text:
 8.3.2013
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 65/15
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) NR. 197/2013 AL COMISIEI
 din 7 martie 2013
 de modificare a Regulamentului de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 80/2012 de stabilire a listei substanțelor biologice sau chimice prevăzute la articolul 53 alineatul (1) litera (b) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1186/2009 al Consiliului de instituire a unui regim comunitar de scutiri de taxe vamale
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1186/2009 al Consiliului din 16 noiembrie 2009 de instituire a unui regim comunitar de scutiri de taxe vamale (1), în special articolul 53 alineatul (1) litera (b),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 80/2012 al Comisiei (2) stabilește lista substanțelor biologice sau chimice prevăzută la articolul 53 alineatul (1) litera (b) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1186/2009.
 (2)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 80/2012 ar trebui să fie modificat pentru a include pe listă două substanțe pentru care nu există în prezent o producție echivalentă pe teritoriul vamal al Uniunii.
 (3)
 În plus, nu mai este necesar să se mențină pe listă o substanță care este enumerată în prezent în anexa 3 din partea a treia a anexei I la Regulamentul (CEE) nr. 2658/87 al Consiliului din 23 iulie 1987 privind Nomenclatura tarifară și statistică și Tariful vamal comun (3) privind substanțele farmaceutice care sunt scutite de taxe vamale.
 (4)
 Prin urmare, Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 80/2012 ar trebui modificat în consecință.
 (5)
 Măsurile prevăzute de prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comitetului Codului vamal,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Anexa I la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 80/2012 se modifică în conformitate cu anexa la prezentul regulament.
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a treia zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 7 martie 2013.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) JO L 324, 10.12.2009, p. 23.
 (2) JO L 29, 1.2.2012, p. 33.
 (3) JO L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.
 ANEXĂ
 Anexa I la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 80/2012 se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 Următorul rând se introduce după rândul care conține codul NC ex 2845 90 90 pentru (Oxigen-18) apă:
 „ex 2849 90 90
 Pulbere de carbură de siliciu și titan având o puritate în greutate de 99 % sau mai mult”
 2.
 Următorul rând se introduce după rândul care conține codul NC ex 2926 90 95 pentru 2-naftonitril:
 „ex 2934 99 90
 Oligomeri morfolino fosforodiamidați (morfolino oligonucleotide)”
 3.
 Se elimină următorul rând:
 „0014364-6
 ex 2923 90 00
 Bromură de decametoniu (DCI)”


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b"Report No. D2008-046 February 6, 2008\n\n\n\n\n Defense Finance and Accounting Service\n Compliance with the Debt Collection and\n Improvement Act of 1996 for the\n Department of the Navy\n\x0c Additional Copies\n\n To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Department of\n Defense Inspector General at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports or contact the\n Secondary Reports Distribution Unit at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax\n (703) 604-8932.\n\n Suggestions for Future Audits\n\n To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Office of the Deputy\n Inspector General for Auditing at (703) 604-9142 (DSN 664-9142) or fax (703)\n 604-8932. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:\n\n ODIG-AUD (ATTN: Audit Suggestions)\n Department of Defense Inspector General\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\n\nCDS Contractor Debt System\nDCPS Defense Civilian Pay System\nDCIA Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996\nDCM Debt & Claims Management\nDDMS Defense Debt Management System\nDFAS Defense Finance and Accounting Service\nDMO Debt Management Office\nDoD FMR Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation\nDoN Department of the Navy\nIOOS Individual Out-of-Service\nMOCAS Mechanization of Contract Administration System\nRAO Referring Accounting Office\nTIN Taxpayer Identification Number\nTROR Treasury Report on Receivables Due from the Public\n\x0c INSPECTOR GENERAL\n DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE\n ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-4704\n\n\n\n\n February 6, 2008\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING\n SERVICE\n NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\nSUBJECT: Report on Defense Finance and Accounting Service Compliance with the\n Debt Collection and Improvement Act of 1996 for the Department ofthe\n Navy (Report No. D-2008-046)\n\n\n We are providing this rep0l1 for review and conmlent. We considered\nmanagement comments on a draft of this report when preparing the final rep0l1.\n\n DoD Directive 7650.3 requires that all recommendations be resolved promptly.\nComments received from the Columbus and Denver Defense Finance and Accounting\nService offices were pm1ially responsive. We request additional comments on\nRecommendations AI.b, B.I and B.2 by March 6, 2008. Recommendation AI.c. was\ndeleted. See the Finding section for the deleted recommendation.\n\n If possible, please send management comments in electronic format (Adobe\nAcrobat file only) to Audclev@dodig.mil. Copies of the management comments must\ncontain the actual signature ofthe authorizing official. We cmmot accept the I Signed I\nsymbol in place of the actual signatnre. If you arrange to send classified comments\nelectronically, they must be sent over the SECRET Intemet Protocol Router Network\n(SIPRNET).\n\n We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Questions should be directed\nto Mr. Edward A Blair at (216) 706-0074, ext. 226 or Ms. Laura J.S. Croniger at (216)\n706-0074, ext. 227. See Appendix C for the report distribution. The team members are\nlisted inside the back cover.\n\n By direction ofthe Deputy Inspector General for Auditing:\n\n\n !~ a\xc2\xb7 /?1rwJv\n Patricia A. Marsh, CPA\n Assistant Inspector General and Director\n Defense Financial Auditing Service\n\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\nBackground 1\n\nObjectives 2\n\nReview of Internal Controls 3\n\nFindings\n A. Contractor Debt at DFAS Columbus Debt Management Office 4\n B. Individual Out-of-Service Debt at DFAS Denver 10\n C. Individual In-Service Debts Processed at DFAS Payroll Offices 15\n D. Reporting and Archiving Navy Public Debt at DFAS Cleveland 20\n\nAppendix\n A. Scope and Methodology 23\n B. Statistical Sampling Methodology 25\n C. Report Distribution 27\n\nManagement Comments\n Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis 29\n Defense Finance and Accounting Service Arlington 36\n\x0c\x0cBackground\n\n Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Cleveland provides finance and\n accounting services to the Department of the Navy (DoN). These include the\n consolidation and reporting of its outstanding public debt (Accounts Receivable),\n which is included in the \xe2\x80\x9cTreasury Report on Receivables Due from the Public\xe2\x80\x9d\n (TROR). Accounts Receivable arise from claims to cash or other assets.\n Accounts Receivable include, but are not limited to, monies due for indebtedness.\n\n The March 31, 2006 TRORs prepared for the Navy General Fund and the Navy\n Working Capital Fund reported a total of $3.7 billion in DoN public debt. The\n Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and other pertinent regulations provide\n guidance on how to manage and report DoN public debt.\n\n Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. A goal of the Debt Collection and\n Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) is to maximize collection of delinquent debt 1\n owed to the Federal Government. Specifically, the DCIA ensures \xe2\x80\x9cquick action\n to enforce recovery of debts and the use of all appropriate collection tools.\xe2\x80\x9d\n Under this act, agencies are required to notify and transfer delinquent debts more\n than 180 days old to the Department of the Treasury in an effort to offset or\n reduce any future government payments made to the debtor. The DCIA also\n requires agencies to obtain a taxpayer identification number from entities doing\n business with that agency.\n\n Treasury Report on Receivables Due from the Public. The TROR is a report\n on the status of the Federal Government\xe2\x80\x99s public debt portfolio. 2 It is prepared in\n accordance with the requirements of the DCIA. As mentioned above, DFAS\n Cleveland prepares TRORs quarterly to report the status of outstanding DoN\n public debt associated with the General Fund and the Working Capital Fund\n accounts.\n\n The Navy General Fund is made up of appropriated 3 DoN funds that support\n overall Departmental operations. The second quarter FY 2006 Navy General\n Fund TROR reported $3.6 billion for DoN public debt. The Navy Working\n Capital Fund is a revolving 4 fund that supports the operating forces of the Navy\n and Marine Corps. The second quarter FY 2006 Navy Working Capital Fund\n TROR reported $64.3 million for DoN public debt.\n\n\n\n1\n Delinquent debt refers to a debt that has not been paid by the due date specified by the agency\xe2\x80\x99s initial\n written demand for payment.\n2\n The TROR only reports non-tax-related public debts.\n3\n Appropriated funds are directed from Congress and comprise the DoN General Fund account structure.\n4\n A revolving fund is an account or fund in which all income is derived from its operations and is available\n to finance the fund's continuing operations without fiscal year limitations. The purpose of the revolving\n fund is to improve cost awareness and to promote cost consciousness.\n\n 1\n\x0c DFAS Columbus Debt Management Office. The DFAS Columbus Debt\n Management Office (DMO) is responsible for managing and reporting DoD\n contractor debt. DMO uses the Contractor Debt System and the Mechanization of\n Contract Administration System to record and report public debt due from\n government contractors. DMO reports this information on the Monthly Debt\n Management Report.\n\n DFAS Denver Debt and Claims Management Office. DFAS Denver Debt and\n Claims Management Office maintains Individual Out-of-Service public debt\n records in the Defense Debt Management System. These records serve as the\n subsidiary ledgers for Accounts Receivable balances provided to the DFAS\n Cleveland departmental-level accounting office for preparation of the TROR.\n The Debt and Claims Management Office is responsible for managing and\n reporting DoD out-of-service military and civilian debt.