type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Review of the Exempt Organizations Function\n Process for Reviewing Alleged Political\n Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt\n Organizations\n\n February 2005\n\n Reference Number: 2005-10-035\n\n\n\n\nThis report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure\nreview process and information determined to be restricted from public release has been\n redacted from this document.\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n\n\n\n\nINSPECTOR GENERAL\n for TAX\n ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n February 17, 2005\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, TAX EXEMPT AND GOVERNMENT\n ENTITIES DIVISION\n\n\n\n FROM: Pamela J. Gardiner\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report - Review of the Exempt Organizations\n Function Process for Reviewing Alleged Political Campaign\n Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations (Audit # 200510008)\n\n\n This report presents the results of our review of the Exempt Organizations (EO) function\n process for reviewing alleged political campaign intervention by tax exempt\n organizations. The overall objective of this review was to evaluate the Tax Exempt\n and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division\xe2\x80\x99s recently established process for\n reviewing information alleging political campaign intervention by Internal Revenue Code\n (I.R.C.) \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3)1 organizations and for initiating any associated examinations of\n these organizations. Specifically, we determined the process established by TE/GE\n Division management to review referrals of potential political campaign intervention and\n assessed whether referrals were processed in accordance with established procedures.\n In November 2004, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)\n received separate requests from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service\n (IRS) and the Commissioner, TE/GE Division, to evaluate the new process used by the\n IRS to review allegations of potential political activities by tax exempt organizations.\n There had been several media reports of allegations that the TE/GE Division was\n examining this type of activity just before the 2004 Presidential election for politically\n motivated reasons. We limited our audit to a review of the process followed by the EO\n function for reviewing these allegations and did not determine whether the activities by\n the tax exempt organizations involved potentially prohibited political activity. We were\n alert for any indications that inappropriate actions, such as political influence, may have\n been taken with regard to the handling of these referrals. Based on the extent of our\n\n\n 1\n I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) (2004).\n\x0c 2\n\naudit work, we did not identify any indications that the EO function inappropriately\nhandled the information items we reviewed. Furthermore, we did not make any referrals\nto the TIGTA Office of Investigations during this audit.\nIn summary, the TE/GE Division took several actions in 2004 to address potential\npolitical campaign intervention by tax exempt organizations. Specifically, TE/GE\nDivision management provided education and outreach activities to\n\xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations on their responsibilities related to political activities. In\naddition, the EO function established a new expedited process to review allegations\nof potential political intervention by tax exempt organizations because EO function\nmanagement anticipated an increase in these types of allegations during the\n2004 election year. In June 2004, EO function management initiated a Political\nIntervention Project (PIP) at the request of the Commissioner, TE/GE Division. The\nmain goal of the PIP was to establish a \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d process to respond quickly to\nreferrals of potential political intervention during the 2004 election year and prevent\nrecurring violations by the same organizations.\nWe reviewed samples of information items processed under the PIP during the period\nJuly 30, 2004, through November 22, 2004, to determine whether the EO function\nprocessed the allegations in accordance with established procedures.2 Based on our\nsamples, we determined the EO Referral Committee followed a consistent process\nwhen reviewing the information items, regardless of the source of the allegation or the\npotential political activity. Specifically, the sampled information items were reviewed by\na three-person EO Referral Committee of experienced EO function technical\nemployees, as required. In addition, the EO Referral Committee\xe2\x80\x99s decision of whether\nan allegation warranted an examination was documented in each case file. EO function\nmanagement informed us the EO Referral Committee evaluated the information items\nbased on the \xe2\x80\x9creasonable belief standard.\xe2\x80\x9d3 Further, we analyzed the EO Referral\nCommittee\xe2\x80\x99s decisions and did not identify any cases in which the same criteria were\nused to select one information item for examination and to decline a similar item for\nexamination.\nHowever, EO function management experienced delays in expediting the classification\nand examination processes. Specifically, the EO Classification Unit did not always\nensure information items were classified and directed to a field examination group\ntimely, contact letters were not always issued to taxpayers within the expedited period,\n\n2\n We randomly selected 40 of the 80 information items for which the EO Referral Committee determined an\nexamination was warranted, randomly selected 20 of the 41 items for which an examination was not warranted, and\nselected all 10 of the information items that were classified and determined to be inaccurately categorized as\npotential political activity, for a total of 70 cases. For the 20 cases, the EO Referral Committee identified several\nreasons for not selecting the items for examination, including the alleged activity was not prohibited political\nactivity; the referral did not contain a specific, supported allegation of political activity; and the organization was not\na \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organization. For the 10 cases that were inaccurately categorized, the EO Referral Committee\ndetermined the allegations did not always contain specific, supported allegations of political activity or the\norganization was not a \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organization.\n3\n For \xe2\x80\x9creasonable belief\xe2\x80\x9d to be met, the Committee must determine an information item demonstrates that a violation\nof the tax laws may have occurred or it appears likely that an examination will lead to the discovery of a violation.\n\x0c 3\n\nand notices of tax inquiry for issuance to churches were not reviewed and approved\nwithin the 15 workday expedited period.\nEO function management\xe2\x80\x99s ability to effectively accelerate case initiations for potential\npolitical intervention allegations was affected by a lack of clear guidance, inadequate\nresources, and the late initiation of the PIP with less than 5 months remaining before the\n2004 elections. As a result, the first contact letter sent to an organization as part of the\nPIP was not issued until September 21, 2004, 6 weeks before the scheduled elections.\nAlthough the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 ability to contact tax exempt organizations as part of the PIP is not\nlimited by the timing of the Presidential election, we believe contacting organizations so\nclose to the election and the late publicity about this project contributed to the\nallegations of improper motivation on the part of the IRS.\nDuring our fieldwork, EO function management decided to discontinue the \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d\nprocessing of allegations of potential political intervention by \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations.\nThis decision was based on completion of the 2004 elections and was effective for all\ninformation items received after November 30, 2004.\nWe recommended the Director, EO, formalize the draft guidelines that detail how\nallegations of potential noncompliance with the tax laws by tax exempt organizations\nshould be classified. In addition, the Director, EO, should establish realistic time\nstandards for when information items should be classified and forwarded to an\nexamination group, if warranted, for both election and nonelection years. Additionally,\nthe Director, EO, should ensure any future expedited review process is initiated early\nenough in an election year to ensure classification and examination actions are\ncompleted timely and consistently. Further, to increase public awareness, we\nrecommended the Commissioner, TE/GE Division, should issue a press release in\nfuture election years if the IRS plans to implement an expedited process to review\nallegations of potential political intervention.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The IRS agreed with our recommendations and indicated it\nis evaluating the prohibited political activity program as it operated during the last\nelection cycle. Based on this evaluation, the IRS expects to make a number of\ndecisions on changes to the program for the next election cycle. TE/GE Division\nmanagement has drafted and will make effective procedures that specify how\nallegations of potential noncompliance by tax exempt organizations should be classified.\nIn addition, procedures for future election years and nonelection years will provide\nrealistic time periods for processing information items alleging potential political\nintervention. TE/GE Division management has drafted and the Director, EO\nExaminations, is considering procedures for future election years that will ensure the\nprocess is initiated early enough to allow classification and examination actions to be\ncompleted timely and consistently. Finally, the Commissioner, TE/GE Division, has\nrequested the Director, Communications and Liaison, TE/GE Division, to prepare a\npress release in future election years advising the exempt organizations community that\nallegations of potential noncompliance with the tax laws relating to political activity will\nbe processed on an expedited basis. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the draft\nreport is included as Appendix IV.\n\x0c 4\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\nDaniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and\nExempt Organizations Programs), at (202) 622-8500.\n\x0c Review of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n\nBackground ............................................................................................... Page 1\nThe Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division Took\nSeveral Actions in 2004 to Address Allegations of Potential\nPolitical Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations ................. Page 3\nAllegations of Potential Political Campaign Intervention Were\nHandled Consistently but Were Not Always Processed Timely................. Page 8\n Recommendation 1: .......................................................................Page 14\n Recommendations 2 through 5:.....................................................Page 15\n\nAppendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology....................... Page 17\nAppendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ....................................... Page 19\nAppendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List ....................................................... Page 20\nAppendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report .................... Page 21\n\x0c Review of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n Under the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.), \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3)1\nBackground\n organizations are exempt from Federal income tax.\n Charities, educational institutions, and religious\n organizations, including churches, are among those that are\n covered under this Code section. To qualify for and\n maintain tax exempt status under I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3), an\n organization must be organized and operated exclusively for\n its tax exempt purpose.\n While many charities speak out on public issues as an\n integral part of carrying on their tax exempt function, the\n I.R.C. prohibits \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations from the\n following types of political activities:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening\n in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in\n opposition to) any candidate for elective public\n office.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Making contributions to political campaign funds.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Making public statements (verbal or written) in\n favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public\n office.