci EU.
 Mgr. František Nonnemann, Praha*
 Právo v oblasti přístupu k informacím upravené v českém právním prostředí především zákonem č. 106/1999 Sb., o svobodném přístupu k informacím („SvInf“), prožívá opět poměrně turbulentní období. Zásadní novela tohoto zákona z dílny Ministerstva vnitra legislativním procesem zatím neprošla, na druhé straně byl zákon již na jaře novelizován a Parlament přijal zásadní koncepční změny. Mimo jiné zavedl tzv. informační příkaz, který má výrazně urychlit vyřízení žádosti o informace, a rovněž upravil kompetence Úřadu pro ochranu osobních údajů („Úřad“) jako toho, kdo v některých případech přezkoumává správnost vyřízení žádosti o informace. Některé změny již nabyly účinnosti, jiné, zejména týkající se kompetencí Úřadu, budou účinné až od 1. 1. 2020. Následující text si klade za cíl tyto poměrně zásadní změny v příslušné oblasti práva analyzovat a zasadit do kontextu celého právního řádu.
 Ministerstvo vnitra připravilo koncepční novelu zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím, která měla řešit několik důležitých otázek. Jedná se zejména o definici veřejného subjektu jako subjektu povinného poskytovat informace v režimu tohoto předpisu, možnost požadovat po žadatelích o informace zálohu v případě mimořádně rozsáhlého vyhledávání informací či možnost odmítnout žádost, pokud se v konkrétním případě jedná o zneužití práva na přístup k informacím.1 Návrh měl být projednán vládou dne 1. 7. tohoto roku, nicméně předkladatel, ministr vnitra, jej z jednání vlády stáhl s tím, že je nejprve nutno vypořádat zásadní rozpory s některými připomínkovými místy.
 Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím byl však novelizován již v dubnu tohoto roku, a to v rámci projednávání adaptační legislativy k obecnému nařízení o ochraně osobních údajů („GDPR“).2 Vláda k adaptaci českého právního řádu na GDPR navrhla dva zákony: nový zákon o zpracování osobních údajů, nahrazující původní zákon č. 101/2000 Sb., o ochraně osobních údajů a o změně některých zákonů („OchOsÚ“),3 a doprovodný změnový zákon měnící téměř čtyři desítky dalších předpisů, především, ale ne výlučně, upravujících činnost veřejných úřadů, resp. specifika jimi prováděného zpracování osobních údajů.4 Tento změnový zákon obsahoval v části patnácté i novelizaci zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím, ovšem novelizaci spíše menšího rozsahu. Jejím obsahem bylo jednak výslovné zakotvení výjimek z povinnosti poskytovat informace tam, kde by to ohrozilo ochranu utajovaných informací či ochranu zájmů České republiky, a dále se přímo do zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím přebíral právní titul pro zpřístupnění informací, osobních údajů, o veřejně činných osobách, který byl až dosud upraven v § 5 odst. 2 písm. f) OchOsÚ.5
 V průběhu legislativního procesu navrhl poslanec Jakub Michálek významné doplnění výše uvedených předpisů.6 Dle jeho návrhu měla být Úřadu zákonem o zpracování osobních údajů, jímž je Úřad zřizován, výslovně přiznána nová kompetence v oblasti práva na přístup k informacím. Úřad tak měl mít možnost provádět v dané oblasti přezkumné řízení a činit opatření proti nečinnosti. Dle uvedeného návrhu byla tato oblast působnosti systematicky doplněna i do dalších souvisejících ustanovení, např. kvalifikačních předpokladů členů Úřadu, kompetencí v oblasti poskytování konzultací či připomínkování návrhů právních předpisů ze strany Úřadu.
 Do změnového zákona bylo stejným poslancem navrženo doplnění výše zmíněné patnácté části tak, aby i v zákoně o svobodném přístupu k informacím bylo uvedeno, jaká je role Úřadu při přezkumu postupu povinných subjektů. Poslanec Michálek rovněž navrhl zavedení tzv. informačního příkazu, jímž by nadřízený orgán, a v některých případech i Úřad, mohl při přezkumném řízení nařídit poskytnutí informací. Informační příkaz měl být vykonatelným (exekuovatelným) titulem.7
 V průběhu legislativního procesu došlo k tomu, že uvedené pozměňovací návrhy k zákonu o zpracování osobních údajů byly zamítnuty Senátem, přičemž Poslanecká sněmovna senátní verzi nepřehlasovala. Kompetence Úřadu do nového zákona o zpracování osobních údajů tak doplněna nebyla. Pozměňovací návrh ke změnovému zákonu (resp. přímá novelizace zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím) však přijat byl, protože Poslanecká sněmovna setrvala na své původní verzi a nepřijala senátní připomínky.