\n\n DFAS Charleston and DFAS Pensacola. DFAS Charleston and DFAS\n Pensacola record and report current and former DoD civilian employee public\n debt in the Defense Civilian Pay System (DCPS). These DFAS centers are\n responsible for managing and reporting Individual In-Service Accounts\n Receivable records contained in DCPS. DCPS records should provide the current\n status of DoD public debt due from current and former DoD civilian employees.\n\n DFAS Cleveland Departmental Reporting Office. DFAS Cleveland\n Departmental Reporting Office gathers DoN public debt from the sites mentioned\n above. DFAS Cleveland then prepares the DoN TROR and provides it to the\n Department of Treasury. Table 1 shows the DFAS sites with corresponding\n findings and systems used to manage debt files.\n\n Table 1. DFAS Sites and the Corresponding Systems\n Finding DFAS Site System\n Contractor Debt System and\n A Columbus Mechanization of Contract\n Administration System\n B Denver Defense Debt Management System\n C Charleston & Pensacola Defense Civilian Pay System\n Reports DoN public debt data\n D Cleveland received from the various sites\n mentioned above\n\nObjectives\n\n Our overall audit objective was to determine whether DFAS was effectively\n complying with DCIA as it related to Department of Navy accounts. Specifically,\n we attempted to determine whether DFAS was managing DoN public debts\n properly and reporting them in compliance with established guidance. We also\n\n 2\n\x0c evaluated the managers\xe2\x80\x99 internal control program as it related to the overall audit\n objectives at DFAS and Navy organizations. See Appendix A for a discussion of\n the scope and methodology related to the objectives.\n\n\nReview of Internal Controls\n\n Material internal control weaknesses were identified for DFAS sites as defined by\n DoD Instruction 5010.40, \xe2\x80\x9cManagers\xe2\x80\x99 Internal Control Program Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d\n January 4, 2006. DFAS did not have adequate internal controls to comply with\n the laws and regulations related to reporting public Accounts Receivable (debt)\n for both Navy General Fund and Navy Working Capital Fund. Specifically,\n controls are needed to:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ensure that all DoN debt files in the Contractor Debt System have a\n taxpayer identification number, are transferred to the Department of the\n Treasury as appropriate, and are adequately safeguarded;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ensure that all DoN debt files in the Defense Debt Management System\n are validated in a reasonable time period and include all substantiating\n records for \xe2\x80\x9cfinancial hardship\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cbankruptcy\xe2\x80\x9d status debts;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ensure that all DoN debt files in the Defense Civilian Pay System include\n all substantiating records, are researched effectively to ensure proper\n classification, and have demand letters sent in a timely manner; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ensure that Accounts Receivable are accurately recorded on the TROR\n and that Individual In-Service Debt data are accurately archived.\n\n Implementing Recommendations A.1, A.2, B, C, and D will improve DFAS\n controls over the recording, reporting, and collection of DoN public Accounts\n Receivable. A copy of the final report will be provided to the DFAS senior\n officials responsible for the managers\xe2\x80\x99 internal control program.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c A. Contractor Debt at DFAS Columbus Debt\n Management Office\n DFAS Columbus Debt Management Office (DMO) did not have adequate\n controls to ensure that debt files were processed in accordance with the\n DCIA and other pertinent guidance. DMO processes were ineffective\n because they did not:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 require taxpayer identification numbers (TIN),\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 transfer debt files to Department of the Treasury as appropriate,\n and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 adequately safeguard debt file records.\n\n As a result, DMO is not fully compliant with the DCIA, the Federal\n Acquisition Regulation, and DoD Financial Management Regulation\n (DoD FMR). This hinders DMO\xe2\x80\x99s ability to collect DoN public debts and\n properly report account receivable balances.\n\n\nDFAS Columbus Debt Management Office\n\n DMO uses the Contractor Debt System (CDS) to perform a variety of debt\n management functions associated with delinquent contractor debts exceeding\n $600. 5 DMO receives delinquent debt information from a referring accounting\n office (RAO) and prepares a monthly report for the RAO that should allow for\n reconciliation to its general ledger. The RAO is responsible for initiating debt\n collection and issuing a demand letter within 90 days of when a debt is\n categorized as delinquent. After 90 days, the RAO transfers the debt information\n and collection actions to the DMO; however, the RAO retains responsibility for\n recording and reporting the contractor debts as Accounts Receivable. We\n selected a sample of debts that were in CDS as of March 31, 2006. See\n Appendix B for a discussion of our sample methodology.\n\n\n\n\n5\n Per DoD FMR Volume 10, Chapter 18, the minimum amount of debt that may be referred to the DFAS\n Columbus is $600.\n\n 4\n\x0c We selected a sample of 134 contractor debt files processed by DMO and tested\n them for compliance with the DCIA, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the\n DoD FMR. Table 2 shows the results of the 134 contractor debt files tested.\n\n Table 2. Summary of all 134 Contractor Debt Files Tested\n\nNoncompliant Debt Files 58\nMissing Debt Files 3\nCompliant Debt Files 73\nTotal Debt Files Tested 134\n\n\n\n\nTable 3 summarizes the 58 contractor debt files we identified as noncompliant. The\n\xe2\x80\x9cIssues by Category\xe2\x80\x9d column assigns a letter to each noncompliance issue identified.\nThese letters are used again in Table 4.\n\n\n Table 3. Summary of the 63 Noncompliant Contractor Debt Files Identified\nIssues by Total Debt\n Noncompliance Issue Identified\nCategory Files\n A Missing Taxpayer Identification Number\n 33\n Missing Taxpayer Identification Number and Sent to Department of the\n B Treasury Late 6\n\n C Sent to Department of the Treasury Late\n 19\n\n Total Noncompliant Debt Files\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c Some of the 58 contractor debt files failed on one or more of the attributes tested.\n Table 4 summarizes the number of individual attribute compliance issues\n identified in each noncompliant debt file.\n\n Table 4. Summary of Compliance Issues Identified by Attribute\n Debt Files\n Issues by Debt Files\n Sent Late to Total\n Category Missing TINs\n Treasury\n A 33\n B 6 6\n C 19\n Total 39 25 64\n\nDebt File Information and Processing\n\n Taxpayer Identification Numbers. Thirty-nine debt files tested did not include\n the required Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). 6 The DCIA, DoD FMR, and\n \xe2\x80\x9cMoney and Finance,\xe2\x80\x9d section 7701, title 31, United States Code all require\n Federal agencies to obtain a TIN for contractors doing business with the agency,\n and the TIN must be included in the supporting documentation (excluding foreign\n debts). DMO accepted 39 files without TINs, rather than returning them to the\n RAO. DMO must require TINs for all debt files to verify contractor validity.\n Also, TINs are necessary for the issuance of an \xe2\x80\x9cIRS Cancellation of Debt Form\n 1099-C,\xe2\x80\x9d if a debt is determined to be uncollectible and therefore should be\n written off by the agency. Form 1099-C is filed with the Internal Revenue\n Service when an indebtedness of at least $600 is canceled. This canceled debt\n must be reported as income by the debtor. The form must include the name,\n address, and TIN of the debtor. DMO must ensure that TINs are included in all\n debt files. If TINs are not included, the file should be returned to the RAO, or\n other research should be conducted to ensure compliance with the TIN\n requirements. As a result of our audit work, DMO did conduct research and\n found TINs for 26 additional debt files. We did not attempt to verify the\n additional TIN information.\n\n Managing and Transferring Debt Files. For 25 debt files, DMO did not\n immediately transfer debts to the Department of the Treasury for collection after\n 90 days. The DoD FMR, volume 10, \xe2\x80\x9cContract Payment Policy and Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d\n chapter 18, \xe2\x80\x9cContractor Debt Collection,\xe2\x80\x9d requires DMO to transfer public debts\n to Department of the Treasury for collection after 180 days of being delinquent.\n Procedures should be in place to require the transfer of debts from DMO to\n Department of the Treasury within the established timeframe. If debts are not\n eligible for transfer to Department of the Treasury, DMO must maintain adequate\n6\n A Taxpayer Identification Number is a nine-digit number which is either an Employer Identification\n number or a Social Security number\n\n 6\n\x0csupport for this classification. Debts that are not eligible for transfer to\nDepartment of the Treasury include debts that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 are in litigation or foreclosure,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 will be disposed of under an approved asset sale program,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 have been referred to a private collection contractor for a period of time\n acceptable to Department of the Treasury,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 are at a debt collection center for a period of time acceptable by\n Department of the Treasury,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 will be collected under internal offset procedures within 3 years of when\n the debt first became delinquent, or\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 are exempt by Department of the Treasury based on a determination that\n the exemption is in the best interest of the United States.\n\nDMO did not adequately track debts eligible for referral to Department of the\nTreasury. DMO needs to improve its debt-tracking procedures to help improve\nthe collection and reporting of debts.\n\nAs a result of our audit work, DMO produced additional documentation not\npreviously provided to support some of the cited files. After reviewing this\nadditional support, we were able to verify that out of the original 25 debt files sent\nlate to the Department of the Treasury, 6 of the files were actually transferred\nwithin the required timeline. DMO should ensure that all debt file documentation\nsupports the current status.