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Engaging in activities that may be beneficial for or\n detrimental to any particular candidate. These\n activities may constitute intervention, even if they\n do not expressly call for the election or defeat of a\n particular candidate, if the activity contains\n reasonably overt communication that the\n organization supports or opposes a particular\n candidate.\n Violation of this I.R.C. prohibition may result in denial or\n revocation of tax exempt status for the \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3)\n organization and the imposition of certain excise taxes on\n the amount of money spent on the prohibited activity.\n The Exempt Organizations (EO) function of the Tax\n Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division has\n responsibility for ensuring charitable or other tax exempt\n organizations are in compliance with the I.R.C. Allegations\n of potential noncompliance with the I.R.C., including\n\n 1\n I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) (2004).\n Page 1\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n allegations of potential political activity by \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3)\n organizations, are reviewed by the EO function. The EO\n function may conduct an examination to determine if the\n political activity is a violation of the law and if enforcement\n action is warranted. EO function personnel select an\n organization for examination based on information\n contained on the tax return filed with the Internal Revenue\n Service (IRS). However, the IRS also has authority to\n examine a reporting period in which the tax return has not\n been filed and is not yet due.\n In November 2004, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax\n Administration (TIGTA) received separate requests from\n the Commissioner of the IRS and the Commissioner, TE/GE\n Division, to evaluate the new process used by the IRS to\n review allegations of potential political activities by tax\n exempt organizations. There had been several media reports\n of allegations that the TE/GE Division was examining this\n type of activity just before the 2004 Presidential election for\n politically motivated reasons. Because the IRS (not the\n TIGTA) has the authority to administer the internal revenue\n laws,2 which includes determining whether tax exempt\n organizations are in compliance with those laws, we limited\n our audit to a review of the process followed by the EO\n function for reviewing these allegations and did not\n determine whether the activities by the tax exempt\n organizations involved potentially prohibited political\n activity. We were alert for any indications that\n inappropriate actions, such as political influence, may have\n been taken with regard to the handling of these referrals.\n Any inappropriate actions, including political influence,\n would have been referred to the TIGTA Office of\n Investigations for review.\n This review was performed at the EO function National\n Headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the EO\n Examinations office in Dallas, Texas, during the period\n November 2004 through January 2005. The audit was\n conducted in accordance with Government Auditing\n Standards. Detailed information on our audit objective,\n\n\n\n 2\n I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 7803(a) (2004).\n Page 2\n\x0c Review of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major\n contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.\n Based on our discussions with TE/GE Division\nThe Tax Exempt and\n management and review of applicable documentation,\nGovernment Entities Division\n we determined TE/GE Division management took several\nTook Several Actions in 2004 to\n actions during 2004 to address potential political campaign\nAddress Allegations of Potential\n intervention by tax exempt organizations. Specifically,\nPolitical Campaign Intervention\n TE/GE Division management provided education and\nby Tax Exempt Organizations\n outreach activities to I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations on\n their responsibilities related to political activities. In\n addition, the EO function established a new process to\n review allegations of potential political intervention by tax\n exempt organizations on an expedited basis to respond\n quickly to these allegations and prevent recurring violations.\n The TE/GE Division took actions in 2004 to remind tax\n exempt organizations of prohibited political activities\n We determined the IRS took several actions during the 2004\n election year to remind \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations of the\n prohibition against engaging in improper political\n intervention, including:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Workshops conducted by EO function personnel in\n seven states during May and June 2004 that\n included a topic on political activities.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Presentations that addressed prohibited political\n activities at the IRS Nationwide Tax Forums held in\n six states during July through September 2004.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An April 2004 press release discussing prohibited\n political campaign activities for tax exempt\n organizations. IRS management indicated they\n issued similar election-year advisories in 1992,\n 1996, and 2000.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A letter related to prohibited political activities,\n issued in June 2004 to seven national political\n parties. These included the Republican, Democratic,\n and Libertarian National Committees and the Green\n Party of the United States.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An October 2004 press release reiterating prohibited\n political activities and outlining IRS enforcement\n\n Page 3\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n activity taken to address potential prohibited\n political activities by tax exempt organizations.\n The EO function established a \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d process to\n review allegations of potential political intervention by\n exempt organizations\n While the EO function receives information items3 of\n potential political intervention by \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations\n throughout the year, EO function management anticipated\n an increase in these types of information items during the\n 2004 election year. To respond to these referrals, EO\n function management initiated a Political Intervention\n Project (PIP). The main goal of the PIP was to establish a\n \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d process to respond quickly to referrals of\n potential political intervention during the 2004 election year\n and prevent recurring violations by the same organizations.\n The PIP used the EO function\xe2\x80\x99s existing process for\n evaluating referrals, except that it allowed for accelerated\n case initiations in both the classification and examination\n processes. EO function management intended for the PIP to\n remain in effect until the completion of the 2004 election\n year, when it would be reevaluated for use in future years.\n Based on our review of available documentation, the PIP\n was initiated in June 2004 at the request of the\n Commissioner, TE/GE Division. On July 26-30, 2004, an\n eight-member team met in Dallas, Texas, to develop an\n expedited process to classify and, if warranted, examine\n information items alleging political intervention by\n \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations. The team developed proposed\n procedures for PIP cases, including:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establishing an expedited time period for completing\n the classification of potential political intervention\n referral cases and directing the cases to an\n examination group, if warranted, within\n 7-10 workdays following the receipt of the referrals\n in the EO Classification Unit. (For non-PIP cases,\n the EO Classification Unit is required to begin\n\n 3\n An information item is a communication received by the EO function\n from an internal or external source related to potential noncompliance\n with the tax law by an exempt organization, political organization,\n taxable entity, or individual.\n Page 4\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n evaluating information items within 60 days of their\n receipt in the Unit; however, there is no time\n standard for completing the classification of non-PIP\n cases.)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Requiring the EO Classification Unit\xe2\x80\x99s EO Referral\n Committee to determine which cases should be\n worked as correspondence examination or field\n examination.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Developing contact letters for informing nonchurch\n \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations that they have been\n selected for an examination.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establishing an expedited review and approval\n process for the notices of tax inquiries sent to\n churches to inform them the IRS is considering\n initiating an examination.\n During August 2004, the TE/GE Division revised the\n proposed PIP procedures and contact letters to be sent to\n organizations selected for expedited examinations. The EO\n Classification Unit manager sent the proposed procedures to\n the EO Examinations office area managers for\n implementation on August 24, 2004; however, the\n procedures were not formally issued by the Director, EO\n Examinations. The contact letters and related attachments\n were approved for issuance as of September 15, 2004.\n Consequently, the first contact letter sent to an organization\n as part of the PIP was not issued until September 21, 2004.\n We determined the EO function has draft guidelines for\n processing, controlling, and tracking all types of information\n items received by EO function personnel concerning the\n activities of tax exempt organizations. EO function\n personnel stated they follow these guidelines when\n reviewing information items, but the guidelines have been in\n \xe2\x80\x9cdraft\xe2\x80\x9d status for an extended period and have not been\n finalized.\n According to the draft guidelines, a classifier in the EO\n Classification Unit is generally responsible for reviewing an\n information item to determine if the item has examination\n potential unless the information item is required to be\n reviewed by the EO Referral Committee. The EO Referral\n Committee reviews the information items containing\n Page 5\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n evidence or allegations of political activities as well as any\n type of allegations pertaining to churches.\n Based on our review of documentation and interviews with\n TE/GE Division management, the EO Referral Committee\n was comprised of three members, who were experienced EO\n function technical employees (e.g., senior examiners,\n classification specialists, or group managers). The\n Committee is responsible for considering, in a fair and\n impartial manner, whether information items referred have\n examination potential. To make this decision, the\n Committee evaluates whether an information item meets the\n \xe2\x80\x9creasonable belief standard\xe2\x80\x9d using their experience,\n judgment, and concern for fairness. For \xe2\x80\x9creasonable belief\xe2\x80\x9d\n to be met, the Committee must determine an information\n item demonstrates that a violation of the tax laws may have\n occurred or it appears likely that an examination will lead to\n the discovery of a violation.\n The PIP included two sets of information items, all of them\n alleging political intervention by \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations.\n The primary set involved information items received by the\n EO Classification Unit on or after July 30, 2004. These\n cases were subject to both expedited classification and\n expedited examination processing. The second set involved\n information items received before July 30, 2004, that were\n in the EO Classification Unit\xe2\x80\x99s inventory or information\n items that involved potential political activity by \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3)\n organizations that were assigned to an examination group\n but for which no taxpayer contact had been made. These\n cases were subject to expedited examination processing but\n not the expedited classification.\n Based on information provided by EO function\n management, we determined that, during the period\n July 30, 2004, through November 22, 2004, the EO Referral\n Committee reviewed 131 information items alleging\n potential political activities by tax exempt organizations.\n The committee determined 10 information items were\n inaccurately categorized as potential political activities\n because they did not involve political activities. Of the\n remaining 121 information items, the EO Referral\n Committee determined 80 items warranted an examination\n based on the \xe2\x80\x9creasonable belief\xe2\x80\x9d criteria and 41 items did\n\n Page 6\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n not warrant an examination. Figures 1 and 2 break down\n these cases by type of organization.