 K zákonu o svobodném přístupu k informacím byl podán i další pozměňovací návrh, a to poslancem Ondřejem Profantem. Jmenovaný navrhl přímo v zákoně vyřešit případnou kolizi práva na ochranu soukromí, resp. osobních údajů, a práva na další využití zveřejněných informací veřejného sektoru, tzv. open dat. Pokud jsou mezi open daty i osobní údaje, tedy informace týkající se přímo či nepřímo určené nebo určitelné fyzické osoby, pak totiž v praxi nebylo zcela jednoznačně vykládáno, jak se vypořádat s požadavky předpisů v oblasti ochrany osobních údajů. Zejména se jedná o možnost využívat tato data pro další účel spolu s otázkou, na základě jakého právního titulu a za jakých podmínek se tak může dít.8 Poslanec Profant proto navrhl, aby další využití open dat mělo ze zákona přednost před ochranou osobních údajů případně dotčených osob.9
 Legislativní proces nebyl zcela přehledný, proto si v této části shrneme, jakých změn zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím dostál. Jsou jimi:
 rozšíření výjimek z povinnosti poskytovat informace;
 pravidla pro další využití open dat;
 převzetí právního titulu pro zpřístupňování osobních údajů o veřejně činných osobách;
 zavedení informačního příkazu;
 nové kompetence Úřadu v oblasti práva na přístup k informacím.
 Aby to adresáti práva neměli tak snadné, uvedené změny nastaly či nastanou s různou účinností. Informační příkaz a nové kompetence Úřadu, tedy materiálně zřejmě nejvýznamnější změny, budou účinné od 1. 1. 2020. Zbylé tři novinky pak již účinné jsou, a to od 24. 4. 2019.
 1. Rozšíření výjimek z povinnosti poskytovat informace
 Novelizací provedenou zákonem č. 111/2019 Sb. došlo k rozšíření výjimek z povinnosti poskytovat informace, zejména z důvodu ochrany bezpečnostních zájmů ČR.
 Jedná se především o výjimku z povinnosti poskytovat informace týkající se osobních údajů o držiteli osvědčení fyzické osoby pro přístup k utajovaným informacím pro dva nejpřísněji utajované stupně, tzn. přísně tajné a tajné,10 a dále o výjimky v oblasti vnitřní11 i vnější12 bezpečnosti ČR.
 Takto explicitní úpravu dosavadní zákon neobsahoval, což v případě žádostí o informace směřujících právě do těchto oblastí obvykle vedlo k tomu, že byly odkládány či zamítány za využití jiných, ne zcela přiléhavých výjimek či právních institutů. Argumentace pro přesnější úpravu těchto výjimek jsou poměrně detailně popsány v příslušné části důvodové zprávy.13
 2. Další využití osobních údajů jako součásti open dat
 Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím neupravuje pouze poskytování informací na základě žádosti konkrétní osoby, ale rovněž transponuje evropské předpisy o dalším využití informací veřejného sektoru, s trochou zobecnění upravuje tzv. open data.14 Povinné subjekty, které spravují veřejně dostupné registry či evidence, jsou povinny příslušné informace zveřejňovat v přehledné formě způsobem umožňujícím dálkový přístup. Výčet těchto registrů a evidencí je obsažen v nařízení vlády č. 425/2016 Sb.
 Mezi takto dostupnými údaji mohou být i informace týkající se konkrétních lidí, tedy osobní údaje. Typicky se jedná o data v seznamu znalců a tlumočníků, seznamu uživatelů datových schránek či metadata v registru smluv. Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím v § 4b odst. 2, stejně jako příslušné evropské směrnice, předpokládá, že takto zveřejněná data může kdokoliv využívat k dalším účelům, ať už výdělečným či nikoliv.
 Jedním ze základních požadavků GDPR, ostatně stejně jako zákona o ochraně osobních údajů, je zákonnost zpracování osobních údajů. Jinak řečeno, ke každému zpracování osobních údajů musí ten, kdo o zpracování rozhodl (správce), disponovat dostatečným právním titulem. V případě dalšího využití zpřístupněných osobních údajů bylo podle předchozího zákona o ochraně osobních údajů možné využít specifický právní titul upravený v § 5 odst. 2 písm. d), umožňující další zpracování veřejně dostupných údajů. Tento právní titul však neměl předobraz v předchozí směrnici o ochraně osobních údajů15 a nebyl přejat ani do GDPR. Z právních titulů ke zpracování osobních údajů, jež jsou taxativně vymezeny v čl. 6 odst. 1 GDPR, tak nyní v úvahu zjevně přichází pouze titul oprávněného zájmu správce, který je upraven v čl. 6 odst. 1 písm. f) GDPR. Pro jeho uplatnění je nutné, aby správce provedl tzv. balanční test, tedy posoudil, zda jeho oprávněný zájem na zpracování osobních údajů za určitým účelem není převážen zájmy dotčených osob nebo zda jeho oprávněný zájem nepřiměřeně nezasahuje do jejich základních práv a svobod.16
 Komentované ustanovení zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím tak staví na jisto, že oprávněný zájem (jakéhokoliv) subjektu, jenž se rozhodne zveřejněné osobní údaje dále zpracovávat, obvykle převáží nad zájmy či právy a svobodami dotčených osob. Jinak řečeno, takovýto správce nemusí provádět a dokumentovat provedení balančního testu. Vážit zájmy své a zájmy dotčených osob tak bude muset pouze tehdy, pokud konkrétní dotčená osoba vznese proti takovému zpracování námitku dle čl. 21 GDPR.