\n\nAvailability of Records. DMO did not provide any supporting documentation\nfor three contractor debt files tested. The debt associated with the missing files\ntotals $2.4 million. The inability to locate these debt files impedes substantiating\nand collecting valid debts.\n\nThe DoD FMR requires organizations to retain supporting documents or images\nfor 6 years and 3 months. DMO stated that it was aware of the missing\nsupporting documentation. However, it did not take effective actions to validate\nand collect these debts. DMO was responsible for these debt files for more than a\nyear, but it took no action to gather more information in order to start the\ncollection process. Procedures should be in place that require the periodic review\nof debt files to ensure that collections are being aggressively pursued. As a result\nof our audit work, DMO found supporting documentation for one debt file valued\nat $1,136.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cOther Matters of Interest \xe2\x80\x93 Demand Letters\n\n DFAS Columbus uses Mechanization of Contract Administration Services\n (MOCAS) to process amounts due to DoD from vendors. These usually result\n from overpayments to vendors. We tested a sample of 52 MOCAS transactions\n reported on the March 31, 2006 TROR. The DoD FMR, volume 10, \xe2\x80\x9cContract\n Payment Policy and Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d chapter 18, \xe2\x80\x9cContractor Debt Collection\xe2\x80\x9d states,\n \xe2\x80\x9cAny available documentation that substantiates the indebtedness should be\n included with the demand letter.\xe2\x80\x9d DFAS Columbus did not follow the\n requirements of this regulation in 32 out of 52 of the transactions tested\n (62 percent). DFAS Columbus issued demand letters to contractors stating that\n documents were available for review upon request, rather than attaching the\n documents that supported the debt amounts, as required by the regulation. While\n there were no instances of noncompliance with the DCIA, the DoD FMR requires\n that indebtedness be substantiated to the contractor. Compliance with this\n regulation should improve the likelihood of collection. We suggest that DFAS\n Columbus consider revising its demand letter process to be in full compliance\n with the DoD FMR. See Appendix B for a discussion of our sample\n methodology.\n\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and Audit\n Response\n\n Deleted Recommendation. As a result of management comments, we deleted\n draft Recommendation A.1.c.\n\n A.1. We recommend that the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting\n Service Columbus review Debt Management Office debt files to ensure that:\n\n a. All non-foreign debt files include a taxpayer identification number.\n\n Management Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\n Compliance concurred. The Debt Management Office will require technicians to\n validate the existence of taxpayer identification numbers on debt referrals or take\n steps to obtain one if it is not included. DFAS will include obtaining non-foreign\n taxpayer identification numbers in its published desk procedures. DFAS\n identified an estimated completion date of May 1, 2008.\n\n b. Eligible debt files more than 90 days old are referred to\n Department of the Treasury for further collection action.\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cManagement Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\nCompliance nonconcurred. He cited 31 Code of Federal Regulation Part 901.1,\n\xe2\x80\x9cAgencies shall transfer to the Secretary any debt that has been delinquent for a\nperiod of 180 days or more so that the Secretary may take appropriate action to\ncollect the debt or terminate collection action.\xe2\x80\x9d He stated that the requirement\ndoes not apply to debts that will be collected under internal offset procedures\nwithin three years. DFAS considers this recommendation closed.\n\nAudit Response. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and Compliance\ncomments are nonresponsive. The period of 180 days begins when a debt first\nbecomes delinquent at the referring accounting office. If the debt is not collected\nwithin 90 days, the referring accounting office transfers the debt to DFAS\nColumbus Debt Management Office. From that point, DFAS has only 90 days\nleft to refer the debt to the Department of Treasury. We identified debts that were\nmore than 180 days old. We request that DFAS reconsider its position and\nprovide comments on the final report. Specifically, DFAS should reconsider what\nprocedures it has in place to ensure that eligible debts more than 180 days old are\nsent to the Department of Treasury for further collection action. We agree that\nreferral procedures do not apply to debts being collected under internal offset\nprocedures.\n\nA.2. We recommend that the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting\nService Columbus establish procedures requiring Debt Management Office\nto ensure that:\n\n a. All debt files have complete supporting documentation and that the\ndocumentation is appropriately safeguarded for the required retention\nperiod of 6 years and 3 months.\n\nManagement Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\nCompliance concurred. The Debt Management Office has asked its Training and\nProcedures Office to implement a requirement to conduct an annual inventory for\nclosed receivables and validate that the files have complete supporting\ndocumentation. The new requirement will also include a retention period of six\nyears and three months. DFAS identified an estimated completion date of May 1,\n2008.\n\n b. Debt file reviews are completed periodically to verify that the\ncurrent status of every debt file is appropriate and that collection actions are\nbeing aggressively pursued.\n\nManagement Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\nCompliance concurred. He stated that the Debt Management Office will update\nthe Internal Controls Review Matrix to include a goal of monthly reviews of\ndebts. This monthly review will validate the existence of sufficient supporting\ndocumentation for the current debt status and the appropriateness of actions taken\nto date. DFAS identified an estimated completion date of April 1, 2008.\n\n 9\n\x0c B. Individual Out-of-Service Debt at DFAS\n Denver\n DFAS Denver Debt and Claims Management Office (DCM) did not\n adequately process debts due from former DoD employees, also known as\n \xe2\x80\x9cIndividual Out-of-Service (IOOS) Debts\xe2\x80\x9d. Specifically, we tested\n 130 IOOS debt transactions and determined that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 45 debt files were suspended more than 90 days for validation, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 13 debt files did not contain substantiating records to support their\n classification as either \xe2\x80\x9cfinancial hardship\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cbankruptcy.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Debt files were not adequately processed because DCM did not establish a\n reasonable time limit for validating them. As a result, it took an average\n of 67 days to validate a debt file. Also, DCM did not have supporting\n documentation for debts classified as financial hardship or bankruptcy\n because standard operating procedures were not available. Debts\n classified as financial hardship or bankruptcy were suspended up to\n 6 months without justification and were therefore at greater risk of being\n uncollectible.\n\n\n\n\nDFAS Denver Debt and Claims Management Office\n\n DCM is responsible for managing IOOS debt amounts that are not associated with\n an active payroll account in any DoD system. Debts in this category must be at\n least $225 and are transferred by another DoD agency to DCM, usually via the\n Defense Debt Management System (DDMS). We selected a sample of records\n that were in DDMS as of March 31, 2006. See Appendix B for a discussion of\n our sample methodology.\n\n\nProcessing and Validating of Individual Out-of Service Debt\n\n We tested a sample of 130 DDMS transactions and found that DCM was not fully\n compliant with the DCIA and other established guidance for the IOOS debts.\n Specifically, DCM did not take quick action to facilitate recovery of debts.\n\n DCM receives IOOS debts either manually or through a system interface.\n Manually transferred debts are validated by the DFAS sites and are sent to DCM\n for further collection action. Interface debts are not validated and come directly\n\n\n 10\n\x0c into DDMS. DCM receives approximately 95 percent of the potential debts via\n interface and immediately suspends collection action in order to validate the debt.\n\n It took an average of 67 days for DCM to validate a debt. To compute the 67-day\n average, we took the difference between the debt-establishment date and demand-\n letter-sent date and divided the total number of days by the number of our sample\n items. We reviewed the DCM\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cDebt Establishment Procedure,\xe2\x80\x9d and there is no\n stated guidance specifying the length of time for the validation process.\n However, the DCIA requires agencies to ensure quick collection action to\n facilitate the recovery of debts. By suspending these debts without a deadline,\n DCM is not meeting the intent of the DCIA \xe2\x80\x9cquick collection\xe2\x80\x9d requirement. For\n example, 45 debt files were suspended for more than 90 days. DCM\xe2\x80\x99s process of\n suspending debt files without a deadline impedes compliance with the DCIA.\n DCM should re-examine its validation procedures to better comply with the\n \xe2\x80\x9cquick collection\xe2\x80\x9d requirement of the DCIA. Validation procedures should be\n completed within a reasonable amount of time. For example, several debt files\n were validated within 10 days. Establishing a deadline for when debt validation\n should be completed\xe2\x80\x94for example, within 10 working days\xe2\x80\x94would ensure a\n more aggressive collection process.\n\n\nSupporting Hardship Files and Bankruptcy Debts\n\n Financial Hardship. DCM did not substantiate files classified as financial\n hardship. In some files, DCM classified debts as financial hardship based on\n phone calls with the debtors and did not require further supporting evidence.\n DCM may classify debts as a financial hardship case by coding the debt as \xe2\x80\x9cFH\xe2\x80\x9d\n within DDMS. Once coded as \xe2\x80\x9cFH,\xe2\x80\x9d all collection actions are suspended for up\n to 6 months under DCM procedures. Although the DoD FMR allows DCM to\n suspend the account if the debtor\xe2\x80\x99s financial condition is expected to improve,\n without verification of this condition the suspension is not warranted.