\n Figure 1: 80 Organizations Selected for Examination\n\n\n\n\n 34\n Church\n NonChurch\n 46\n\n\n\n\n Source: TE/GE Division data.\n Figure 2: 41 Organizations Not Selected for Examination\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n Church\n NonChurch\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\n\n\n Source: TE/GE Division data.\n\n The \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d processing was discontinued as of\n December 1, 2004\n During the fieldwork phase of our review, EO function\n management decided to discontinue the \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d\n processing of allegations of potential political intervention\n by \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations. This decision was based on\n completion of the 2004 elections and was effective for all\n information items received after November 30, 2004.4\n Based on our discussion with EO function management, a\n classifier will begin evaluating information items received\n after that date within 60 days (rather than classifying and\n\n 4\n EO function management considers the election cycle to end on\n November 30th of even numbered years.\n Page 7\n\x0c Review of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n directing items to an EO Examinations office group within\n 7-10 workdays of receipt). All cases processed under the\n \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d procedures prior to December 1, 2004, and\n assigned to the EO Examinations office were still required\n to be processed under the \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d examination\n procedures implemented in August 2004. At the end of our\n fieldwork, EO function management was evaluating\n whether an expedited process will be implemented in future\n election years.\n EO function management has also designated potential\n political intervention referral cases as priority work for the\n EO Examinations office in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005,\n indicating the TE/GE Division\xe2\x80\x99s continued emphasis in this\n area.\n We reviewed samples of information items processed under\nAllegations of Potential Political\n the PIP to determine whether the EO function processed the\nCampaign Intervention Were\n allegations in accordance with established procedures.\nHandled Consistently but Were\n Based on our samples, we determined the EO Referral\nNot Always Processed Timely\n Committee followed a consistent process when reviewing\n the information items, regardless of the source of the\n allegation or the potential political activity. Specifically, the\n sampled information items were reviewed by a three-person\n EO Referral Committee of experienced EO function\n technical employees, as required. In addition, the EO\n Referral Committee\xe2\x80\x99s decision of whether an allegation\n warranted an examination was documented in each case file.\n EO function management informed us the EO Referral\n Committee evaluated the information items based on the\n \xe2\x80\x9creasonable belief standard.\xe2\x80\x9d Further, we analyzed the EO\n Referral Committee\xe2\x80\x99s decisions and did not identify any\n cases in which the same criteria were used to select one\n information item for examination and to decline a similar\n item for examination. Based on the extent of our audit\n work, we did not identify any indications that the EO\n function inappropriately handled the information items we\n reviewed. Furthermore, we did not make any referrals to\n the TIGTA Office of Investigations during this audit.\n However, EO function management experienced delays in\n expediting the classification and examination processes.\n Specifically, the EO Classification Unit did not always\n ensure information items were classified and directed to a\n\n Page 8\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n field examination group timely, contact letters were not\n always issued to taxpayers within the expedited period, and\n notices of tax inquiry for issuance to churches were not\n reviewed and approved within the 15 workday expedited\n period. EO function management\xe2\x80\x99s ability to effectively\n accelerate case initiations for potential political intervention\n referrals was affected by a lack of clear guidance,\n inadequate resources, and the late initiation of the PIP with\n less than 5 months remaining before the 2004 elections. As\n a result, EO function management did not send contact\n letters to organizations until September 21, 2004, 6 weeks\n before the scheduled elections. Although the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 ability to\n contact tax exempt organizations as part of the PIP is not\n limited by the timing of the Presidential election, we believe\n contacting organizations so close to the election and the late\n publicity about this project contributed to the allegations of\n improper motivation on the part of the IRS.\n To select our samples, we obtained several listings from EO\n function management of all \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d cases processed\n during the period July 30, 2004, through\n November 22, 2004. We randomly selected 40 of the\n 80 information items for which the EO Referral Committee\n determined an examination was warranted, randomly\n selected 205 of the 41 items for which an examination was\n not warranted, and selected all 106 of the information items\n that were classified and determined to be inaccurately\n categorized as potential political activity, for a total of\n 70 cases.\n Information items were not always classified timely\n To determine if the EO Classification Unit function timely\n processed the information items we selected, we used two\n different classification timeliness standards, depending on\n\n\n 5\n The EO Referral Committee documented its decision not to select\n these cases for examination for various reasons, including the alleged\n activity was not prohibited political activity; the referral did not contain\n a specific, supported allegation of political activity; and the organization\n was not a \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organization.\n 6\n Our analysis of these cases determined they were similar to those\n categorized as not selected for examination. Specifically, the cases did\n not always contain specific, supported allegations of political activity or\n the organization was not a \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organization.\n Page 9\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n when the information items were received by the EO\n Classification Unit. Specifically, information items\n received in the Unit before July 30, 2004, were considered\n timely if they were assigned to a classifier within 60 days of\n receipt by the Unit.7 Information items received on or after\n July 30, 2004, were considered timely if they were classified\n and sent by the EO Classification Unit to an examination\n group, if warranted, within 10 workdays of receipt by the\n Unit. As shown in Figure 3, the EO function did not always\n classify information items timely.\n Figure 3: Timeliness of Classification Process\n\n EO Number Number Percentage Range of\n Classification of Cases Not Not Untimeliness\n Unit Receipt Processed Processed (days)\n Date Timely Timely\n\n Before 37 4 10.8 1-77\n 07/30/04 (avg 24 days\n late)\n\n On or After 33 25 75.8 1-40\n 07/30/04 (avg 19\n workdays\n late)\n\n Totals 70 29 41.4\n Source: TIGTA analysis of selected information items.\n\n We analyzed the 25 untimely processed information items\n received on or after July 30, 2004, and identified 2 main\n causes of untimeliness: delay in classifying the information\n items by the EO Referral Committee (it took an average of\n 15 workdays for the EO Referral Committee to classify the\n items after receipt in the Unit) or delay by the EO\n Classification Unit in sending the cases to an examination\n group after a decision was made by the EO Referral\n Committee (18 of the 25 items were selected for\n examination but were not sent to an examination group until\n an average of 19 workdays after review by the EO Referral\n Committee).\n\n\n\n 7\n We considered the evaluation of information items to begin when they\n were assigned to a classifier.\n Page 10\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n Although the PIP team requested additional resources to\n meet the expedited time standards, the EO Classification\n Unit may not have had sufficient resources to meet the\n PIP time standards. The Unit was allocated only an\n additional .5 Full-Time Equivalent8 to assist in meeting the\n expedited PIP time periods during the project. EO function\n management stated EO Classification Unit staffing\n shortages caused delays in the case-building process\n (conducting research of both internal and external\n databases) when information items were received, as well as\n delays in updating internal databases and preparing the case\n files before they were sent to EO Examinations office\n personnel after the EO Referral Committee determined an\n examination was warranted.\n As shown in Figure 3, classifiers timely began the\n evaluations (i.e., within 60 days of receipt) for the majority\n of cases in our samples received in the EO Classification\n Unit before July 30, 2004. However, the information items\n were not classified by the EO Referral Committee until an\n average of 111 days (almost 4 months) after receipt by the\n EO Classification Unit. In addition, when examinations\n were warranted, the Unit did not send the information items\n to an examination group until an average of 126 days (an\n additional 4 months) after the items were classified by the\n EO Referral Committee.\n With the decision to discontinue the expedited processing of\n potential political intervention referrals and the lack of a\n time standard for classifying cases, future referrals may\n once again be delayed in classification. To ensure all\n information items are evaluated timely, the EO function\n should establish, for both election years and nonelection\n years, clear time standards for when these information items\n should be classified and forwarded to an examination group,\n if warranted.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n A Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) is a measure of labor hours. One FTE\n is equal to 8 hours multiplied by the number of compensable days in a\n particular fiscal year. For FY 2004, 1 FTE was equal to 2,096 staff\n hours. For FY 2005, 1 FTE is equal to 2,088 hours.\n Page 11\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n Examination case processing was not always performed\n on an expedited basis for PIP cases\n Our analysis of the examination process for the 40 randomly\n selected information items for which the EO Referral\n Committee determined an examination was warranted was\n limited to the initial processing by the examination group as\n of December 21, 2004. This included the timeliness of case\n assignment to an agent, issuance of contact letters to\n nonchurch organizations, and processing of inquiry letters\n required for church cases. However, TE/GE Division\n personnel did not always ensure the necessary actions were\n completed timely.\n Specifically, we determined EO Examinations office\n management did not always ensure information items\n involving potential political intervention activity were\n assigned to an agent within the expedited period. We\n determined 21 (53 percent) of the 40 cases were not\n assigned to an agent within 1 day of receipt in the group, as\n required. Delays in the case assignment ranged from 1 to\n 30 workdays.\n For nonchurch PIP cases selected for correspondence\n examination, a letter should be issued to an organization\n within 5 workdays of receipt by the agent. For nonchurch\n PIP cases selected for field examination, an initial letter\n should be sent to the organization within 2 workdays of\n receipt by an agent, with a second letter issued no later than\n 10 workdays after the initial letter. Twenty-five of the\n 40 information items analyzed related to nonchurch\n organizations. We determined 10 (40 percent) of the\n 25 cases had at least 1 instance of a contact letter issued to a\n taxpayer beyond the established time period. This included\n initial contact letters for both correspondence and field\n examinations, as well as second contact letters for field\n examinations. Timeliness delays ranged from 2 to\n 23 workdays.\n For church cases, the \xe2\x80\x9cfast track\xe2\x80\x9d PIP procedures require\n that an inquiry letter be drafted, reviewed by the Office of\n Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt\n and Government Entities), and sent for quality review\n within 15 workdays following request for assignment of an\n Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel\n Page 12\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n attorney. However, we determined that 6 of the 15 church\n cases were not sent for quality review within the\n 15 workday standard. Timeliness delays ranged from 3 to\n 41 workdays.