 3. Právní titul pro zpřístupňování údajů o veřejně činných osobách
 Jak je výše uvedeno, již zrušený zákon o ochraně osobních údajů v § 5 odst. 2 písm. f) obsahoval samostatný právní titul pro zpracování osobních údajů bez souhlasu dotčené osoby. Správce mohl tyto údaje zpracovávat, resp. poskytovat tehdy, pokud se jednalo o osobní údaje o veřejně činné osobě, funkcionáři či zaměstnanci veřejné správy, které vypovídaly o jeho veřejné anebo úřední činnosti či o jeho funkčním nebo pracovním zařazení.
 Daný právní titul byl nově, s účinností k 24. 4. 2019, převzat přímo do § 8a odst. 2 SvInf. Poskytování informací o veřejně činných osobách v režimu zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím má tedy i nadále stejný právní rámec. S výhradou stále neustálené judikatury k otázce poskytování informací o příjmu zaměstnanců povinných subjektů17 lze proto odkázat na dosavadní výklad.18
 4. Informační příkaz
 Významnou novinku v celé oblasti práva na přístup k informacím jistě znamená zavedení tzv. informačního příkazu. Smyslem tohoto institutu je čelit tzv. ping-pongu, kdy povinný subjekt opakovaně odmítá zpřístupnit požadované informace, ač nadřízený subjekt jeho rozhodnutí vždy zruší. V praxi se vyskytují případy, kdy je takto žádost mezi povinným subjektem a nadřízeným orgánem předávána i v několika desítkách kol a žadatel o informace má jen málo možností, jak tomuto obstrukčnímu jednání ze strany povinného subjektu čelit. Samotný zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím k tomu nástroje nenabízí, takže zbývá jen správní žaloba, jejíž projednání však není tak rychlé jako standardní vyřízení žádosti o informace. Na druhé straně již alespoň Nejvyšší správní soud vyjasnil, které z rozhodnutí v tomto případě správně žalovat; zda prvostupňové, kterým je žádost odmítána, ale které není pravomocné, nebo rozhodnutí odvolacího orgánu, kterým však je žadateli vyhověno. Dle rozhodnutí rozšířeného senátu NSS může žadatel o informace v případě, kdy povinný subjekt po zrušovacím rozhodnutí nadřízeného orgánu znovu odmítne poskytnout požadovanou informaci, žalovat právě toto zamítavé rozhodnutí.19
 Jak je tedy informační příkaz upraven a jak bude v praxi fungovat?
 Do zákona byl vložen nový § 16 odst. 4 v tomto znění:
 „Neshledá-li nadřízený orgán (v rámci odvolacího řízení – pozn. aut.) důvody pro odmítnutí žádosti, zruší rozhodnutí povinného subjektu o odmítnutí žádosti nebo jeho část a řízení v tomto rozsahu zastaví. Současně rozhodnutím přikáže povinnému subjektu požadovanou informaci žadateli poskytnout ve lhůtě, která nesmí být delší než 15 dnů ode dne oznámení rozhodnutí o odvolání povinnému subjektu. Proti rozhodnutí nadřízeného orgánu podle věty první se nelze odvolat. Poskytnutí informace povinným subjektem lze exekučně vykonat.“
 Jinými slovy, pokud nadřízený orgán při posuzování odvolání žadatele o informace usoudí, že pro odmítnutí podané žádosti o informace nejsou žádné důvody, pak věc nevrátí povinnému subjektu k dalšímu řízení, ale sám rozhodne. Příslušné řízení zastaví a povinnému subjektu uloží, aby požadované informace žadateli poskytl. Nadřízený orgán tudíž bude přímo rozhodovat o tom, zda mají být požadované informace poskytnuty, nebo nikoliv, a bude odpovědný za komplexní posouzení příslušné žádosti a možnosti či nutnosti aplikovat některou z výjimek z povinnosti informace poskytnout, nejen těch, kterých se povinný subjekt dovolává. Povinný subjekt pak proti informačnímu příkazu v zásadě nemá obrany: Opravný prostředek je vyloučen přímo ze zákona a případné obstrukční jednání spočívající v ignorování pokynu nadřízeného orgánu, které se, bohužel, v praxi historicky nikoliv zcela výjimečně vyskytovalo, může být efektivně řešeno pomocí výkonu rozhodnutí, tedy exekuce.
 5. Nové kompetence Úřadu pro ochranu osobních údajů
 V ČR až dosud neexistoval žádný úřad, který by měl v oblasti poskytování informací všeobecnou působnost. Nadřízené úřady mohou přezkoumávat postup svých podřízených úřadů, povinných subjektů, ale nikomu není svěřena kompetence provádět, byť dílčí, přezkum postupu všech povinných subjektů.