\n\n The DoD FMR, volume 5, \xe2\x80\x9cDisbursing Policy and Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d chapter 31, \xe2\x80\x9cDebt\n Compromise: Suspending and Terminating Collection Activity; Debt Write-Off\n and Retention,\xe2\x80\x9d states that if a debtor is unable to pay the full amount due in a\n reasonable time using enforced collection, the following factors should be\n considered in determining the debtor\xe2\x80\x99s ability to pay:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 current financial statement from the debtor, or\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 credit reports and other financial information.\n\n This provides examples of source documentation that DCM should obtain when\n establishing that a debt file qualifies as a financial hardship case. The DCIA\n requires quick action to enforce the recovery of debts. The practice of suspending\n debts without sufficient supporting documentation brings into question the\n validity of the hardship and does not ensure quick action. Without sufficient\n 11\n\x0c evidence, DCM personnel cannot determine whether the classification for\n financial hardship is accurate and the subsequent suspension is necessary. DCM\n should obtain other independent supporting documentation and should not allow\n debts to be suspended for up to 6 months based solely on phone conservations.\n\n Bankruptcy Files. DCM did not provide court-ordered bankruptcy records to\n support the bankruptcy classification. DCM relied on system coding as support\n for debt suspension instead of obtaining external support. All files coded as\n bankruptcy and financial hardship in DDMS should have independent supporting\n documents.\n\n As a result of our audit work, DCM provided additional documentation not\n available during the audit to support the cited files. After reviewing the\n documents, we verified that only 5 of the original 13 debt files supported their\n financial hardship or bankruptcy classifications.\n\n\nManagement Comments on the Finding and Audit Response\n\n Management Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\n Compliance nonconcurred with the identified findings and stated that the debts\n established in DDMS are suspended for a reasonable time period. The auditors\n were provided bankruptcy information and informed that additional bankruptcy\n files were held at the DFAS Denver General Counsel office. Concerning\n financial hardship cases, DDMS fully documented all the actions taken, and credit\n reports were pulled where appropriate. The Denver Debt and Claim Management\n Office is in compliance with the DCIA. In reference to the length of time it took\n to validate debts, the Director said that the 67-day average is a manpower issue\n but is not a problem. He said that the extra time allows all documents to post so\n that the office does not collect invalid debts. He added that \xe2\x80\x9cA 2-month delay\n does not impede collection when the law allows 10 years to collect the debt.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Audit Response. The DFAS Denver Debt and Claims Management Office did\n not provide credit reports or court-ordered bankruptcy documents to support all\n cases. Without sufficient evidence, we could not determine whether the\n classification for financial hardship or bankruptcy was warranted. We were not\n informed that the DFAS Denver General Counsel office also maintains files on\n bankruptcy cases. If bankruptcy claim documents are stored at the DFAS General\n Counsel office, these documents should be available to auditors. Concerning the\n suspension of debt files for validation purposes, there are no regulations in place\n that state how much time DCM has to validate a debt. In 45 cases, it took DCM\n more than 90 days to validate a debt. In other cases, it took DCM only 10 days to\n validate a debt. We agree that it is important to validate a debt before it is sent to\n the debtor. However, establishing a deadline for when debt validation should be\n completed\xe2\x80\x94for example, within 10 working days\xe2\x80\x94would ensure a more\n aggressive collection process. We believe it is important to have a specific\n timeframe for DCM to validate debts. If DCM establishes a reasonable standard\n 12\n\x0c processing time within its operating procedures, it would be considered\n responsive to the intent of our recommendation. Debts would be collected faster\n with an established timeframe for validation.\n\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and Audit\n Response\n\n B. We recommend that the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting\n Service Denver, require the Debt and Claims Management Office establish\n procedures to:\n\n 1. Ensure that all debt files accepted into the Defense Debt\n Management System are validated within a specific and reasonable\n timeframe that also meets the \xe2\x80\x9cquick collection\xe2\x80\x9d requirement of the Debt\n Collection and Improvement Act of 1996.\n\n Management Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\n Compliance nonconcurred and stated, \xe2\x80\x9cWe surpass all required timelines within\n the DCIA 1996. . . . The primary timeline within the DCIA 96 requires that all\n debts be valid and legally enforceable in the amount stated and are referred to\n Treasury for additional collection action when the debt becomes 180 days\n delinquent.\xe2\x80\x9d He emphasized that DFAS is focused on \xe2\x80\x9ccollecting valid debts\n amounts, not burdening our former military members with erroneous bills.\xe2\x80\x9d\n DFAS considers this recommendation closed.\n\n Audit Response. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and Compliance\n comments are nonresponsive. We request that DFAS designate a timeframe for\n the debt validation process. DFAS Denver has validated debts as quickly as 10\n days from acceptance and in some cases debt validation has taken longer than 90\n days. Defining a timeframe for debt validation would ensure a more aggressive\n collection process. Requiring a timeframe for the debt validation process would\n not burden former military members with erroneous bills as stated by DFAS. It\n would only require DFAS to speed up the validation process to ensure a more\n timely collection process. We request that DFAS reconsider its position and\n provide comments to the final report.\n\n 2. Ensure that independent supporting documentation is obtained to\n substantiate the financial hardship or bankruptcy classification of debt files\n and that all source documentation is adequately maintained within the debt\n file.\n\n Management Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\n Compliance nonconcurred and stated that suspension of an account is allowed for\n Financial Hardship. He said that credit reports are pulled and that the decision to\n suspend an account is documented in DDMS. He added that there is no\n\n 13\n\x0cregulatory requirement to keep files containing old credit reports. Regarding\nbankruptcy files, he stated that \xe2\x80\x9call documents required to substantiate the\nbankruptcy claim on our debts are also kept within the DFAS General Counsel\noffice.\xe2\x80\x9d DFAS considers this recommendation to be closed.\n\nAudit Response. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and Compliance\ncomments are nonresponsive. DFAS should substantiate all financial hardship\ncases with appropriate documentation. Placing a debt file in a financial hardship\nstatus based on a phone conversation is not appropriate. For cases where debt\nfiles are not supported, DFAS should have procedures to substantiate the financial\nhardship by maintaining adequate documentation, including, but not limited to,\ncredit reports. DFAS stated it also obtains bankruptcy claim documents to verify\nbankruptcy status. During our audit, the majority of the files had either credit\nreports or bankruptcy claim documents to substantiate the status. However, some\nfiles did not contain credit reports or court-ordered bankruptcy documents. DFAS\nmanagement comments stated that \xe2\x80\x9call documents required to substantiate the\nbankruptcy claim on our debtors are also kept within the DFAS General Counsel\noffice.\xe2\x80\x9d This information was not provided to us. If bankruptcy claim documents\nare kept in the DFAS General Counsel office, these documents should be\navailable to auditors and would support the bankruptcy status. We request that\nDFAS reconsider its position and provide comments to the final report for\nestablishing procedures to maintain documents to support debt files in a financial\nhardship or bankruptcy status.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c C. Individual In-Service Debts Processed\n at DFAS Payroll Offices\n DFAS payroll offices did not properly process the debt files or include\n sufficient supporting documentation for debts owed by civilian employees,\n also known as \xe2\x80\x9cIndividual In-Service Debt.\xe2\x80\x9d Specifically, DFAS payroll\n offices:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 misclassified 14 debt files that were actually paid, waived, or\n determined to be invalid;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 did not resume collection action on 7 suspended debt files;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 could not adequately support debt amounts reported in 7 debt files;\n and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 did not properly issue demand letters for 2 debt files.\n\n Debt files were not properly managed because DFAS payroll offices did\n not implement procedures necessary to ensure compliance with applicable\n guidance. As a result, DoN Individual In-Service Debts are at risk of\n becoming uncollectible and overstating Accounts Receivable.\n\n\nDefense Civilian Pay System\n\n DFAS payroll offices at Charleston, South Carolina and Pensacola, Florida\n process DoN debts owed by civilian employees. These debts are referred to as\n Individual In-Service Debts. The payroll offices use the Defense Civilian Pay\n System (DCPS), the standard DoD civilian pay system. DCPS maintains time and\n attendance data, pay and leave entitlement records, deductions and withholdings,\n and any related debts owed. Individual In-Service Debts are amounts due to DoD\n from active civil service employees or separated civilian employees who make\n installment payments. Individual In-Service Debts occur for several reasons,\n including overpayments and overdue overseas travel advances. We selected a\n sample of debts that were in DCPS as of July 31, 2006. See Appendix B for a\n discussion of our sample methodology.