\n Based on our discussions with EO function management\n and review of recent PIP reports, EO function management\n indicated that the expedited periods for classification and\n examination were unrealistic. According to EO function\n management\xe2\x80\x99s analysis of PIP cases in process as of\n January 13, 2005, contact letters were not issued timely in\n 40 percent of the correspondence audits and 78 percent of\n the field audits. In addition, EO function management\n determined that inquiry letters were not processed timely in\n 78 percent of the church cases.\n The information items we analyzed contained allegations\n related to various political views and were received from\n both internal and external sources\n Based on our analysis of the information items randomly\n selected in our samples, we determined tax exempt\n organizations were allegedly performing activities that were\n supporting several political parties, as shown in\n Figures 4 and 5.\n Figure 4: Potential Political Activity by the 40 Organizations\n Selected for Examination\n\n 9\n Pro-Republican\n\n\n Pro-Democratic\n 18\n 1\n Pro-Green Party\n\n\n Unable to\n Determine\n 12\n\n\n\n Source: TIGTA analysis of 40 randomly selected information items.\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n Figure 5: Potential Political Activity by the 20 Organizations\n Not Selected for Examination\n\n\n\n 8 Pro-Republican*\n\n 10 Pro-Democratic*\n\n\n Unable to\n Determine\n\n\n 4\n\n\n *Two information items alleged political activity that supported both the\n Republican and Democratic parties and was detrimental to other\n political parties.\n Source: TIGTA analysis of 20 randomly selected information items.\n\n The \xe2\x80\x9cUnable to Determine\xe2\x80\x9d information items included\n allegations that we could not directly attribute to any\n political party, such as those related to local election issues\n or candidates for local offices.\n We also determined the allegations for the items in our\n random samples were referred by both internal and external\n sources. Specifically, several information items were\n received from internal IRS sources, such as EO\n Examinations office and IRS Communications and Liaison\n office personnel. Other sources of information items were\n individual taxpayers, other Federal Government agencies,\n political candidates, and the Congress.\n\n Recommendations\n\n The Director, EO, should:\n 1. Formalize the draft guidelines that detail how allegations\n of potential noncompliance with the tax law by tax\n exempt organizations should be classified.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: TE/GE Division management has\n drafted and will make effective procedures that specify how\n allegations of potential noncompliance by tax exempt\n organizations should be classified.\n\n\n Page 14\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n 2. Ensure time standards for accelerated case initiation\n (both classification and examination) are realistic for\n future election years based on available resources and\n priorities.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: TE/GE Division management is\n drafting and will issue revised political intervention\n procedures for future election years that contain realistic\n time periods. As additional data from the 2004 election\n cycle is collected, these procedures may be revised, if\n appropriate, for the 2006 election cycle.\n 3. Establish time standards for when potential political\n intervention allegations received in nonelection years\n should be evaluated for examination potential and sent\n to the examination groups, rather than just assigned to\n an examiner as currently required.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: TE/GE Division management has\n drafted and will implement procedures that set time periods\n within which information items alleging potential political\n intervention received in nonelection years are assigned to a\n classifier and either sent to an examination group or\n determined that an examination is not warranted.\n 4. Ensure any future expedited review process is initiated\n early enough in an election year to ensure classification\n and examination actions are completed timely and\n consistently.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: TE/GE Division management has\n drafted and the Director, EO Examinations, is considering\n procedures for future election years that will ensure the\n process is initiated early enough to allow classification and\n examination actions to be completed timely and\n consistently.\n In addition, the Commissioner, TE/GE Division, should:\n 5. Issue a press release in future election years if\n allegations of potential noncompliance with the tax laws\n will be processed on an expedited basis, to increase\n public awareness of the expedited process.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Commissioner, TE/GE\n Division, has requested the Director, Communications and\n Liaison, TE/GE Division, to prepare a press release in future\n Page 15\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n election years advising the exempt organizations community\n that allegations of potential noncompliance with the tax\n laws relating to political activity will be processed on an\n expedited basis.\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\x0c Review of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n Appendix I\n\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe overall objective of this review was to evaluate the Tax Exempt and Government Entities\n(TE/GE) Division\xe2\x80\x99s recently established process for reviewing information alleging political\ncampaign intervention by Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3)1 organizations and for\ninitiating any associated examinations of these organizations. Specifically, we determined the\nprocess established by TE/GE Division management to review referrals of potential political\ncampaign intervention and assessed whether referrals were processed in accordance with\nestablished procedures. To accomplish the objective, we:\nI. Reviewed actions taken by TE/GE Division management during the 2004 Presidential\n election year to educate I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations on their responsibilities related\n to political activities.\n A. Interviewed Exempt Organizations (EO) function management to determine any\n education and outreach efforts taken during the 2004 election year related to political\n activity.\n B. Obtained any press releases, letters, or other correspondence/documentation issued by\n the TE/GE Division during this period.\nII. Determined the process established by TE/GE Division management during the\n 2004 election year to review referrals of political campaign intervention and to assess\n which organizations merit examination.\n A. Interviewed TE/GE Division management to determine the process established during\n this period to review allegations of political campaign intervention.\n B. Obtained any procedures or documentation related to the establishment of the\n process.\n C. Obtained any procedures or documentation established by TE/GE Division\n management detailing the process that should be followed when receiving and\n reviewing any allegations of political campaign intervention by I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3)\n organizations and in determining whether to initiate an examination.\nIII. Assessed whether the referrals received by TE/GE Division management were processed\n in accordance with established procedures.\n A. Obtained a listing of all internal and external referrals received by TE/GE Division\n management during the 2004 election year alleging political campaign intervention\n by I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) organizations.\n\n1\n I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 501(c)(3) (2004).\n Page 17\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\nB. Selected three samples of the allegations received to evaluate the process followed by\n the TE/GE Division when determining whether an examination was warranted.\n 1. Selected a random sample of the allegations received for which the TE/GE\n Division determined an examination was not warranted based on its review. We\n randomly selected 20 of the 41 allegations processed by the EO function during\n the period July 30, 2004, through November 22, 2004. We used a random sample\n due to time constraints and because we did not plan to project our results.\n 2. Selected a random sample of the allegations received for which the TE/GE\n Division initiated an examination based on its review. We randomly selected\n 40 of the 80 allegations processed by the EO function during the period\n July 30, 2004, through November 22, 2004. We used a random sample due to\n time constraints and because we did not plan to project our results.\n 3. Reviewed all 10 allegations received by the EO function during the period\n July 30, 2004, through November 22, 2004, which the TE/GE Division\n determined were inaccurately categorized as potential political intervention\n activities.\nC. Obtained and reviewed any case files for the sampled referrals to determine whether\n established procedures were followed for reviewing the referrals and for initiating any\n examinations.\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\x0c Review of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n Appendix II\n\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nDaniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt\nOrganizations Programs)\nNancy A. Nakamura, Director\nJeffrey M. Jones, Audit Manager\nTheresa Berube, Lead Auditor\nMargaret Anketell, Senior Auditor\nDeadra English, Senior Auditor\nDonald Martineau, Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\x0c Review of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n Appendix III\n\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nCommissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner - Attn: Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE\nDeputy Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division SE:T\nDirector, Exempt Organizations, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division SE:T:EO\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 Management Controls OS:CFO:AR:M\nAudit Liaison: Director, Communications and Liaison, Tax Exempt and Government Entities\nDivision SE:T:CL\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n Appendix IV\n\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\x0cReview of the Exempt Organizations Function Process for Reviewing Alleged\n Political Campaign Intervention by Tax Exempt Organizations\n\n\n\n\n Page 25\n\x0c'


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Tähtis õiguslik teade
 |
 52004PC0794
 Ettepanek Nõukogu määrus millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 1255/96, millega ajutiselt peatatakse teatavatele tööstus-, põllumajandus- ja kalandustoodetele kehtestatud ühise tollitariifistiku ühepoolsed tollimaksud /* KOM/2004/0794 lõplik */
 Brüssel 10.12.2004KOM(2004)794 lõplikEttepanekNÕUKOGU MÄÄRUSmillega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 1255/96, millega ajutiselt peatatakse teatavatele tööstus-, põllumajandus- ja kalandustoodetele kehtestatud ühise tollitariifistiku ühepoolsed tollimaksud(komisjoni esitatud)EXPOSÉ DES MOTIFSLa Commission assistée du groupe "Economie Tarifaire" a procédé à un examen des demandes de suspensions temporaires des droits autonomes du tarif douanier commun qui lui ont été présentées par les Etats membres, y compris certaines demandes modifiant des suspensions existantes actuellement en vigueur.La proposition ci-jointe concerne certains produits industriels, agricoles et de la pêche.Les demandes de suspensions relatives aux produits visés ci-dessus ont été examinées à la lumière des critères repris dans la communication de la Commission en matière de suspensions et de contingents tarifaires autonomes (cf. JO C 128 du 25.4.1998, p. 2).A la suite de cet examen, la Commission estime que la suspension ou la réduction des droits est justifiée pour les produits repris à l'annexe I de la proposition de règlement ci-jointe.Certains produits, pour lesquelles le maintien d’une suspension ne se justifie plus au regard des intérêts économiques de la Communauté, ont été retirés et sont énumérés à l’annexe II.Le présent règlement comporte, en effet, deux annexes correspondant, respectivement, à la liste des produits pour lesquels une suspension est proposée ou pour lesquels une modification de libellé (incluant le code de nomenclature) est nécessaire et à la liste des produits supprimés de l’annexe au règlement (CE) n° 1255/96.Les modifications de description de certains produits repris dans l’annexe au règlement n° 1255/96, lorsqu’elles sont devenues nécessaires, ont été prises en compte de la manière suivante:- ajout du code de nomenclature du produit (figurant à l’annexe du règlement (CE) n° 1255/96) à l’annexe II,- ajout de la nouvelle description modifiée du produit à l’annexe I.La durée de la mesure proposée est indéterminée, puisque son objet est de modifier l’annexe du règlement (CE) n° 1255/96 du Conseil dont la durée de validité est elle-même indéterminée.EttepanekNÕUKOGU MÄÄRUSmillega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 1255/96, millega ajutiselt peatatakse teatavatele tööstus-, põllumajandus- ja kalandustoodetele kehtestatud ühise tollitariifistiku ühepoolsed tollimaksudEUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut, eriti selle artiklit 26,võttes arvesse komisjoni ettepanekut[1]ning arvestades järgmist:(1) Ühenduse huvides on peatada täielikult või osaliselt ühise tollitariifistiku ühepoolsed tollimaksud teatavatelt uutelt toodetelt, mis ei ole kantud nõukogu 27. juuni 1996. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1255/96 (millega ajutiselt peatatakse teatavatele tööstus-, põllumajandus- ja kalandustoodetele kehtestatud ühise tollitariifistiku ühepoolsed tollimaksud) lisasse.[2](2) Tooted, mille puhul ühise tollitariifistiku ühepoolse tollimaksu peatamine ei ole enam ühenduse huvides või mille kirjeldust on vaja muuta seoses tehnoloogia muutumisega, tuleks nimetatud määruse lisas esitatud nimekirjast kustutada.(3) Tooteid, mille kirjeldusi on vaja muuta, tuleks vaadelda kui uusi tooteid.(4) Seetõttu tuleks muuta määrust (EÜ) nr 1255/96,(5) Kuna käesolevat määrust kohaldatakse alates 1. jaanuarist 2005, peaks see viivitamata jõustuma,ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA MÄÄRUSE:Artikkel 1Määruse (EÜ) nr 1255/96 lisa muudetakse järgmiselt:1. Käesoleva määruse I lisas loetletud tooted kantakse määruse (EÜ) nr 1255/96 lisasse;2. Määruse (EÜ) nr 1255/96 lisast kustutatakse tooted, mille koodid on loetletud käesoleva määruse II lisas.Artikkel 2Käesolev määrus jõustub kolmandal päeval pärast selle avaldamist Euroopa Liidu Teatajas .Seda kohaldatakse alates 1. jaanuarist 2005.Käesolev määrus on tervikuna siduv ja vahetult kohaldatav kõikides liikmesriikides.Brüssel,Nõukogu nimeleesistujaI LISACN-kood | TARIC | Kauba kirjeldus | Ühepoolse tollimaksu määr (%) |ex 2005 90 80 | 70 | Bambusevõrsed, toiduks valmistatud või konserveeritud, kontaktpakendites netomassiga üle 5 kg | 0 |ex 2106 10 20 | 10 | Sojavalgu isolaat, mis sisaldab kaltsiumfosfaati vähemalt 6,6%, kuid mitte üle 8,6% massist | 0 |ex 2309 90 99 | 20 | Kaltsium-naatriumfosfaat, fluorisisaldusega vähemalt 0,005%, kuid mitte üle 0,2% kuiva veevaba toote massist, [kasutamiseks loomasööda lisaainete tootmisel](a) | 0 |ex 2904 90 85 | 30 | 5-nitro-1,2,4-triklorobenseen | 0 |ex 2908 90 00 | 40 | 3-nitro-p-kresool | 0 |ex 2914 70 00 | 50 | 3'-kloropropiofenoon | 0 |ex 2919 00 90 | 30 | Alumiinium hüdroksübis[2,2'-metüleenbis(4,6-di-tert-butüülfenüül)fosfaat] | 0 |ex 2922 29 00 | 15 | N-metüül-2-(3,4-dimetoksüfenüül)etüülamiin | 0 |ex 2924 29 95 | 75 | 3-amino-p-anisaniliid | 0 |ex 2924 29 95 | 95 | N-{3-[3-(dimetüülamino)prop-2-enoüül]fenüül}-N-etüülatsetamiid | 0 |ex 2928 00 90 | 70 | Tetrakis(4-metüülpentaan-2-oksimino)silaan | 0 |ex 2929 90 00 | 20 | Etüül-isotsüanoatsetaat | 0 |ex 2931 00 95 | 84 | Metüülbis(4-metüülpentaan-2-oksimino)vinüülsilaan | 0 |ex 2932 99 85 | 20 | (2-butüülbensofuraan-3-üül) (4-hüdroksü-3,5-dijodofenüül)ketoon | 0 |ex 2933 19 90 | 20 | 4-amino-1-metüül-3-propüülpürasool-5-karboksamiid | 0 |ex 2933 59 95 | 15 | (2R)-4-okso-4-[3-(trifluorometüül)-5,6-dihüdro[1,2,4]triasolo[4,3-a]= pürasiin-7(8H)-üül]-1-(2,4,5-trifluorofenüül)butüül-2-ammooniumfosfaadi monohüdraat | 0 |ex 2933 99 90 | 40 | trans-4-hüdroksü-L-proliin | 0 |ex 2933 99 90 | 85 | Pürrolidiin | 0 |ex 2934 99 90 | 80 | Oblimerseen naatrium (INNM) | 0 |ex 3707 90 90 | 40 | Peegeldumisvastane pinnakate, mis koosneb aminovaigust ja modifitseeritud fenoolvaigust, lahusena 1-metoksüpropaan-2-oolis ja etüüllaktaadis, mis sisaldab kokku mõlemat polümeeri vähemalt 15%, kuid mitte üle 24% massist | 0 |ex 3707 90 90 | 50 | Peegeldumisvastane pinnakate, mis sisaldab: - vähemalt 30%, kuid mitte üle 40% massist tsükloheksanooni, - vähemalt 30%, kuid mitte üle 40% massist 1-metüül-2-pürrolidooni, - vähemalt 20%, kuid mitte üle 30% massist tetrahüdrofurfurüülalkoholi | 0 |ex 3707 90 90 | 10 | Peegeldumisvastane kate, mis koosneb muudetud metakrüülpolümeerist, polümeerisisaldusega kuni 10 % massist, lahusena 2-metoksü-1-metüületüülatsetaadis ja 1-metoksüpropaan-2-oolis | 0 |ex 3707 90 90 | 20 | Peegeldumisvastane kate, mis koosneb kromoforirühmadega muudetud hüdroksüstüreeni ja metüülmetakrülaadi kopolümeerist, polümeerisisaldusega kuni 10 % massist, lahusena 1-metoksüpropaan-2-oolis ja etüüllaktaadis | 0 |ex 3808 10 90 | 40 | Spinosaad (ISO) | 0 |ex 3815 90 90 | 81 | Katalüsaator, mis sisaldab vähemalt 69%, kuid mitte üle 79% massist (2-hüdroksü-1-metüületüül)trimetüülammoonium-2-etüülheksanaati | 0 |ex 3817 00 80 | 10 | Alküülnaftaleenide segu, mis sisaldab massist: - 88–98% heksadetsüülnaftaleeni - 2–12% diheksadetsüülnaftaleeni | 0 |ex 3824 90 64 | 06 | Inosiini (INN), dimepranooli (INN) ja atsedobeeni(INN) segu | 0 |ex 3824 90 99 | 96 | Tsirkooniumdioksiid, mida on stabiliseeritud kaltsiumoksiidiga, pulbrina | 0 |ex 3907 20 21 | 10 | Segu, mis sisaldab vähemalt 70%, kuid mitte üle 80% massist glütserooli ja 1,2-epoksüpropaani polümeeri ning vähemalt 20%, kuid mitte üle 30% massist dibutüülmaleaadi ja N-vinüül-2-pürrolidooni kopolümeeri | 0 |ex 3908 90 00 | 30 | Alifaatse polüeeterdiamiiniga polümeriseeritud oktadekaankarboksüülhapete segude reaktsioonisaadused | 0 |ex 3911 90 99 | 85 | Etüleeni ja stüreeni polümeer, mis on ristseotud divinüülbenseeniga, lahusena | 0 |ex 3919 10 19 ex 3919 10 38 ex 3919 90 38 ex 3920 99 28 | 10 20 10 20 | Peegeldav kile, mis koosneb polüuretaankihist, millel on ühel pool andmete võltsimise, muutmise või asendamise või reprodutseerimise vastane sissepressitud turvamärgistus või ametlik märge ettenähtud kasutamise kohta ja sissepeidetud klaashelmed ning teisel pool adhesiivkiht, mis on ühelt või mõlemalt poolt kaetud adhesioonivaba kaitsekilega | 0 |ex 3919 10 31 ex 3919 10 38 ex 3919 90 31 ex 3920 61 00 | 10 30 50 20 | Peegeldav laminaatkile, mis koosneb ühelt poolt korrapärase surutrükimustriga üleni kaetud polükarbonaatkilest, on mõlemalt poolt kaetud ühe või mitme kihi plastmaterjaliga ning ühelt poolt adhesiivkihi ja adhesioonivaba kaitsekilega või ilma | 0 |ex 3919 10 61 ex 3919 90 61 | 91 94 | Peegeldav kile, mis koosneb polü(vinüülkloriid)kihist ja alküüdpolüesterkihist, millel on ühel pool andmete võltsimise, muutmise või asendamise või reprodutseerimise vastane sissepressitud turvamärgistus või ametlik märge ettenähtud kasutamise kohta, mis on nähtav üksnes retroreflektiivvalguses, ja sissepeidetud klaashelmed ning teisel pool adhesiivkiht, mis on ühelt või mõlemalt poolt kaetud adhesioonivaba kaitsekilega | 0 |ex 3919 90 61 ex 3919 90 69 ex 3920 10 89 | 93 93 25 | Isekleepuv kile, mis koosneb etüleeni ja vinüülatsetaadi (EVA) kopolümeerist alusest paksusega vähemalt 70 μm ja millel on vähemalt 5 μm paksune akrüülne adhesiivkiht, mõeldud pseudoketaste pinna kaitsmiseks | 0 |ex 3920 10 89 | 35 | Peegeldav kile, mis koosneb polüetüleenkihist ja polüuretaankihist, millel on ühel pool andmete võltsimise, muutmise või asendamise või reprodutseerimise vastane sissepressitud turvamärgistus või ametlik märge ettenähtud kasutamise kohta, mis on nähtav üksnes retroreflektiivvalguses, ja sissepeidetud klaashelmed ning teisel pool kuumliimikiht, mis on ühelt või mõlemalt poolt kaetud adhesioonivaba kaitsekilega | 0 |ex 3921 13 10 | 10 | Vahtpolüuretaani leht, paksusega 3 mm (± 15%) ja suhtelise tihedusega vähemalt 0,09435, kuid mitte üle 0,10092 | 0 |ex 5404 10 90 | 50 | Polüestrist või polü(butüleentereftalaadist) monofilament, mille ristlõike läbimõõt on vähemalt 0,5 mm, kuid mitte üle 1 mm, lukkude valmistamiseks (a) |ex 5603 14 90 | 30 | Lausriie elastomeerist keskkihiga, mis on mõlemalt poolelt lamineeritud orienteerimata polüpropüleenfilamentkiududega, pindtihedusega vähemalt 200 g/m2, kuid mitte üle 300 g/m2 | 0 |ex 7002 10 00 | 10 | E-klaashelmed läbimõõduga vähemalt 20,3 mm, kuid mitte üle 26 mm | 0 |ex 8108 30 00 | 10 | Titaani ja titaanisulamite jäätmed ja jäägid, välja arvatud need, mis sisaldavad vähemalt 1%, kuid mitte üle 2% massist alumiiniumi | 0 |ex 8108 90 50 | 10 | Titaani- ja alumiiniumisulam, mis sisaldab vähemalt 1%, kuid mitte üle 2% massist alumiiniumi, lehtedena või rullides, paksusega vähemalt 0,49 mm, kuid mitte üle 3,1 mm, laiusega vähemalt 1000 mm, kuid mitte üle 1254 mm, alamrubriigi 8714 19 00 kaupade tootmiseks(a) | 0 |ex 8108 90 50 | 20 | Titaani-, alumiiniumi- ja vanaadiumisulam, mis sisaldab vähemalt 2,5%, kuid mitte üle 3,5% massist alumiiniumi ning vähemalt 2,0%, kuid mitte üle 3,0% vanaadiumi, lehtedena või rullides, paksusega vähemalt 0,6 mm, kuid mitte üle 0,9 mm, laiusega vähemalt 1000 mm, alamrubriigi 8714 19 00 kaupade tootmiseks(a) | 0 |ex 8518 40 91 | 10 | Helisagedusvõimendi seade, mis koosneb vähemalt ühest helisagedusvõimendist, staatilisest muundurist ja heligeneraatorist, mis on mõeldud aktiivvaljuhääldikastide valmistamiseks (a) | 0 |ex 8522 90 98 | 48 | Videopea trummel koos videopeade või video- ja helipeadega ja elektrimootoriga, mida kasutatakse rubriiki 8521 kuuluvate toodete valmistamiseks (a) | 0 |ex 8529 90 81 | 43 | Plasma-kuvapaneel, mis koosneb ainult aadressi- ja kuvaelektroodidest, draiver- ja/või juhtelektroonikaga ainult pikseliaadressi jaoks või ilma ning toiteallikaga või ilma. | 0 |ex 9002 90 90 | 60 | Läätsed, kokkumonteeritud, mida kasutatakse projektsioonteleviisorite valmistamiseks (a) | 0 |(a) | Sellesse alamrubriiki klassifitseerimisel tuleb järgida asjakohastes ühenduse õigusaktides sätestatud tingimusi. |II LISACN-kood | TARIC |ex | 2005 90 80 | 70 |ex | 2106 10 20 | 10 |ex | 2912 42 00 | 10 |ex | 2916 20 00 | 40 |ex | 2916 39 00 | 10 |ex | 2920 90 85 | 30 |ex | 3208 90 19 | 60 |ex | 3208 90 19 | 70 |ex | 3208 90 19 | 80 |ex | 3504 00 00 | 30 |ex | 3707 90 90 | 10 |ex | 3707 90 90 | 20 |ex | 3815 90 90 | 81 |ex | 3824 90 99 | 86 |ex | 3911 90 99 | 20 |ex | 3919 10 31 | 10 |ex | 3919 10 38 | 20 |ex | 3919 10 38 | 30 |ex | 3919 10 61 | 91 |ex | 3919 90 31 | 50 |ex | 3919 90 38 | 10 |ex | 3919 90 61 | 93 |ex | 3919 90 61 | 94 |ex | 3919 90 69 | 93 |ex | 3920 10 89 | 25 |ex | 3920 10 89 | 35 |ex | 3920 99 28 | 20 |ex | 5404 10 90 | 50 |ex | 7019 32 00 | 10 |ex | 7019 39 00 | 10 |8108 30 00 |ex | 8108 90 70 | 20 |ex | 8540 91 00 | 91 |ex | 8540 91 00 | 94 |FICHE FINANCIÈRE1. INTITULÉ DE L'ACTIONProposition de règlement du Conseil modifiant le règlement (CE) n° 1255/96 portant suspension temporaire des droits autonomes du tarif douanier commun sur certains produits industriels, agricoles et de la pêche.2. LIGNE(S) BUDGÉTAIRE(S) CONCERNÉE(S)Chap. 12 art. 120.3. BASE JURIDIQUEArt. 26 du Traité-CE.4. DESCRIPTION DE L'ACTIONSuspension des droits du tarif douanier commun pour les produits susvisés.7. INCIDENCE FINANCIÈREPour réduire les problèmes économiques liés à la durée des règlements existants précédemment, le règlement (CE) n° 1255/96 du Conseil, actuellement en vigueur, ne comporte pas de date de fin de validité.La présente proposition de règlement du Conseil ne reprend que les modifications qui doivent être nécessairement apportées à l’annexe du règlement existant pour tenir compte:1. des nouvelles demandes de suspensions qui ont été présentées et retenues,2. des évolutions techniques des produits et de l’évolution économique du marché qui conduisent à supprimer certaines des suspensions existantes,3. des modifications de codes de nomenclature.Seules les modifications reprises sous 1. et 2. ont évidemment une incidence financière.Addition:Cette annexe, en plus des modifications dues à un changement de code NC, comprend 33 produits nouveaux. Les suspensions correspondantes génèrent un montant de droits non perçus, calculé à partir des importations prévues dans l’Etat membre demandeur pour l’année 2005, de 9,8 MEUR.Cependant il apparaît, au vu des statistiques existantes pour les années précédentes, que ce montant doit être augmenté d’un facteur moyen qui peut être estimé à 1,8, pour tenir compte des importations réalisées dans les autres Etats membres utilisant les mêmes suspensions. Soit donc une perte de recette d’environ 17,7 MEUR.Suppression:Cette annexe introduit la suppression de 9 produits correspondant à des droits de douane de nouveau perçus et donc à une augmentation des ressources de 3,3 MEUR déterminés à partir des demandes de suspensions ou des statistiques disponibles (2001).Coût prévisionnel de l’action actuelleL'impact sur la perte de ressources propres engendré par le présent règlement, sur base des statistiques disponibles (2001), peut alors être estimé à environ 17,7 - 3,3 = 14,4 MEUR (montant brut, frais de perception inclus) × 0,75 = 10,8 MEUR (montant net) pour la période 1.1.2005-31.12.2005.La moins value des ressources propres traditionnelles correspondante devra être financée par les Etats membres par le biais d’un recours additionnel à la ressource PNB.8. DISPOSITIONS ANTI-FRAUDE PRÉVUESLe contrôle de la destination particulière de certains des produits visés par ce règlement du Conseil se fera en conformité avec les articles 291 à 300 du règlement de la Commission (CEE) n° 2454/93 fixant les dispositions d'application du code des douanes communautaires.[1] ELT C , , lk .[2] EÜT L 158, 29.6.1996, lk 1. Määrust on viimati muudetud määrusega (EÜ) nr 1241/2004 (ELT L 238, 8.7.2004, lk 1).