 Tato situace se však od 1. 1. 2020 změní. Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím s uvedenou účinností upravuje obecné kompetence Úřadu týkající se především využití mimořádných opravných prostředků tehdy, pokud povinný subjekt, resp. jeho nadřízený orgán, podle názoru žadatele nekoná, jak by měl, opatření proti nečinnosti nadřízeného orgánu a postavení Úřadu jako nadřízeného orgánu v některých specifických situacích.
 Pro úplnost i zde ocitujme novou právní úpravu v zákoně o svobodném přístupu k informacím týkající se kompetencí Úřadu:
 K opatřením proti nečinnosti nadřízeného orgánu podle zvláštního právního předpisu je příslušný Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů.“
 § 20 odst. 5
 „Nelze-li podle § 178 správního řádu nadřízený orgán určit, rozhoduje v odvolacím řízení a v řízení o stížnosti Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů.“
 5.1 Mimořádný přezkum
 Úřad především může vést přezkumné řízení ve smyslu § 94 a násl. SpŘ. To znamená, že z moci úřední může přezkoumat pravomocné rozhodnutí nadřízeného orgánu, kterým bylo rozhodováno o odvolání žadatele, pokud lze důvodně pochybovat o tom, že toto druhostupňové rozhodnutí je v souladu s právními předpisy. Na základě svého přezkumu Úřad může buď původní rozhodnutí usnesením potvrdit, nebo naopak konstatovat porušení právních předpisů. V takovém případě buď věc vrátí nadřízenému orgánu nebo povinnému subjektu k dalšímu řízení spolu s vyjádřením právního názoru, který budou tyto úřady povinny respektovat, nebo, pokud nebude mít pochybnosti o skutkovém a právním stavu věci, vydá výše popsaný informační příkaz, jímž povinnému subjektu přímo přikáže požadované informace poskytnout.
 V jakých situacích bude uvedený postup využitelný? Představme si případ žadatele, který po povinném subjektu, kupř. škole zřízené obcí, požaduje poskytnutí informací o tom, kdo pro školu zpracoval její nové logo, kdo o výběru loga rozhodl a kolik stálo. Škola požadované informace odmítne poskytnout a odvolá se na ochranu osobních údajů autora loga i členů hodnotící komise, ochranu obchodního tajemství a ochranu autorských práv třetí osoby, autora vítězného návrhu. Nadřízený orgán, obec, toto rozhodnutí potvrdí. Dle dosud platné úpravy by se v takovém případě musel žadatel obrátit na správní soud a v obvyklém případě by se za několik málo let jak on, tak povinné subjekty dozvěděly, zda byl jejich postup správný či nikoliv. Od příštího roku však takový žadatel bude moci učinit podnět u Úřadu, který po úvodním posouzení věci může zahájit přezkumné řízení. V tomto typizovaném případě by tak pravděpodobně rovněž učinil, protože ani jedna z uvedených výjimek ze zakona o svobodném přístupu k informacím na danou žádost zjevně není aplikovatelná.20 Úřad by na základě souvisejícího spisového materiálu mohl usoudit, že věc je jasná a že nemá žádné skutkové ani právní pochybnosti o tom, že požadované informace mají být poskytnuty. Vydal by tedy informační příkaz, jímž by škole ve lhůtě nejdéle 15 dnů pravomocně uložil požadované informace poskytnout. Pokud by si však Úřad nebyl některými skutkovými okolnostmi jistý, mohl by věc vrátit povinnému subjektu či nadřízenému orgánu k dalšímu vyřízení s vyjádřením závazného právního názoru, že výjimky z informační povinnosti týkající se osobních údajů, obchodního tajemství ani ochrany autorských práv se v tomto případě neuplatní.
 5.2 Opatření proti nečinnosti
 Další možností, jak může Úřad do vyřizování žádosti o informace zasáhnout, je učinit opatření proti nečinnosti nadřízeného orgánu. Pokud nadřízený orgán, např. obec z předchozího příkladu, v zákonem stanovené patnáctidenní lhůtě ode dne předložení odvolání nerozhodne nijak, žadatel se může obrátit na Úřad právě se žádostí o opatření proti nečinnosti.
 Úřad by v tomto případě mohl obci dle § 80 odst. 4 písm. a) SpŘ přikázat, aby konala (zahájila řízení či vydala rozhodnutí), případně v souladu s § 80 odst. 4 písm. d) SpŘ jí prodloužit lhůtu pro vydání rozhodnutí, pokud lze na základě skutkových okolností předpokládat, že obec v takto prodloužené lhůtě o odvolání žadatele o informace rozhodne. Další dvě kompetence nadřízeného orgánu při provádění přezkumu, rozhodnout místo nečinného orgánu [§ 80 odst. 4 písm. b) SpŘ] či pověřit vyřízením žádosti, resp. odvolání, jiný správní orgán [§ 80 odst. 4 písm. c) SpŘ], by Úřad v tomto modelovém případě uplatnit nemohl, protože je nelze aplikovat proti územně samosprávným orgánům při výkonu samostatné působnosti. Pokud by se však žádost o informace týkala výkonu přenesené působnosti, nebo nebyla vůbec směřována vůči obci či kraji, Úřad by mohl v přiměřeném rozsahu uplatnit i je. Pro úplnost dodejme, že pokud by Úřad rozhodoval místo nadřízeného orgánu, mohl by i v tomto případě využít institutu informačního příkazu.