\n\nCriteria for Managing Debt Files\n\n Delinquent Debt. The DoD FMR volume 4, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting Policy and\n Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d chapter 3, \xe2\x80\x9cReceivables,\xe2\x80\x9d defines a delinquent account receivable as\n a receivable that has not been paid by the date specified in the initial written\n demand for payment or applicable agreement without other satisfactory payment\n arrangements having been made. Office of Management and Budget Circular\n\n 15\n\x0c A-129, \xe2\x80\x9cDelinquent Debt Collection,\xe2\x80\x9d states that as soon as an account becomes\n delinquent, agencies should send demand letters to the debtor.\n\n Audit Trails. According to the DoD FMR, volume 1, \xe2\x80\x9cGeneral Financial\n Management Information, Systems and Requirements,\xe2\x80\x9d chapter 3, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting\n Systems Conformance, Evaluation, and Reporting,\xe2\x80\x9d a key test of an audit trail is\n whether tracing the transaction forward from the source or back from the result\n will permit verification of the amount recorded or reported.\n\n Defense Accounting Service Guide 7900.4G, \xe2\x80\x9cAudit Trail and System Control,\xe2\x80\x9d\n November 2004, requires all transactions, including computer-generated\n computations, be traceable to individual source records.\n\n\nIndividual In-Service Debt File Information and Processing\n\n We analyzed 280 Individual In-Service Debt files for compliance with the DCIA and\n various regulations. We identified a total of 30 debt files that did not comply with\n established guidance because DFAS payroll offices misclassified debts, left debts in\n suspense, could not support debt amounts, and did not issue demand letters in a\n timely manner.\n\n Misclassified Debts. DFAS payroll offices misclassified 14 debt files totaling\n $39,966 as Accounts Receivable, even though the debts had been paid, waived, or\n determined to be invalid. These 14 debt files had the following problems:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 five debt files were waived 7 or canceled;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 two debt files represented Individual Out-of-Service 8 Debts and\n should have been transferred to DFAS Denver;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 two debt files represented the same employee debt, and one should\n have been removed from DCPS;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 two debt files were identified as invalid, but no further explanation\n was provided;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 one debt file was identified as invalid because DFAS payroll offices\n had incorrectly classified an employee as separated;\n\n\n\n7\n DoD FMR, Volume 8, \xe2\x80\x9cCivilian Pay Policy and Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d defines a waiver as the \xe2\x80\x9ccancellation,\n forgiveness, or non-recovery of a debt owed by an employee to an agency as permitted or required by\n law.\xe2\x80\x9d Therefore, once a debt is waived, it must be reduced to zero and no longer reported as an accounts\n receivable.\n8\n Out-of-Service Debts are amounts due to the DoD by individuals who do not have an active payroll\n account in any DoD system.\n\n 16\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 one debt file was fully paid but remained as an active debt in DCPS;\n and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 one debt file included two separate debts for the same employee. The\n first was less than $6, and therefore no collection action was pursued.\n The second debt should have been transferred to DFAS Denver\n because the employee was no longer a civilian employee.\n\nDFAS payroll offices reduced the three invalid debt file balances to zero after the\naudit team brought the individual debts to their attention. DFAS payroll offices\ndetermined that the debts were inaccurately established and should have been\nremoved from DCPS. DFAS payroll offices do not have procedures in place to\nensure the proper classification of debts. This prevents them from effectively\ncollecting debts and properly recording the debts as Accounts Receivable.\n\nSuspended Debt Files. When a debt file is suspended, all collection actions are\ndiscontinued. DFAS payroll offices erroneously left seven debt files valued at $4,511\nin suspense for as long as 3 years. DFAS payroll offices did not know why five of\nthese debt files were suspended and provided the following explanations for\nsuspending the other two debt files:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One debt was suspended when an individual entered a Leave-Without-Pay\n status. However, collection actions were not resumed when the individual\n returned to an Active Pay status.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One debt was suspended when the individual\xe2\x80\x99s account was transferred from\n one data system to another. Debt collection actions were not resumed after\n the transfer was complete.\n\nCollection actions resumed for all seven suspended, debt files after the audit team\nbrought these problems to the DFAS payroll offices attention. DFAS payroll offices\ndo not have procedures in place to track debts that are in suspense. This prevents\nDFAS payroll offices from adequately collecting debts.\n\nSupporting Documentation. DFAS payroll offices could not provide support for\nthree debt files and had only partial support for four debt files. DFAS\nGuide 7900.4G, \xe2\x80\x9cAudit Trail and System Control,\xe2\x80\x9d specifies that supporting\ndocumentation must be traceable to the individual source records. Without\nsupporting documentation, public debts have a greater chance of not being collected.\nFour debt files were incomplete because demand letters were not included. Demand\nletters are proof that the debtor received notification of an outstanding debt and begin\nthe debt collection process. DFAS payroll offices\xe2\x80\x99 inability to provide complete\nsupporting documentation for seven debt files indicates that employee debt files are\nnot being monitored to determine debt validity and to ensure that collection actions\nhave appropriately begun.\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cTimely Demand Letters. DFAS did not properly send demand letters for two debt\nfiles. The DoD FMR, volume 5, \xe2\x80\x9cDisbursing Policy and Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d chapter 28\n\xe2\x80\x9cGeneral Provisions on Indebtedness,\xe2\x80\x9d states that a demand letter should be issued as\nsoon as the status of the debt is confirmed. The issuance of a demand letter formally\nnotifies the debtor and begins a 60-day repayment period. If the demand letter is not\nsent promptly, it delays the collection process. In one instance, DFAS never sent a\ndemand letter for a $1,195 debt that was originally recorded 3 years earlier. DFAS\nstated that the debt was placed in suspense and never restarted, but no reason was\ngiven to explain why the debt was left in suspense. After the audit team brought this\nto the DFAS payroll office\xe2\x80\x99s attention, DFAS said that the debt file would be\nunsuspended and a demand letter sent, thereby starting collection actions. In another\ninstance, a demand letter was sent 4 months after the debt was confirmed. The DFAS\npayroll office did not explain why the demand letter was sent 4 months late but\nagreed that it wasn\xe2\x80\x99t timely. DFAS needs to review its processes for issuing demand\nletters and placing debt files in suspense.\n\nThe DCIA was passed to maximize the collection of delinquent debts owed to the\ngovernment by ensuring quick action to enforce recovery of debts, using all available\ncollection tools. DFAS payroll offices do not have adequate procedures in place to\ncontinuously ensure that debts are valid and actively being collected. Procedures and\nsystem controls were not in place to ensure that debts are current. Most Individual\nIn-Service Debts are owed by individuals in a Pay status and should be easily\ncollected. DFAS payroll offices should aggressively monitor all Individual In-\nService Debt to ensure timely collection.\n\n\nRecommendations and Management Comments\n\n C. We recommend that the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting\n Service Charleston and Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service\n Pensacola establish procedures to improve collection processes and reporting\n of Accounts Receivable balances. Specifically, Defense Finance and\n Accounting Service payroll offices should ensure that:\n\n 1. Debt files are routinely reviewed to determine whether the debt\n status indicated in the debt file is accurate and agrees with the debt status\n indicated in the Defense Civilian Pay System. Defense Finance and\n Accounting Service payroll offices should verify that all waived, paid, or\n invalid debts are appropriately recorded in the Defense Civilian Pay System.\n\n DFAS Indianapolis Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards\n and Compliance concurred. He stated, \xe2\x80\x9cPayroll management is revising our\n Federal Managers\xe2\x80\x99 Financial Integrity Action (FMFIA) Assessable Unit \xe2\x80\x93 Debt\n Processing to include the following control point: quarterly review of debt status\n to ensure accuracy, i.e., status of any invalid, paid-in-full/partial, and any waivers\n received.\xe2\x80\x9d DFAS identified an estimated completion date of December 1, 2007.\n\n 18\n\x0cDFAS Arlington Comments. The Deputy Director, Compliance, Standards and\nCompliance concurred. He stated, \xe2\x80\x9cPayroll management has revised the FMFIA\nAssessable Unit for Debt Processing to include controls to ensure quarterly\nreviews of debt status are accurate.\xe2\x80\x9d This was completed on November 26, 2007.\n\n 2. Debt files that have been suspended are reviewed on a regular basis\nto verify that the suspension is still warranted.\n\nDFAS Indianapolis Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards\nand Compliance concurred. He again stated that payroll management is revising\nthe FMFIA Assessable Unit \xe2\x80\x93 Debt Processing to include a quarterly review of\ndebt status to ensure any debt suspension or \xe2\x80\x9con-hold\xe2\x80\x9d status is still valid.\n\nDFAS Arlington Comments. The Deputy Director, Compliance, Standards and\nCompliance concurred. He stated that payroll management revised the FMFIA\nAssessable Unit \xe2\x80\x93 Debt Processing to include quarterly reviews of debt statuses\nfor suspensions and \xe2\x80\x9con-hold\xe2\x80\x9d. This was completed on November 26, 2007.\n\n 3. Debt files include the necessary supporting documentation to\nvalidate the debt and to verify that collection actions have begun, indicated\nby the issuance of a demand letter.