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 32003R0956
 Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 956/2003 af 2. juni 2003 om ændring af importtold for korn
 EU-Tidende nr. L 135 af 03/06/2003 s. 0015 - 0017
 Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 956/2003af 2. juni 2003om ændring af importtold for kornKOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER HAR -under henvisning til traktaten om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Fællesskab,under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1766/92 af 30. juni 1992 om den fælles markedsordning for korn(1), senest ændret ved forordning (EF) nr. 1666/2000(2),under henvisning til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1249/96 af 28. juni 1996 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1766/92 for så vidt angår importtold for korn(3), senest ændret ved forordning (EF) nr. 1900/2002(4), særlig artikel 2, stk. 1, ogud fra følgende betragtninger:(1) Importtolden for korn blev fastsat ved Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 948/2003(5).(2) I artikel 2, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 1249/96 er det fastsat, at hvis det beregnede gennemsnit af importtolden i dens anvendelsesperiode afviger med mindst 5 EUR/t fra den fastsatte told, foretages der en tilsvarende justering. Nævnte afvigelse har fundet sted. Det er derfor nødvendigt at justere importtolden i forordning (EF) nr. 948/2003 -UDSTEDT FØLGENDE FORORDNING:Artikel 1Bilag I og II til forordning (EF) nr. 948/2003 affattes som angivet i bilag I og II til nærværende forordning.Artikel 2Denne forordning træder i kraft den 3. juni 2003.Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 2. juni 2003.På Kommissionens vegneJ. M. Silva RodríguezGeneraldirektør for landbrug(1) EFT L 181 af 1.7.1992, s. 21.(2) EFT L 193 af 29.7.2000, s. 1.(3) EFT L 161 af 29.6.1996, s. 125.(4) EFT L 287 af 25.10.2002, s. 15.(5) EUT L 109 af 1.5.2003, s. 18.BILAG IImporttold for produkterne som omhandlet i artikel 10, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1766/92>TABELPOSITION>BILAG IIElementer til beregning af tolden(perioden 28.5.2003 til 30.5.2003)1. Gennemsnit for perioden på to uger forud for fastsættelsesdagen:>TABELPOSITION>2. Fragt/omkostninger: Mexicanske Golf-Rotterdam: 17,79 EUR/t; The Great Lakes-Rotterdam: 26,12 EUR/t.3.>TABELPOSITION>


type: wikipedia

text:
Madagaskar (zastarale Malgašsko), plným názvem Madagaskarská republika, je stát ležící na stejnojmenném ostrově v Indickém oceánu při jihovýchodním pobřeží kontinentální Afriky a na nejbližších přilehlých ostrůvcích. Samotný Madagaskar je největší ostrov v Africe a 4. největší na světě. Od nejbližší pevniny (Mosambik) ho odděluje 400 km široký Mosambický průliv a jeho flóra a fauna je díky dlouhodobé izolaci z 90 % endemická. V širším okolí Madagaskaru se nachází řada ostrůvků pod správou Francie (Réunion, Tromelin, Mayotte, Juan da Nova, Bassas da India aj.) a dále na severozápadě ostrovní stát Komory, severně Seychely a východně Mauricius.
 Dějiny
 Rané dějiny
 Madagaskar osídlili lidé před více než 10000 lety. Další obyvatelé Madagaskaru se na ostrov přeplavili na dvojitých kánoích přes Indii a východní Afriku z Indonésie asi před 2000 lety. Lidé z vnitrozemí Afriky se tu usadili později a dnešní obyvatelé (Malgaši) mají smíšený původ. Na centrální vysočině žijí převážně kmeny austronéského původu, např. Merina, Sihanaka a Betsileo, jež mají dominantní ekonomické postavení. Pobřeží obývají tzv. Côtiers, kmeny původem ze subsaharské Afriky. Jejich společný jazyk malgaština je velmi příbuzný indonéskému jazyku jazyku Maanjanců z Kalimantanu. Zvyky a náboženství včetně uctívání předků je směsí indonéskou a africkou.
 Koloniální období
 V 11. století Arabové založili na ostrově první sultanát. Jako první Evropané objevili Madagaskar Portugalci v roce 1500, v 17. století přišli Britové a Francouzi. Kvůli výhodné strategické poloze jevili o ostrov zájem také piráti. Evropští, zejména evangeličtí misionáři vyvíjeli snahu obrátit ostrovany na křesťanství, která ale až do poloviny 19. století nebyla úspěšná.
 V roce 1772 dorazil do Paříže slovenský dobrodruh a cestovatel, hrabě Móric Beňovský, kde zapůsobil na krále Ludvíka XV. Ten mu nabídl místo zástupce Francie na Madagaskaru. V roce 1776 Beňovského na Madagaskaru místní kmenoví náčelníci zvolili za krále Madagaskaru (ampansacabe). Ve stejném roce se vrátil do Paříže, kde byl později na příkaz krále Ludvíka povýšen na generála, byl mu udělen vojenský Řád svatého Ludvíka a dostal doživotní rentu. Roku 1783 se obrátil na Velkou Británii, kde požádal vládu o povolení expedice na Madagaskar. V roce 1784 pověřil Beňovský J. H. Magellana svým zastupováním ve všech hospodářských a politických záležitostech na ostrově. V roce 1785 dorazil sám opět na Madagaskar, zorganizoval zde vzpouru domorodců proti francouzské osadě Foulpointe a začal budovat hlavní město s názvem Mauritanie na Cape East (nejvýchodnější bod ostrova). V roce 1786 však rozzlobené francouzské ministerstvo námořnictví poslalo na Madagaskar tajnou výpravu, která 23. května provedla překvapivý útok. Beňovský byl v boji v Mauritanii zabit.
 Od 14. století existoval v oblasti vysočiny ve vnitrozemí ostrova stát Imerina, který se během 18. století za krále Andrianampoinimeriny stal hegemonem. Centrem Imeriny bylo Antananarivo (náboženským centrem však byla Ambohimanga), které se později stalo hlavním městem celého ostrova. Ačkoli se králové Imeriny snažili vládnout absolutisticky, svůj vliv si uchovala i lidová shromáždění zvaná Kabary. Imerinská královna Ranavalona I., vládnoucí mezi lety 1830–1861, šíření a vyznávání křesťanství zakázala a dokonce trestala smrtí. Její neteř Ranavalona II. však roku 1869 ke křesťanství konvertovala a podporovala protestantské misie na ostrově. Během 19. století si království Imerina na náhorní plošině podrobilo většinu ostrova. Roku 1885 byl vyhlášen francouzský protektorát.
 V roce 1895 ostrov nadlouho ovládli Francouzi a Madagaskar se stal francouzskou kolonií. Za druhé světové války se zde v roce 1942 odehrála bitva o Madagaskar, ve které Britové porazili správu Vichistické Francie, ustavili vládu Svobodné Francie a získali důležité přístavy. V roce 1947 vypuklo malgašské povstání proti Francouzům, bylo však tvrdě potlačeno. Madagaskar zůstal kolonií až do 26. června 1960, kdy získal nezávislost a stal se Malgašskou republikou. Roku 1975 byl změněn název za současný.
 Madagaskarská republika
 Po mírovém desetiletí profrancouzské vlády byla nedávná historie bouřlivá. V roce 1975 se během revoluce dostal k moci prezident Didier Ratsiraka jako faktický diktátor, který vyznával socialistickou protizápadní politiku. Jeho vláda znárodnila mnoho obchodů v zemi včetně těch, které vlastnili cizinci. V roce 1991 ho stávky a demonstrace přinutily přijmout demokratičtější ústavu a volby v roce 1993 přivedly k moci novou vládu v čele s prezidentem Albertem Zafym. Od roku 2002 do roku 2009 byl prezidentem Madagaskaru Marc Ravalomanana. 16. března 2009 obsadila armáda prezidentský palác a převzala moc, kterou následně předala opozičnímu vůdci Andrymu Rajoelinovi. 17. března téhož roku dosavadní prezident Ravalomanana odstoupil ze své funkce a 21. března byl inaugurován nový prezident Rajoelina.
 Geografie
 Původ ostrova, hory a řeky
 Madagaskar představoval před 170 miliony lety vnitrozemské území superkontinentu Gondwana. Při rozpadu Gondwany se nejprve společně s Indií oddělil od pevniny tvořené Afrikou a Jižní Amerikou a následně i od Austrálie a Antarktidy. Indický subkontinent se pohyboval směrem severně a před asi 88 miliony lety v období pozdní křídy se z něj odtrhl Madagaskar. Jeho povrch tvoří náhorní plošina zvolna se sklánějící k západu a příkře spadající na východ k rovnému úzkému pruhu pobřežní nížiny. Na severu ostrova se vypíná vulkanický masiv Tsaratanana nebo Maromokotro (nejvyšší bod státu, 2 876 m n. m). Pozůstatkem dřívější sopečné činnosti jsou dnešní kráterová jezírka a horká vřídla. Ve středu ostrova vystupuje pohoří Ankaratra, které má nejvyšší vrchol Tsiafajavena (2 643 m n. m). Na jihovýchodě leží masiv Andringitra nebo Pic Boby (2 658 m n. m). a na jihozápadě masiv Isalo s národním parkem.