 5.3 Úřad jako nadřízený orgán
 Poslední z nových kompetencí Úřadu je založena § 20 odst. 5 SvInf, který se nachází až mezi přechodnými a závěrečnými ustanoveními tohoto zákona.
 Podle § 20 odst. 5 SvInf se v rámci řízení o poskytnutí informace pro určení nadřízeného orgánu použije § 178 SpŘ. Pokud u některých povinných subjektů dle zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím není určení nadřízeného orgánu možné ani na základě § 178 SpŘ, bude v odvolacím a stížnostním řízení rozhodovat právě Úřad.
 Ustanovení § 178 SpŘ dopadá zejména na veřejné úřady a veřejnoprávní korporace, u kterých je obvykle snadné určit nadřízený orgán i pro potřeby řízení podle zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím. Povinnými subjekty dle tohoto zákona jsou však rovněž tzv. veřejné instituce, kterými mohou být jak subjekty zřízené zákonem (Česká televize, Český rozhlas), subjekty zřízené na základě zvláštního zákona, např. státní podniky,21 tak i subjekty ryze soukromoprávní, které zřídil a vlastní stát či územně samosprávný celek.22 Současnou praxí je, že Česká televize vystupuje jako povinný subjekt a její generální ředitel jako nadřízený orgán,23 obdobný přístup bývá uplatněn i v případě obchodních korporací. Tento přístup měl oporu v dosavadním znění § 20 odst. 5 SvInf, podle kterého v případě, kdy nebylo možné určit nadřízený orgán postupem podle § 178 SpŘ, rozhodoval ten, kdo stojí v čele povinného subjektu. V kontextu komentované novelizace však od příštího roku bude tuto roli hrát právě Úřad.
 Jinak řečeno, pokud žadatel o informace nebude spokojen s tím, jak jeho žádost o informace vyřídil nebo jakou částku např. požaduje za mimořádně rozsáhlé vyhledání požadovaných informací povinný subjekt typu České televize či Dopravního podniku hl. m. Prahy, o odvolání či stížnosti nebude rozhodovat ředitel této instituce, ale právě Úřad.
 5.4 Nejasnosti spojené s novými kompetencemi Úřadu
 Jak je výše uvedeno, původní poslanecký pozměňovací návrh počítal s tím, že by se role Úřadu ohledně práva na přístup k informacím promítla i do dalších oblastí, např. do jeho konzultační agendy, kvalifikačních předpokladů členů Úřadu atd. V této části však pozměňovací návrh přijat nebyl. Úřad tedy má nové kompetence a stává se prvním a jediným ústředním orgánem státní správy, který provádí přezkum postupu v zásadě všech povinných subjektů a jejich nadřízených orgánů při poskytování informací, nicméně tato jeho kompetence se formálně nijak nepromítá do jeho struktury, obecných kompetencí či dalších úkolů.
 Tato situace není podle mého soudu zcela šťastná. Úřad bude v oblasti poskytování informací, resp. při přezkumu postupu povinných subjektů, hrát významnou roli. Jeho kompetence, tak jak jsou upraveny v nových částech zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím, se však vždy týkají konkrétního případu, jednotlivé žádosti o informace a postupu při jejím vyřízení. Jak z pohledu praxe, tak s ohledem na principy jednotného výkladu práva a předvídatelnosti činnosti správních úřadů by však jistě bylo vhodné, aby Úřad svoje závěry přijaté v jednotlivých případech zobecňoval, informoval o nich veřejnost, povinné subjekty i zákonodárce, a přispíval tak k efektivnějšímu a jednotnějšímu uplatňování práva na informace.
 Mezi současnými kompetenci Úřadu najdeme jenom málo takových, které by bylo možné vyložit tak, že je lze aplikovat nejenom v oblasti zpracování osobních údajů, ale i přístupu k informacím. Pro úplnost dodejme, že konkrétní úkoly a pravomoci Úřadu jsou vymezeny v čl. 57 a 58 GDPR. Tyto se však z pochopitelných důvodů vztahují pouze k problematice zpracování osobních údajů. V zákoně č. 110/2019 Sb. je potom výkon těchto úkolů upřesněn, resp. zasazen do kontextu českého právního řádu. V § 54 odst. 1 zákona č. 110/2019 Sb. pro zpracování osobních údajů v režimu GDPR, v odst. 2 pak pro zpracování osobních údajů při, zjednodušeně řečeno, zajišťování vnitřního i vnějšího pořádku ČR příslušnými orgány. Až v odst. 3 můžeme najít společná či do jisté míry zbytková ustanovení, z nichž jediné, které se přímo neodkazuje na problematiku zpracování osobních údajů, říká, že Úřad zpracovává a zpřístupňuje výroční zprávu o své činnosti.24 Její součástí tak jistě do budoucna může a má být i zpráva o činnosti týkající se výkonu nových kompetencí v oblasti přístupu k informacím.