\n\nDFAS Indianapolis Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards\nand Compliance concurred. He again referred to revising the FMFIA Assessable\nUnit \xe2\x80\x93 Debt Processing to include quarterly reviews of all supporting\ndocumentation to ensure collections have begun.\n\nDFAS Arlington Comments. The Deputy Director, Compliance, Standards and\nCompliance concurred. He stated that payroll management revised the FMFIA\nAssessable Unit \xe2\x80\x93 Debt Processing to include quarterly reviews for supporting\ndocumentation to ensure collection. This was completed on November 26, 2007.\n\n 4. All demand letters are sent in a timely manner and in accordance\nwith applicable regulations as soon as the status of the debt is confirmed.\nDefense Finance and Accounting Service payroll offices should regularly\nreview the Defense Civilian Pay System to identify debts that have not been\nissued a demand letter.\n\nDFAS Indianapolis Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards\nand Compliance concurred, again referring to revising the FMFIA Assessable\nUnit \xe2\x80\x93 Debt Processing to include quarterly reviews of all debts to ensure demand\nletters are sent timely.\n\nDFAS Arlington Comments. The Deputy Director, Compliance, Standards and\nCompliance concurred. He stated that payroll management revised the FMFIA\nAssessable Unit \xe2\x80\x93 Debt Processing to include quarterly reviews to ensure demand\nletters are sent on time. This was completed on November 26, 2007.\n\n 19\n\x0c D. Reporting and Archiving Navy Public\n Debt at DFAS Cleveland\n DFAS Cleveland Departmental Reporting Office inaccurately reported a negative\n amount of $300,257 on the March 31, 2006 \xe2\x80\x9cTreasury Report on Receivables due\n from the Public\xe2\x80\x9d (TROR). This total is comprised of accounts payable totaling\n $258,123 and employer contributions totaling $42,134. Accounts payable and\n employer contributions were erroneously included because DFAS Cleveland did\n not have adequate controls over the reporting process. Also, DFAS Cleveland did\n not archive complete Individual In-Service Debt data, because procedures allow\n for DCPS data, including debt data, to be overwritten each pay period. As a\n result, DFAS Cleveland understated its public debt and was not fully compliant\n with the DCIA and the DoD FMR. Also, the lack of proper record retention\n hinders DFAS Cleveland\xe2\x80\x99s ability to support amounts reported on the TROR.\n\n\nPreparing the TROR at DFAS Cleveland\n\n Accounts Payable Reported on the TROR. The DoD FMR, volume 4,\n \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting Policy and Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d chapter 3, \xe2\x80\x9cReceivables,\xe2\x80\x9d defines account\n receivable as a debt owed to the DoD from a non-DoD entity. Receivables\n include monies due for indebtedness to the DoD. Examples of indebtedness to\n the DoD include overdue travel advances, dishonored checks, and overpayments.\n\n DFAS Cleveland Departmental Reporting Office erroneously reported negative\n Accounts Receivable totaling $258,123 in the March 31, 2006 universe of DCPS\n transactions. These transactions should have been reported as accounts payable.\n The DoD FMR, volume 4, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting Policy and Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d chapter 9,\n \xe2\x80\x9cAccounts Payable,\xe2\x80\x9d states that accounts payable are monies owed to other\n entities for receipt of goods and services, progress in contract performance, and\n rents from the DoD.\n\n In accordance with these definitions, and based upon our review, the negative\n items identified are accounts payable, not Accounts Receivable, and should not be\n reported on the TROR, which is a Department of the Treasury report used to track\n only public Accounts Receivable. DFAS Cleveland should examine its reporting\n procedures to ensure that accounts payable are not reported on the TROR.\n\n Employer Contributions Reported on the TROR. DFAS Cleveland\n Departmental Reporting Office erroneously included employer contribution\n amounts on the March 31, 2006 TROR. Employer contributions are the cost of\n employee benefits, such as portions of health insurance premiums paid by the\n agency. Employer contributions are strictly governmental transactions, not public\n transactions, and therefore not subject to reporting on the TROR. The Accounts\n\n 20\n\x0c Receivable universe of transactions that was provided by DFAS Cleveland\n included Individual In-Service Debt amounts coded with a \xe2\x80\x9cU.\xe2\x80\x9d This \xe2\x80\x9cU\xe2\x80\x9d\n represents employer contributions. This code appears on the Accounts\n Receivable universe as either a negative or a positive amount. The negative \xe2\x80\x9cU\xe2\x80\x9d\n codes are monies owed by the government. The positive \xe2\x80\x9cU\xe2\x80\x9d codes are monies\n owed to the government. Negative employer contribution amounts totaling\n $55,889 and positive employer contribution amounts totaling $13,755 were in the\n Accounts Receivable universe for Individual In-Service Debt. Neither amount\n should have been reported on the March 31, 2006 TROR or captured in the\n Individual In-Service Debt as Accounts Receivable. DFAS Cleveland\n inaccurately reported DoN public debts. DFAS Cleveland should examine its\n reporting procedures to ensure that it is accurately reporting public Accounts\n Receivable on the TROR.\n\n\nArchiving DCPS Transactions at DFAS Cleveland\n\n Archiving Transactions. DFAS Cleveland Departmental Reporting Office does\n not archive complete DCPS data. We requested the March 31, 2006 Accounts\n Receivable universe of transactions in DCPS but were told it was not available.\n The DFAS payroll offices at Pensacola, Florida and Charleston, South Carolina\n use DCPS to process Individual In-Service Debts. DFAS payroll offices send\n complete DCPS transaction data to DFAS Cleveland, which includes social\n security numbers. However, every two weeks, all transaction data in the DFAS\n Pensacola and DFAS Charleston DCPS databases is overwritten with data for\n only the current pay period.\n\n DFAS Cleveland receives complete DCPS transaction data from the DFAS\n payroll offices, but it removes data considered to be unnecessary, including social\n security numbers. Although DFAS Cleveland does not use social security\n numbers for preparing the TROR, the social security number is necessary for an\n audit trail. Without a social security number, the audit trail is lost because there is\n no link to the supporting documentation. Because DFAS could not provide the\n March 31, 2006 DCPS universe, we arranged to perform audit testing on the\n July 31, 2006 DCPS universe.\n\n The DoD FMR, volume 1, \xe2\x80\x9cGeneral Financial Management Information, Systems\n and Requirements,\xe2\x80\x9d chapter 3, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting Systems Conformance, Evaluation,\n and Reporting,\xe2\x80\x9d states that a key test of an audit trail is whether tracing the\n transaction forward from the source or back from the result will permit\n verification of the amount recorded or reported. In addition, Defense Accounting\n Service Guide 7900.4G, \xe2\x80\x9cAudit Trail and System Control,\xe2\x80\x9d requires that all\n transactions, included computer-generated computations, be traceable to\n individual source records. DFAS Cleveland did not maintain an adequate audit\n trail for testing. DFAS Cleveland did not archive complete DCPS data because\n procedures were not in place requiring this data to be archived. DFAS\n\n 21\n\x0c Cleveland\xe2\x80\x99s lack of archiving makes it difficult to audit its outstanding debts.\n Without complete data, auditors cannot ensure that all amounts reported are\n accurate. DFAS Cleveland further maintains that DCPS users at the DFAS\n payroll offices are responsible for maintaining archived records. While archiving\n may be a function of the DFAS payroll offices, DFAS Cleveland should ensure\n that proper support for amounts it reports is coordinated and maintained in\n conjunction with its subordinate activities.\n\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and Audit\n Response\n\n D. We recommend that the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting\n Service Cleveland, in coordination with the Defense Finance and Accounting\n Service payroll offices in Charleston and Pensacola, ensure proper public\n debt and Accounts Receivable reporting on the Treasury Report on\n Receivables. Specifically, procedures must be established to ensure that:\n\n 1. Only public debt amounts are included on the Treasury Report on\n Receivables.\n\n Management Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\n Compliance concurred. He stated that DFAS Pensacola and DFAS Indianapolis,\n Standards and Compliance will coordinate the effort regarding how DCPS data\n affects the DFAS network. DFAS identified an estimated completion date of\n April 1, 2008.\n\n Audit Response. Although the Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\n Compliance concurred with our recommendation, his comments were partially\n responsive. The coordinated effort between DFAS Pensacola and DFAS\n Indianapolis, Standards and Compliance should ensure that employer contribution\n amounts are excluded from amounts reported on the Treasury Report on\n Receivables. We request that the Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\n Compliance provide a proposed date as to when employer contributions will not\n be reported on the Treasury Report on Receivables.\n\n 2. All transactions from supporting systems are archived and\n traceable to the source documentation by specific record numbers, such as a\n social security number.\n\n Management Comments. The Director, Corporate Reporting, Standards and\n Compliance concurred. He stated that DFAS Cleveland Accounting and\n Operations began archiving the DCPS report in March 2007. This action was\n completed on March 31, 2007.\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cAppendix A. Scope and Methodology\n To analyze Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) compliance with\n the Debt Collection and Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) and other pertinent\n regulations for the Department of the Navy (DoN), we reviewed amounts reported\n by DFAS as DoN public debt on the second quarter FY 2006 Treasury Report on\n Receivables (TROR) totaling $3.7 billion. DFAS uses the TROR to gather\n financial data to be reported as Navy\xe2\x80\x99s Public Receivables. Specifically, we\n reviewed contractor debts, Individual Out-of-Service Debts, and Individual\n In-Service Debts from the DFAS locations and systems described below,\n respectively. We reviewed systems that represented 84 percent of the reported\n amount in the second quarter FY 2006 TROR. Our work focused on debt and\n collection activities at:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DFAS Columbus Debt Management Office for processing Contract\n Debt System (CDS) and Mechanization of Contract Administration\n System (MOCAS) data,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DFAS Denver Debt & Claims Management for processing Defense\n Debt Management System (DDMS) data, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DFAS Charleston and DFAS Pensacola payroll offices for processing\n Defense Civilian Pay System (DCPS) data.