 Ostrov se vyznačuje hustou říční sítí. Největšími řekami jsou Betsiboka, Mahavavy, Bemarivo, Maevarano, Sofia, Mahajamba, Ikopa, Mangoky, Onilahy a na východě Mangoro. Umělým spojením lagun na východě vznikla pobřežní vodní cesta Canal des Pangalane. Největšími jezery jsou Tsimanampetsotsa, Ihotry, Bemamba, Kinkony a Alaotra.
 Rozloha
 Madagaskar má rozlohu 587 295 km2, z čehož více než 99,9% (587 041 km2 zabírá hlavní ostrov, což jej činí po Grónsku, Nové Guineji a Borneu čtvrtým největším ostrovem na světě. Je 7,5× větší než Česká republika a téměř stejně velký jako Ukrajina. Z Afriky zabírá 1,9 % rozlohy. Ostrov je protáhlý v jihojihozápadně-severoseverovýchodním směru, je dlouhý asi 1 600 km a v nejširším místě měří asi 560 km. Pobřeží je dlouhé 4 828 km a je poměrně málo členité (nejvíce na severozápadě).
 Stát Madagaskar si za základní linií nárokuje tato mořská území:
 pobřežní moře – 12 námořních mil (22,2 km)
 přilehlá zóna – 24 námořních mil (44,4 km) od základní linie
 výlučná ekonomická zóna – 200 námořních mil (370,4 km) od základní linie
 kontinentální šelf – 200 námořních mil (370,4 km)
 Podnebí
 Klima ostrova je tropické, ovlivňované východními pasáty. Nejvíce srážek přes 3 000 mm spadne ročně na návětrném východním pobřeží, ve srážkovém stínu na západě a jihozápadě ostrova spadne nejméně 500 mm srážek. Poloostrovu Masoala se dokonce říká „nočník Madagaskaru“, protože na něm spadne 4 000 – 6 000 mm srážek ročně. Západ je sušší: 500 – 1 000 mm srážek ročně. Roční teploty na Madagaskaru se pohybují v rozmezí od 20 °C v chladnějším období po 27 °C v období teplejším.
 Příroda a ekologie
 Informace o jednotlivých madagaskarských ekoregionech naleznete v článku Ekoregiony Madagaskaru.
 Flóra
 Rostlinná společenstva na Madagaskaru jsou různorodá a to díky různé nadmořské výšce. V nejvyšších horách jsou horské louky, níž tropické deštné pralesy, které čelí lidské těžbě a vypadá to, že brzy budou zcela zničeny. Místo původních opadavých lesů zde najdeme bambusové křoviny. Na jihozápadě, kde je extra suché podnebí (350 mm srážek ročně), se nacházejí trnité buše nebo savany. Degradovaným travnatým porostům se říká badland. Najdeme zde však i mangrovové porosty.
 Madagaskar se zvláště vyznačuje výskytem sedmi druhů stromů zvaných baobab (Adansonia L.), což jsou opadavé stromy s nápadně tlustými kmeny a s dlanitě složenými listy, rostoucí v suchých oblastech. Nejrozšířenější jsou druhy baobab Grandidiérův (jihozápadní Madagaskar) a baobab prstnatý (zavlečený z tropické Afriky).
 V regionu Menabe se nachází turistická atrakce, která se nazývá baobabová alej (francouzsky Allée des baobabs, anglicky Avenue of the Baobabs). Jedná se o skupinu zhruba 40–50 stromů druhu Adansonia grandidieri na 260 metrů dlouhé nezpevněné cestě, které jsou staré až 800 let a narostly do výšky kolem 30 metrů.
 Fauna
 Kvůli dlouhé izolaci od okolních pevninských bloků (asi 130 mil. let) se na Madagaskaru vyskytuje velké množství organismů, které jsou vázány pouze na tento ostrov. Jsou to například lemuři, kterých zde žije na 20 druhů. Jiné druhy zde však chybí, například dravé šelmy. Výjimkou je fosa madagaskarská.
 Po osídlení člověkem se začala krajina měnit, ubylo postupně mnoho unikátních živočichů, vyhuben byl např. i lemur druhu Megaladapis, který byl dle kosterních pozůstatků velký jako osel a vážil 85 kg. Po příchodu člověka došlo také k vymření obřích nelétavých ptáků Aepyornis. Druhy, které na Madagaskaru přežily, označujeme za živoucí fosilie, všude jinde již dávno v nelítostné konkurenci podlehly mladším, modernějším, zde však nepoznaly žádnou konkurenci.
 Ochrana přírody
 Madagaskar byl mezi prvními zeměmi světa, které začaly budovat systém chráněných území. První vznikly již v roce 1927. Bylo jich osm a pokrývaly plochu 284 919 ha. Dnešní síť zahrnuje 50 chráněných území, které pokrývají plochu 1 698 640 ha. Chráněné území Tsingy de Bemaraha v západní části ostrova a některé národní parky v rámci položky „Deštné lesy Atsinanana“ na východě ostrova jsou součástí světového přírodního dědictví UNESCO.
 Odlesňování
 Odlesňování způsobuje především prudký nárůst populace Madagaskaru a s tím související hlad po zemědělské půdě. Významná je také komerční těžba dřeva, při které bylo od roku 1990 odlesněn až 1 milion ha ploch, například porosty palisandru, který se používá pro výrobu nábytku.
 Obyvatelstvo
 V roce 2017 byl počet obyvatel odhadován na 25,57 milionu a Madagaskar tak byl 15. nejlidnatější zemí v Africe. Vzhledem k rozloze je hustota zalidnění asi 44 obyvatel na km2.
 Jazyk
 Podle ústavy z roku 1998 je oficiálním jazykem pouze malgaština. Francouzština je však ve veřejném styku (i na oficiálních dokumentech) natolik rozšířeným jazykem, že ji lze považovat za neformálně oficiální.
 Náboženství
 Nejrozšířenějším náboženstvím je křesťanství, ke kterému se hlásí 49,5 % obyvatel (protestanti 22,7 %, římští katolíci 20,3 %) a animistická náboženství 48 %. Jen okrajově je zastoupen islám (1,9 %) a ostatní náboženství (0,6 %). Podle sčítání lidu z roku 2020 je náboženská příslušnost na Madagaskaru následující: křesťané 58,09 % (z toho katoličtí křesťané 25,25 %, protestantské církve 30,88 %, zbytek rozličné menší církve), tradiční lokální náboženství 39,22 % (ve srovnání s celou Afrikou nezvykle vysoké číslo), muslimové 2,12 %, další náboženství (hinduismus, bahá ́í, budhismus, bez vyznání) – nízké desetiny či setiny procenta. Tradičních lokálních náboženství a kultů je nespočet, například tradiční kult, jehož zasvěcenci provozují své obřady u statných starých baobabů nebo přímo v jejich kmenech. Duté kmeny obřích baobabů bývají využívány jako obřadní prostor, kam by neměl vstupovat nikdo jiný než zasvěcenec. V okolí takových stromů se nacházejí kultické sošky, zvláštní – často nepostřehnutelné – symboly zavěšené na větvích a někdy také symbol varující procházejícího, aby neznesvětil kulticky významné místo. Pro jistý středomalagašský kult je baobab posvátný podobně významně jako kráva pro indické hinduisty (z celkově devíti světových druhů baobabů je šest druhů původně z Madagaskaru). Zcela zvláštní úctu přiznávají lidé na Madagaskaru tzv. milujícím se baobabům, což jsou dva u sebe rostoucí baobaby vzájemně se obrůstající. Věří se v jejich magické účinky, jsou posvátné. Lidé k nim chodí, aby do svých životů přivolali štěstí a lásku. U milujících se baobabů může cestovatel nalézt nejrůznější dary, obětní pokrmy, alkohol nebo také peníze.
 Správní členění
 Madagaskar se dělí na šest autonomních provincií (faritany mizakatena). Ty se dříve dále dělily na 22 krajů (faritra), ale na základě referenda ze 4. 4. 2007 se kraje mají do 4. 10. 2009 zrušit.
 Kraje se dále dělí na 116 okresů, 1548 obcí a 16 969 fokontan. Významná města mají zvláštní statut jako „commune urbane“ na stejné úrovni jako okresy.
 Hospodářství
 Madagaskar je rozvojový zemědělský stát. Většina obyvatel je závislá na zemědělství, ačkoli pouhých 5 % půdy lze obdělávat. Má na svou velkou rozlohu poměrně malá naleziště nerostných surovin a nízkou výrobu elektrické energie. Dobývá se zde chrom, zlato, grafit, sůl, slída, polodrahokamy a drahokamy. Těží se a vyváží dřevo.
 V zemědělství se sklízí rýže, kukuřice, maniok, cukrová třtina, batáty, lilek brambor, bavlna, sisal, kokosový ořech, mango, ananasy, pomeranče, banány, pepř, vanilka, hřebíček a káva.
 Živočišná výroba je orientována na chov skotu, prasat, ovcí, koz a drůbeže. Je zde významný rybolov. Silniční a železniční síť je řídká.
 Horolezectví
 Madagaskar je díky žulovým masivům oblasti Andringitra - Tsaranoro, Karambony a dalším populární arénou bigwallových horolezeckých výstupů. Do historie horolezectví se zde zapsali také čeští horolezci Ondřej Beneš a Tomáš Sobotka prvovýstupem na nejvyšší horu oblasti Tsaranoro Be vedeným v ideální přímé linii s názvem Shortcut v roce 2006, v roce 2010 pak Adam Ondra prvním volným výstupem cesty Tough enough na Karambony.