 Žádné další takovéto obecné ustanovení však v právním řádu nenalezneme. Znamená to tedy, že Úřad v oblasti práva na přístup k informacím nemůže konat nic nad rámec jednotlivých řízení, resp. informování o nich ve své výroční zprávě? Nemůže tedy poskytovat individuální či obecné konzultace, připravovat metodické pokyny nebo komentovat návrhy právních předpisů právě i z pohledu práva na přístup k informacím?
 Osobně se domnívám, že právě v řečených oblastech by Úřad mohl či dokonce měl převzít obecnější roli a své poznatky z přezkumu týkajícího se práva na přístup k informacím zobecňovat jak pro veřejnost, tak i pro jednotlivé žadatele a další orgány státu včetně zákonodárce. Jestliže Úřad bude jako jediný úřad odpovědný za přezkum postupu všech povinných subjektů, resp. jejich nadřízených orgánů, získá tím významné praktické zkušenosti, které žádný jiný úřad v ČR nemá. Proto by, podle mého soudu, bylo vhodné, aby je zužitkoval ve prospěch jak veřejnosti, tak dalších státních orgánů. V uvedených případech (obecně řečeno, konzultační a poradní činnost) se pak nejedná o rozhodování o právech či povinnostech či o jiný formální úkon s dopadem do práv další osoby, k němuž by Úřad potřeboval výslovné zákonné zmocnění. Podle mne si pro odůvodnění tohoto závěru a zmocnění Úřadu k daným činnostem vystačíme se zásadou užitečnosti a vstřícnosti veřejné správy upravené v § 4 odst. 1 SpŘ.
 Naopak tam, kde by docházelo přímo k zásahům do práv a povinností dalších, např. pokud by Senát podmiňoval či schválil předsedu či místopředsedy Úřadu na základě jejich znalosti práva a praxe v oblasti přístupu k informacím, ač zákon nic takového nepřipouští,25 nebo by Úřad uplatnil některou ze svých dozorových kompetencí (kontrola, vedení správního řízení) i k otázce týkající se toliko přístupu k informacím, jednalo by se jistě o nepřípustný postup, postrádající oporu v právu.
 Jak jsem již výše zmínil, zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím provádí evropské předpisy upravující pravidla pro další využití informací veřejného sektoru. I v této oblasti došlo k významné změně: V Úředním věstníku EU byla dne 26. 6. publikována nová směrnice 2019/1024 ze dne 20. 6. 2019 o otevřených datech a opakovaném použití informací veřejného sektoru. Ruší dosud platnou směrnici 2003/98 a přináší upravená pravidla pro zpřístupňování informací veřejnými subjekty a pro jejich další využití. Transpoziční lhůta je dvouletá, tzn. že členské státy musí změny, které nová směrnice přináší, převést do národních právních řádů nejpozději do 17. 7. 2021.
 Detailní analýza nové směrnice by přesáhla možnosti tohoto článku, a pochopitelně bude klíčový také způsob, jakým bude směrnice do českého práva transponována. Zmiňme proto alespoň nejdůležitější změny, které bude ČR povinna v uvedené lhůtě reflektovat: Směrnice zejména rozšiřuje svoji působnost i na data z vědeckého výzkumu financovaného z veřejných prostředků,26 zavádí pojem „datových souborů s vysokou hodnotou“, což jsou datové sady, které mají velký potenciál k dalšímu využití včetně přeshraničního27 a které mají být zveřejňovány způsobem usnadňujícím jejich další využití.28 Mezi povinné subjekty zahrnuje směrnice rovněž veřejnoprávní subjekty a veřejné podniky. Tyto definuje, na rozdíl od recentní judikatury Ústavního soudu,29 jako právnické osoby založené za účelem plnění veřejných potřeb či některých podnikatelských aktivit, ve kterých stát, samospráva či další veřejnoprávní subjekty, vlastní většinový podíl, mají možnost kontroly jejich činnosti nebo možnost volby nadpoloviční většiny členů správního, řídícího nebo dozorčího orgánu daného veřejnoprávního subjektu nebo veřejného podniku. Pojem veřejná instituce používaný zákonem o svobodném přístupu k informacím nebyl dosud v českém právu definován a ustálený výklad správních soudů byl výrazně změněn již uvedeným nálezem Ústavního soudu. Na základě nového evropského předpisu však zřejmě dojde k vymezení tohoto pojmu již přímo na zákonné úrovni.