\n\n Our work also focused on how DFAS Cleveland Departmental Reporting Office\n reports public debt on the TROR.\n\n Work Performed. To identify the legal requirements, policies, and procedures\n established for debt collection, we reviewed pertinent laws, related federal\n regulations, the DoD Financial Management Regulation, and DFAS procedures.\n To identify the activities undertaken by the DFAS Debt Management Office,\n payroll offices, and Debt and Claims Management, we reviewed debt files,\n demand letters, and related correspondence, and discussed debt collection\n activities with DFAS officials. We then reconciled all the reported amounts from\n these systems to the second quarter FY 2006 TROR for both the Navy General\n Fund and the Navy Working Capital Fund.\n\n Sample Selections. In selecting debt files for further review, we coordinated\n with the Quantitative Methods Directorate, DoD OIG, in developing the statistical\n sample design. See Appendix B for a discussion of the statistical sampling\n methodology.\n\n Sample reviews. In reviewing the selected samples, we (1) examined the files\n and the collection activities, (2) determined if the debts were valid, and\n (3) discussed issues and questions related to the debts with DFAS officials.\n\n\n 23\n\x0c We performed this audit from April 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with\n general accepted government auditing standards.\n\n Use of Computer-Processed Data. To achieve the audit objective, we relied on\n computer-processed data contained in the universe of data provided by DFAS\n from CDS, MOCAS, DDMS and DCPS. Nothing came to our attention as a\n result of specified procedures that caused us to doubt the reliability of the\n computer-processed data.\n\n Testing the reliability of the CDS, MOCAS, DDMS and DCPS systems was not\n an announced audit objective, given the intended use of the data. Therefore, the\n reliability of data has not materially affected the results of the audit. Our audit\n included tests of the data contained in CDS, MOCAS, DDMS and DCPS that\n were compared to other independent data. No material discrepancies were\n detected that would negatively affect our audit results. The level of reliability of\n CDS, MOCAS, DDMS and DCPS data extracted from the database was sufficient\n to achieve specific audit objectives.\n\n Use of Technical Assistance. Quantitative Methods Directorate provided\n technical assistance in developing the sample design and selecting samples of\n Accounts Receivable transactions. Specifically, Quantitative Methods\n Directorate provided statistical samples for CDS, MOCAS, DDMS, and DCPS.\n See Appendix B for a discussion of the statistical sampling methodology.\n\n Government Accountability Office High-Risk Area. The Government\n Accountability Office has identified several high-risk areas in DoD. This report\n provides coverage of a DoD financial management high-risk area.\n\n\nPrior Coverage\n\n No prior coverage has been conducted on the subject during the last 5 years.\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cAppendix B. Statistical Sampling Methodology\n\nSystems\n\n We used statistical sampling to efficiently test compliance with the DCIA from\n four systems: Contract Debt System (CDS), Mechanization of Contract\n Administration System (MOCAS), Defense Debt Management System (DDMS),\n and Defense Civilian Pay System (DCPS). For all the systems, transactions\n reported on the TROR for the General Fund or Working Capital Fund were\n included in the sampling process.\n\nCDS\n\n As of March 31, 2006, CDS had a universe of 816 transactions representing six\n transaction types: Bankruptcy, Dispute, Litigation, Other, Closed and Treasury.\n We tested 134 transactions. Quantitative Methods Directorate considered the six\n types of transactions in the universe for representation in designing the sample.\n Quantitative Methods Directorate provided a statistical sample of 125 out of\n 397 non-zero transactions. In addition, the audit team judgmentally 9 selected\n six zero-value transactions (one for each of the six transaction types), and\n three additional transactions that may have not been reported in the TROR for\n testing.\n\nMOCAS\n\n As of March 31, 2006, MOCAS had a universe of 221 transactions representing\n three transaction types: Closed, Other, and Dispute. We tested 52 sample items.\n Quantitative Methods Directorate considered the three types of transactions in the\n universe for representation in designing the sample and suggested auditing all\n 46 non-zero transactions for sampling (by excluding the 175 zero-value\n transactions out of the universe of 221 transactions). In addition, the audit team\n judgmentally selected five zero-value transactions and one additional transaction\n that may have not been reported in the TROR.\n\nDDMS\n\n As of March 31, 2006, DDMS had a universe of 145,515 Individual Out-of-\n Service Debt transactions. We tested 130 of those transactions. Quantitative\n Methods Directorate designed a statistical sample of 400 transactions, considering\n the dollar amount for representation in designing the sample. The sample was\n selected by transaction line items, instead of by social security numbers. A social\n\n9\n The judgmental sample does not generalize to the universe.\n\n 25\n\x0c security number (SSN) could have multiple debts associated with it. Although\n 400 transactions were selected for sampling, we only tested 130, due to limited\n resources. We tested all 124 transactions located at DFAS Denver and\n judgmentally selected six transactions from the remaining 276 inactive or off-site\n transactions.\n\nDCPS\n\n As of July 31, 2006, the DCPS universe consisted of 15,874 transactions traceable\n to 3,980 SSNs. We tested all transactions associated with 280 SSNs.\n Quantitative Methods Directorate designed a sample of 260 SSNs, which included\n 180 from the positive-value transactions, 70 from the negative-value transactions,\n and 10 from the zero-value transactions. Quantitative Methods Directorate\n considered the dollar amount for representation in designing the sample and\n whether to use SSNs versus line items. In addition, the audit team judgmentally\n selected 20 additional SSNs with negative transactions to verify that they were\n truly Accounts Receivable, not accounts payable or other transactions.\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0cAppendix C. Report Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget)\nDirector, Program Analysis and Evaluation\n\nDepartment of the Navy\nNaval Inspector General\nAuditor General, Department of the Navy\n\nCombatant Command\nInspector General, U.S. Joint Forces Command\n\nOther Defense Organizations\nDirector, Defense Finance and Accounting Service\n\nNon-Defense Federal Organization\nOffice of Management and Budget\nGovernment Accountability Office\n\nCongressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and\n Ranking Minority Member\nSenate Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Committee on Armed Services\nSenate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs\nHouse Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Committee on Armed Services\nHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement,\n Committee on Oversight and Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on National Security, and Foreign Affairs,\n Committee on Oversight and Government Reform\n\n 27\n\x0c\x0cDefense Finance and Accounting Service\nIndianapolis Comments\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0cFinal Report\n Reference\n\n\n\n\nDeleted\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\x0c31\n\x0c32\n\x0c33\n\x0c34\n\x0c35\n\x0cDefense Finance and Accounting Service\nArlington Comments\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\x0c37\n\x0c38\n\x0cTeam Members\nThe Department of Defense Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing,\nDefense Financial and Auditing Service prepared this report. Personnel of the\nDepartment of Defense Office of Inspector General who contributed to the report\nare listed below.\n\nPaul J. Granetto\nPatricia A. Marsh\nEdward A. Blair\nLaura J.S. Croniger\nChin-feng Herrod\nJoanna B. Sokolowski\nDharam V. Jain\nE. Ellen Kleiman-Redden\n\x0c\x0c"


type: wikipedia

text:
Maksymin Daja (lub Daza), Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximinus (ur. 20 listopada 270, zm. 313 w Tarsie) – cesarz rzymski, jeden z tetrarchów, panujący w latach 310–313.
 Życiorys
 Pochodził z Illyrikum, był synem siostry Galeriusza, później (305) przez niego adoptowanym. Według Laktancjusza, dzięki pokrewieństwu szybko awansował w armii, do której wstąpił będąc prostym pasterzem z chłopskiej rodziny, wkrótce przeniesiony do przybocznej straży cesarskiej (jako scutarius, protector), a następnie mianowany trybunem.
 Po abdykacji Dioklecjana wraz z Maksymianem i podniesieniu Galeriusza do godności augusta w 305, otrzymał przy nim tytuł cezara jako wielkorządca diecezji obejmującej południowo-wschodnią część Azji Mniejszej i Syrię z Egiptem (dioecesis Orientis). Na zjeździe tetrarchów w Carnuntum (308) wujowi nie udało się pozyskać dla niego tytułu augusta, dopiero w dwa lata potem został nim ogłoszony przez własne wojska, co Galeriusz zalegalizował. Po jego śmierci (311) opanował resztę Azji Mniejszej przy poparciu ludności zjednanej ulgami podatkowymi. Wywołało to konflikt z Licyniuszem, zażegnany jednak pertraktacjami na Bosforze odsuwającymi czasowo groźbę wojny domowej. Później (312-313) miał prowadzić udane działania przeciwko Armenii i Persom Szapura II, za co otrzymał (wraz Konstantynem i Licyniuszem) zwycięski tytuł Persicus.
 Ostatecznie zerwał rozejm z Licyniuszem w 313: wykorzystując konflikt Maksencjusza z Konstantynem na zachodzie, zaatakował jego trackie posiadłości i zajął Bizancjum, zamierzając następnie kierować się ku Italii. Pokonany przez Licyniusza 30 kwietnia 313 w rozstrzygającej bitwie na Campus Ergenus w pobliżu Adrianopola, schronił się najpierw do Nikomedii. Poniósł śmierć w sierpniu tego samego roku, najpewniej popełniając samobójstwo w cylicyjskim Tarsie obleganym przez wojska Licyniusza.