 Odkazy
 Reference
 Externí odkazy
 Oficiální stránky madagaskarského ministerstva zahraničí
 Volně dostupný česko-malgašský slovník s nahrávkami výslovnosti
 Státy Afriky
 Ostrovní státy a území
 Státy a území vzniklé roku 1960
 Nejméně rozvinuté země


text:
OPCM 05-03-2007 n.3566 - Normativa Nazionale
 O.P.C.M. 05/03/2007 n. 3566
 ORDINANZA DEL PRESIDENTE DEL CONSIGLIO DEI MINISTRI 5 marzo 2007 n. 3566
 -Visto il decreto-legge 7 settembre 2001 n. 343, convertito con modificazioni dalla legge 9 novembre 2001 n. 401;
 - Visto il decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri dell'8 settembre 2006, con il quale è stato dichiarato lo stato di emergenza determinatosi nel settore del traffico e della mobilità nel territorio della città di Napoli;
 -Considerato che la situazione emergenziale in atto nella città di Napoli, relativa al traffico ed alla mobilità, presenta peculiarità tali da condizionare negativamente la qualità della vita, le relazioni sociali ed economiche dei cittadini per i suoi riflessi indotti;
 -Considerato, altresì, che le misure e gli interventi a tutt'oggi attuati, in via ordinaria, non hanno consentito il superamento delle problematiche emergenziali afferenti a specifici «fattori di rischio», connessi alla situazione del traffico cittadino, e che risulta necessario ed urgente predisporre e realizzare un programma di interventi di emergenza, che consenta un miglioramento significativo e rapido della situazione in atto e favorire il ripristino delle normali condizioni di vita;
 -Considerato che la situazione di pregiudizio per i cittadini è tale da richiedere l'adozione di provvedimenti straordinari ed urgenti al fine di consentire l'esecuzione degli interventi necessari al superamento dello stato di emergenza;
 -Ravvisata, quindi, la necessità di dare immediata attuazione agli interventi volti a fronteggiare l'emergenza venutasi a creare nel territorio della Città di Napoli;
 -Vista la nota del Comune di Napoli del 30 gennaio 2007, nella quale vengono, tra l'altro, analiticamente individuati gli interventi necessari per il superamento del contesto critico in rassegna, con l'indicazione specifica della relativa copertura finanziaria;
 1. In relazione alla situazione di grave crisi derivante dalle complesse problematiche del traffico e della mobilità, suscettibili di compromettere la qualità della vita della collettività interessata, e di cui al decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri dell'8 settembre citato in premessa, il sindaco di Napoli è nominato, fino al 31 dicembre 2008, commissario delegato per l'attuazione degli interventi volti a fronteggiare l'emergenza dichiarata nel territorio della città di Napoli.
 2. Il commissario delegato, anche avvalendosi di non più di due soggetti attuatori, cui affidare specifici settori di intervento per materia o progetti determinati, sulla base di direttive di volta in volta impartite dal medesimo commissario, provvede:
 a) all'individuazione di misure efficaci per la disciplina del traffico, della viabilità, del controllo della sosta ed, in via generale, per il miglioramento della circolazione stradale, in particolare disponendo per: a1) la realizzazione di parcheggi, anche a tariffa, nonchè per l'estensione delle aree pedonali e delle zone e corsie a traffico limitato e consolidamento di quelle attuate in via sperimentale e per il potenziamento dei sistemi di gestione automatizzata degli accessi in aree pedonali e zone e corsie a traffico limitato; a2) l'incremento dei livelli di sicurezza stradale sulla viabilità di scorrimento veloce, sulla viabilità principale, alle intersezioni e presso gli attraversamenti pedonali e per il rilievo automatizzato delle infrazioni da passaggio con il rosso semaforico ed eccesso di velocità; a3) il potenziamento dell'efficacia operativa del Corpo di Polizia municipale, attraverso la stipula di contratti di lavoro subordinato a tempo determinato, in deroga agli articoli 35 e 36 del decreto legislativo 30 marzo 2001 n. 165, e, limitatamente al personale del Corpo di Polizia municipale, all'art. 1, comma 198 della legge 23 dicembre 2005 n. 266, nel limite massimo di trecento unità, fermo restando, con riferimento al restante personale comunale non del Corpo di Polizia municipale il rispetto dell'obiettivo di economia di spesa fissato nell'art. 1, comma 198, della legge n. 266/2005; in ragione dell'urgenza connessa al superamento del contesto critico in rassegna, il commissario delegato, per la stipula dei predetti contratti, provvede mediante l'espletamento di procedure selettive individuando le unità di personale tra quelle: presenti nelle graduatorie vigenti relative a concorsi o selezioni pubbliche per la copertura di posti di agente di polizia municipale e provinciale espletati da parte di altri comuni della regione Campania ovvero da parte di enti o società esterne deputate allo scopo; incluse nelle graduatorie vigenti relative a concorsi e selezioni nazionali per l'accesso alla Polizia di Stato, all'Arma dei Carabinieri ed alla Guardia di finanza; nell'ipotesi in cui all'esito dell'espletamento delle procedure di cui sopra non risulti ancora completato il contingente di personale sopra indicato, il Commissario delegato è autorizzato ad indire una specifica selezione con facoltà di riservare sino al 50% dei posti ancora disponibili al personale dipendente del comune di Napoli, in possesso degli specifici requisiti richiesti dalla legge ed idonei alle funzioni di controllo della sosta e della viabilità, secondo i criteri definiti dal bando di concorso, anche in deroga ai limiti di età stabiliti dalla legge. In caso di attivazione di contratti a tempo determinato con soggetti già in servizio in posizione di ruolo, quest'ultimi sono posti in aspettativa senza assegni; a4) il potenziamento delle attività conseguenti alla rimozione dei veicoli, di cui all'art. 159 del decreto legislativo 30 aprile 1992 n. 285, secondo le procedure dettate dall'art. 103 dello stesso decreto legislativo e le disposizioni del decreto del Ministro dell'interno 22 ottobre 1999 n. 460, i cui termini sono comunque ridotti alla metà;
 b) alla verifica e alla integrazione del piano parcheggi al fine di limitare l'accesso dei veicoli all'interno del perimetro urbano, recante l'individuazione delle aree, la definizione urgente delle progettazioni e la successiva realizzazione di parcheggi pertinenziali, a rotazione, sostitutivi e di scambio, ovvero l'ampliamento e la riqualificazione di parcheggi già esistenti, consentendone l'acquisizione in diritto di superficie o comunque la disponibilità, anche a privati, anche favorendo la sperimentazione di nuove forme di integrazione fra parcheggi di scambio e zone commerciali al fine di incentivare l'intervento di capitali privati nella realizzazione dei predetti parcheggi, anche in deroga al vincolo di pertinenzialità previsto dall'art. 9 della legge 24 marzo 1989 n. 122, nonchè in deroga alla pianificazione ed alla normativa di settore vigente;
 c) alla realizzazione di parcheggi nell'ambito del centro abitato, al fine di ridurre la sosta dei veicoli sul sedime stradale procedendo prioritariamente con quelli già individuati dalla vigente pianificazione del comune di Napoli e provvedendo ove ritenuto necessario alla modifica della pianificazione stessa, individuando: specifiche aree della città caratterizzate da particolare interesse storico e/o paesaggistico o aventi parti colari caratteristiche geomorfologiche, urbanistiche ed edilizie che comportano limitazioni alla realizzazione di parcheggi pertinenziali; siti alternativi da assoggettare al vincolo di pertinenzialità, anche in deroga alle distanze attualmente previste dalla vigente pianificazione di settore; strutture preesistenti da destinare a parcheggio, prevedendo interventi di sostituzione edilizia e/o delocalizzazione delle funzioni ivi svolte, anche prevedendo nuove costruzioni;
 d) all'approvazione di un piano di interventi per la riconfigurazione e l'adeguamento dei grandi assi viari, per la manutenzione straordinaria della rete stradale e dei relativi cunicoli e sottoservizi.
 3. Fermo restando quanto disposto dal successivo comma 4, l'approvazione dei progetti da parte del commissario delegato sostituisce, ad ogni effetto, visti, pareri, autorizzazioni e concessioni di competenza di organi statali, regionali, provinciali e comunali, e costituisce, ove occorra, variante allo strumento urbanistico generale, nonchè ai piani ed ai programmi di settore, costituisce vincolo per l'esproprio e comporta dichiarazione di pubblica utilità, urgenza ed indifferibilità dei lavori, in deroga all'art. 98, comma 2, del decreto legislativo 12 aprile 2006 n. 163, salva l'applicazione dell'art. 11 del decreto del Presidente della Repubblica n. 327 del 2001 e successive modifiche ed integrazioni, anche prima dall'espletamento delle procedure espropriative, che si svolgeranno con i termini di legge ridotti della metà.
 4. Per i progetti di interventi e di opere per cui è prevista dalla normativa vigente la procedura di valutazione di impatto ambientale statale o regionale, ovvero per progetti relativi ad opere incidenti su beni sottoposti a tutela ai sensi del decreto legislativo 22 gennaio 2004 n. 42, la procedura medesima deve essere conclusa entro il termine massimo di trenta giorni dalla attivazione. In caso di mancata espressione del parere o di motivato dissenso espresso, alla valutazione stessa si procede in una apposita conferenza di servizi, da concludersi entro quindici giorni dalla convocazione. Nei casi di mancata espressione del parere o di motivato dissenso espresso, in ordine a progetti di interventi ed opere di competenza statale in sede di conferenza di servizi dalle amministrazioni preposte alla tutela ambientale, paesaggistico-territoriale o del patrimonio storico-artistico, la decisione è rimessa al Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri in deroga alla procedura prevista dall'art. 14-quater della legge 7 agosto 1990 n. 241 e successive modificazioni e integrazioni, i cui termini sono ridotti della metà. Qualora la mancata espressione del parere ovvero il dissenso siano riferiti a progetti di interventi od opere di competenza regionale, la decisione è rimes- sa al presidente della regione Campania, che si esprime inderogabilmente entro trenta giorni dalla richiesta del sindaco di Napoli commissario delegato.
 5. Per le finalità di cui alla presente ordinanza, il commissario delegato, ove ritenuto necessario, ha altresì facoltà di interrompere le procedure di gara in atto, laddove siano prevedibili tempi di aggiudicazione non compatibili con la situazione di emergenza ed inoltre, nell'ipotesi di sospensioni o di gravi rallentamenti nella realizzazione di opere ed interventi già aggiudicati, attinenti al traffico e alla mobilità, che risultino oggettivamente incompatibili con l'esigenza di immediato superamento dell'emergenza, procedere alla sostituzione degli aggiudicatari medesimi con altri soggetti da individuarsi, adottando gli atti necessari per la liberazione immediata delle aree dei cantieri.
 6. In relazione all'improcrastinabilità delle iniziative di cui alla presente ordinanza, il commissario delegato provvede per le occupazioni di urgenza e per le eventuali espropriazioni delle aree occorrenti per l'esecuzione delle opere e degli interventi di competenza, una volta emesso il decreto di occupazione d'urgenza, prescindendo da ogni altro adempimento, nonchè alla redazione dello stato di consistenza e del verbale di immissione in possesso dei suoli anche con la sola presenza di due testimoni.
 7. Il commissario delegato fornisce ogni opportuna direttiva per assicurare la sinergia operativa dei soggetti che provvedono alla realizzazione degli interventi nel territorio comunale, allo scopo di contenere i disagi per la circolazione stradale.
 8. Il commissario delegato cura l'attuazione delle procedure di trasferimento degli impianti e delle opere, realizzati sulla base della presente ordinanza, al comune o agli altri soggetti istituzionalmente competenti, secondo il regime proprio dei singoli interventi.