 Za zmínku v kontextu tohoto článku stojí i to, že jak původní, tak nová směrnice počítá s tím, že každé rozhodnutí o možnosti či odepření možnosti opakovaného použití dat bude přezkoumatelné buď některým z národních dozorových úřadů, např. úřadem chránícím hospodářskou soutěž či úřadem pro ochranu osobních údajů, nebo soudem.30 Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím tuto otázku dosud samostatně neřešil a zájemce o poskytnutí otevřených dat tak byl v případě odmítnutí ze strany povinného subjektu odkázán na soud. S ohledem na zavedení nových kompetencí Úřadu a rozšíření působnosti nové open data směrnice by podle mého názoru stálo minimálně za diskusi, zda kompetence Úřadu výslovně nerozšířit i do oblasti otevřených dat.31
 Jak vidno, změn v oblasti práva na přístup k informacím se událo poměrně dost. Za nejvýznamnější lze považovat zejména zavedení informačního příkazu, vyřešení balančního testu pro další využití zveřejněných informací, osobních údajů, a určení kompetencí Úřadu jako přezkumného orgánu, resp. v některých případech i nadřízeného orgánu povinných subjektů.
 Informační příkaz je v novelizovaném znění zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím formulován jednoznačně. Jako takový by měl být pro praktickou aplikaci poměrně snadno uchopitelný, mohl by reálně přispět ke zrychlení vyřizování žádostí o informace a zároveň snížit nápad souvisejících žalob ke správním soudům.
 Na druhé straně nové pravomoci Úřadu při přezkumu žádostí o informace jsou upraveny poměrně nekoncepčně a jeho roli v této oblasti by bylo podle mého soudu vhodné promítnout i do obecné úpravy jeho postavení a kompetencí. V příštím roce lze zřejmě také očekávat vysoký počet podnětů, které budou Úřadu adresovány, stejně jako postupné ujasňování některých kompetencí, např. určení povinných subjektů, pro které bude Úřad v roli nadřízeného orgánu.
 Novelizace bohužel neupravuje otázku, zda může Úřad svoje nové kompetence uplatnit i v řízeních zahájených či již ukončených před 1. 1. 2020. Jako koncepčně vhodné řešení by se jevilo, aby tyto kompetence, obdobně jako v případě řízení o zpracování osobních údajů,32 uplatnil až na řízení zahájená po 1. 1. 2020. Takové upřesnění by však vyžadovalo další novelizaci.
 Na Úřad budou uvedené změny klást rovněž velké nároky týkající se jeho personálních a časových kapacit, stejně jako na posílení expertizy v dalších oblastech. Kromě procesních aspektů poskytování informací se bude jednat i o související oblasti práva, které mohou mít vliv zejména na uplatnění některé z výjimek z povinnosti poskytnout informace: autorské právo, licence, obchodní tajemství či ochranu bezpečnostních zájmů ČR. Pro úplnost dodejme, že k datu dokončení tohoto článku není dostupná systemizace služebních míst pro r. 2020 a není tak známo, zda a kolik nových služebních míst Úřad pro zajištění výkonu své nové role získá.
 Ve světle již probíhající transpoziční lhůty pro open data směrnici se tak nabízí varianta upravit postavení Úřadu – po získání praktických zkušeností se správním přezkumem vyřizování žádostí o informace – komplexněji, případně jeho působnost výslovně rozšířit i do oblasti otevřených dat.
 Autor je zaměstnancem MONETA Money Bank, a.s.
 Článek vyjadřuje osobní názor autora a odráží právní a skutkový stav ke dni 15. 8. 2019.
 Srov. návrh zákona na https://apps.odok.cz/.
 Nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) 2016/679 ze dne 27. 4. 2016 o ochraně fyzických osob v souvislosti se zpracováním osobních údajů a o volném pohybu těchto údajů a o zrušení směrnice 95/46/ES (obecné nařízení o ochraně osobních údajů).
 Sněm. tisk č. 138.
 Sněm. tisk č. 139.
 Pozměňovací návrh k návrhu zákona o zpracování osobních údajů (sněm. tisk č. 138) viz na http://www.psp.cz/.
 Pozměňovací návrhy k návrhu zákona, kterým se mění některé zákony v souvislosti s přijetím zákona o zpracování osobních údajů (sněm. tisk č. 139), viz tamtéž.
 Srov. Nonnemann, F. Zpracování veřejně dostupných osobních údajů a GDPR. Právní rozhledy, 2018, č. 5.
 Viz pozměňovací návrh ke sněm. tisku č. 139.
 Doplněna druhá věta do § 7 SvInf.
 § 11 odst. 1 písm. d) a odst. 6 SvInf.
 § 11 odst. 1 písm. e) SvInf.
 Důvodová zpráva k části patnácté zákona č. 111/2019 Sb.
 Směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2003/98/ES ze dne 17. 11. 2003 o opakovaném použití informací veřejného sektoru, ve znění směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2013/37/EU ze dne 26. 6. 2013, kterou se mění směrnice 2003/98/ES o opakovaném použití informací veřejného sektoru. Na unijní úrovni již byly uvedené předpisy nahrazeny směrnicí novou (blíže viz závěr tohoto článku).
 Směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 95/46/ES ze dne 24. 10. 1995 o ochraně jednotlivců v souvislosti se zpracováním osobních údajů a o volném pohybu těchto údajů.
 K balančnímu testu srov. Nulíček, M., Donát, J., Nonnemann, F., Lichnovský, B., Tomíšek, J., Kovaříková, K. GDPR. Obecné nařízení o ochraně osobních údajů. Praktický komentář. 2. vyd. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2018.
 Mám tím na mysli především nález ÚS z 3. 4. 2018, sp. zn. IV. ÚS 1200/16, který se výrazně vymezil vůči předchozí judikatuře Nejvyššího správního soudu téměř neomezující okruh zaměstnanců veřejné sféry, u kterých je nutné informace o jejich příjmu zpřístupnit. Ústavní soud formuloval podmínky pro poskytnutí těchto informací jdoucí výrazně nad rámec zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím, resp. nastavující některé zcela nové podmínky pro poskytnutí informací. Jedná se zejména o nutnost zkoumat osobu žadatele o informace a účel žádosti jako takové (bod 33 nálezu).
 Srov. Kučerová, A., Nováková, L., Foldová, V., Nonnemann, F., Pospíšil, D. Zákon o ochraně osobních údajů. Komentář. 1. vyd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2012, nebo Furek, A., Rothanzl, L., Jírovec, T. Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím. Komentář. 1. vyd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2016.
 Rozsudek NSS z 24. 10. 2018, č. j. 7 As 192/2017-35.
 Za porušení obchodního tajemství ani práva na ochranu osobních údajů se nepovažuje poskytnutí informace o rozsahu a příjemci veřejných prostředků (§ 8b odst. 3 a § 9 odst. 2 SvInf). Do práva třetí strany k předmětu práva autorského, v tomto případě autora nového loga, zpřístupněním požadovaných informací rovněž nebude zasaženo [srov. § 11 odst. 2 písm. c) SvInf].
 Právnické osoby zřízené na základě zákona č. 77/1997 Sb., o státním podniku.
 Pro úplnost dodejme, že ani v této otázce není dosud judikatura zcela jednoznačná. Správní soudy dlouhodobě judikovaly, že právnická osoba, která je zřízena státem či samosprávou za účelem plnění úkolu ve veřejném zájmu a která je také vlastněna či ovládána a kontrolována orgánem veřejné moci, je povinným subjektem podle zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím. Ústavní soud svým nálezem z 20. 6. 2017, sp. zn. IV. ÚS 1146/16, však tento výklad odmítl a uvedl, že veřejnými subjekty mohou být jen obchodní společnosti, jejichž jediným vlastníkem je stát či samosprávný celek. V úvodu zmíněný návrh novely z dílny Ministerstva vnitra měl ambici otázku veřejné instituce blíže upravit, bohužel však v době dokončení tohoto článku návrh zákona nebyl ani předložen do Parlamentu.
 Srov. např. dokument Jak žádat Českou televizi o informace. https://img.ceskatelevize.cz/.
 § 54 odst. 3 písm. a) zákona č. 110/2019 Sb.
 Srov. § 52 odst. 3 písm. d) zákona č. 110/2019 Sb.
 Čl. 10 směrnice 2019/1024.
 Komisi je čl. 14 směrnice 2019/1024 svěřena pravomoc vydávat prováděcí akty, jimiž určí seznam konkrétních datových souborů s vysokou hodnotou. V příloze směrnice je uveden seznam tematických kategorií těchto souborů, jimiž jsou: geoprostorové údaje, pozorování Země a životního prostředí, meteorologie, statistika, společnosti a vlastnictví společností a mobilita.
 Dle čl. 14 bodu 1 směrnice 2019/1024 mají být až na výjimky zveřejňovány bezplatně, ve strojově čitelné podobě, přístupné prostřednictvím rozhraní pro programování aplikací a ve vhodných případech mají být rovněž poskytnuty s možností stažení kompletní datové sady.
 Nález ÚS z 20. 6. 2017, sp. zn. IV. ÚS 1146/16.
 Čl. 4 bod 4 směrnice 2019/1024.
 Tuto kompetenci má např. britský dozorový úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů; srov. čl. 18 a násl. britského Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/.
 Srov. § 66 odst. 5 zákona č. 110/2019 Sb.
 Přehled souvislostí Související předpisy (6) Cituje (3) Dokumenty EU (3) Aktuální k datu Historie Editorial Záložky
 Souvislosti k PR 17/2019 s. 587
 § 80 [Opatření proti nečinnosti, další postup nadřízeného orgánu] 01.01.2006 -
 § 178 [Nadřízený správní orgán] 01.07.2009 -
 § 16 Odvolání 24.04.2019 -
 § 8a [Citlivé informace] 24.04.2019 -
 § 16b Přezkumné řízení a ochrana proti nečinnosti 24.04.2019 -
 Nařízení č. 425/2016 Sb. 01.01.2019 -
 ÚS, IV. ÚS 1200/16
 ÚS, IV. ÚS 1146/16-2