 Ocena panowania
 Mimo niskiego pochodzenia i braku wykształcenia, Daja miał wspierać ludzi nauki i literatury, którymi chętnie się otaczał. Na jego prymitywny charakter istotny wpływ miał jednak alkohol, wskutek czego tracił nad sobą panowanie, przejawiając wówczas brutalność i okrucieństwo. Współczesny nam historyk wydaje o nim zwięzłą opinię: „Był dobrym żołnierzem, ale też okrutnikiem, pijakiem i rozpustnikiem”.
 Jako wyznawca tradycyjnej religii Maksymin wspierał i odnawiał jej popularne kulty (np. Serapisa, Jowisza, Apollina, Tyche-Fortuny, Herkulesa), usiłował też nadać im organizację wzorowaną na chrześcijaństwie z hierarchią kapłańską podległą zwierzchnikom prowincji (arcykapłanom). Uważany za fanatyka, wyróżniał się wśród tetrarchów wykonując gorliwie i bezwzględnie edykty Dioklecjana dotyczące prześladowania chrześcijan, co częściowo podyktowane było chęcią pozyskania wpływowych i zamożnych środowisk pogańskich w podległych mu krajach. Chrześcijanom zakazywano zgromadzeń na cmentarzach, więziono ich i usuwano z miast na wniosek administracji, skazywano też na śmierć. Ofiarą represji padli jako męczennicy m.in. biskup Piotr z Aleksandrii i Lucjan, założyciel katechetycznej szkoły w Antiochii. Ponadto prowadzono żywą propagandę antychrześcijańską poprzez rozpowszechnianie obciążających pism z zarzutami. Maksymin zaprzestał na krótko prześladowań po ogłoszeniu edyktu tolerancyjnego Galeriusza, lecz później wznowił je, by ostatecznie zrezygnować z nich wiosną 313 po klęsce zadanej mu przez Licyniusza, przypuszczalnie w zamiarze spóźnionego pozyskania chrześcijan dla ocalenia swej władzy.
 Zobacz też
 tetrarchia
 Uwagi
 Przypisy
 Bibliografia
 Linki zewnętrzne
 Karl Hoeber: "Caius Valerius Daja Maximinus" w Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: R. Appleton, 1913, t. 10
 Cesarze rzymscy
 Konsulowie Cesarstwa Rzymskiego
 Urodzeni w 270
 Zmarli w 313


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Důležité právní upozornění
 |
 22004D0005
 Úřední věstník L 116 , 22/04/2004 S. 0048 - 0049
 Rozhodnutí Smíšeného výboru EHPč. 5/2004ze dne 6. února 2004,kterým se mění příloha II (Technické předpisy, normy, zkoušení a certifikace) Dohody o EHPSMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EHP,s ohledem na Dohodu o Evropském hospodářském prostoru ve znění Protokolu o úpravě Dohody o Evropském hospodářském prostoru (dále jen "Dohoda"), a zejména s ohledem na článek 98 této dohody,vzhledem k těmto důvodům:(1) Příloha II Dohody byla změněna rozhodnutím Smíšeného výboru EHP č. 174/2003 ze dne 5. prosince 2003 [1].(2) Směrnice Komise 2003/81/ES ze dne 5. září 2003, kterou se mění směrnice Rady 91/414/EHS za účelem zařazení účinných látek molinátu, thiramu a ziramu [2], by měla být začleněna do Dohody.(3) Směrnice Komise 2003/84/ES ze dne 25. září 2003, kterou se mění směrnice Rady 91/414/EHS za účelem zařazení účinných látek flurtamonu, flufenacetu, jodosulfuronu, dimethenamidu-P, pikoxystrobinu, fosthiazátu a silthiofamu [3], by měla být začleněna do Dohody,ROZHODL TAKTO:Článek 1V bodě 12a (směrnice Rady 91/414/EHS) kapitoly XV přílohy II Dohody se doplňují nové odrážky, které znějí:"— 32003 L 0081: směrnice Komise 2003/81/ES ze dne 5. září 2003 (Úř. věst. L 224, 6.9.2003, s. 29),— 32003 L 0084: směrnice Komise 2003/84/ES ze dne 25. září 2003 (Úř. věst. L 247, 30.9.2003, s. 20)."Článek 2Znění směrnic 2003/81/ES a 2003/84/ES v islandském a norském jazyce, která mají být zveřejněna v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie, jsou platná.Článek 3Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dnem 7. února 2004 za předpokladu, že Smíšenému výboru EHP jsou učiněna veškerá oznámení podle čl. 103 odst. 1 Dohody [4].Článek 4Toto rozhodnutí bude zveřejněno v oddíle EHP a v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie.V Bruselu dne 6. února 2004.Za Smíšený výbor EHPpředsedaP. Westerlund[1] Úř. věst. L 88, 25.3.2004, s. 49.[2] Úř. věst. L 224, 6.9.2003, s. 29.[3] Úř. věst. L 224, 6.9.2003, s. 20.[4] Nebyly oznámeny žádné ústavní požadavky.--------------------------------------------------


text:
De selectie, kiera cass de selectie
 Door verder te gaan op deze website, ga je akkoord met het gebruik hiervan. Ze is er van overtuigd dat Celeste een rotte appel is en niet in het paleis hoort.
 Verkoop door Books Company.
 Hoe is het mogelijkheid dat een van de meest eenvoudige, clichematige verhalen die ik in lange tijd heb gelezen, me zo gepakt heeft, dat ik zelfs regelmatig met een brok in mijn kerl zat te lezen en het boek in 24 uur verslonden heb? De eerste 3 delen blijven mijn favoriet en de prinses vond ik persoonlijk wat minder maar de kroon is weer een top boek.
 Zo kunnen ze ontsnappen aan een armoedig caste-leven en opgenomen worden in een wereld vol glamour. Waarom sprak me dit niet aan, terwijl ik toch ontzettend veel goede recensies over dit boek en de vervolgen las en ik heel blij was dat ze gewoon in de bieb op mij stonden te wachten? Het forum.
 Daarom ook het lage aantal sterren. Ik vond het boek heel erg leuk om te lezen: het was spannend, romantisch, dat je als auteur mij een boek binnen een week kunt laten uitlezen. Het feit is, je hebt het zo uit, kiera cass de selectie, zodat de behandeling pas laat kan beginnen, de sneeuw omhoog naar de lucht te drukken en te glimlachen. Ook hij heeft gevoelens voor haar. Cortje13 Veenendaal 24 september Ik raad dit product aan.
 Het leest als een trein en alles valt op zijn plaats, ook worden de personages beter verdiept. Welk boek vond ik het leukste? Het verhaal speelt zich af in een toekomstig land genaamd Illea ligt op de plaats wat nu Noord-Amerika is.
 Na drie boeken was ik er dus ook wel
 Het is niet 'kinderachtig' geschreven. Ze moet in een paleis wonen dat continu wordt aangevallen door rebellen.
 Winnen: 2x een gesigneerd exemplaar van Vond je dit een nuttige review? Het nadeel was dat ik soms weer moeilijk in het verhaal kon komen, maar eenmaal een aantal pagina's gelezen wist ik het ook wel weer. Ik vond het hele kaste-leven heel leuk bedacht en vond het dan ook heel interessant om hier over te lezen. Nieuws 1 aug Geplaatst door RedactieCL. Voor meer informatie, onder andere over cookiebeheer, bekijk je: Cookiebeleid.
 Je reageert onder je Google account. Win een stout boekenpakket bij de aankoo
 De eerste 3 delen blijven mijn favoriet en de prinses vond ik persoonlijk wat minder maar de kroon is weer een top boek.
 En daarna kon ik niet wachten De Elite te lezen. Kiera cass de selectie worden er soms keuzes gemaakt of wordt er op manieren gereageerd die hevig overdreven zijn. Echt van genoten. Goede kwaliteit Voordelige koop! En ik ben er zeer tevreden mee.
 De Kroon is weer een boek dat de leukste eigenschappen van de Selectie-serie aankaart. Maar ook prins Maxon had een andere Het einde van De One was nogal cliché. Soms was ik even kwijt wie iedereen was.
 America wordt, tegen haar bedoelingen, ook al weet ze dat het ooit zal eindigen, en heel mooi geschreven, kiera cass de selectie. Dit is de nieuwe bebe rexha martin garrix lyrics Wars: The Rise of America kan eindelijk genieten van haar comfortabele leven, en welke niet?
 Om bij weg te kwijnen gewoon. Eadlyn is volwassen en ik vertrouw Illea met een gerust hart toe aan haar en haar metgezel. Kiera cass de selectie vond het een boeiend verhaal, doen er alles aan om maar niet te hoeven kijken en tch blijven we kijk.
 Voor 35 meisjes is de Selectie d kans op een beter leven.
 Deel 1 - The Selection - De Selectie
 Megan Shepherd The Cage - De vuurproef 16, Goede kwaliteit, voordelige koop, duurzaam, ik ben enthousiast!
 Zo voelt het verhaal heel magisch, maar aan de andere kant ook realistisch aan.
 Na het verbreken van haar stiekeme relatie komt America met een gebroken hart in het paleis terecht waar ze kleurrijke tegenstanders Voor de leukste recensies en win acties van boeken kijk op thunderstruck.
 Verder zijn er ook nog boeken die vanuit een andere persoon zijn geschreven. Heb stiekem ook een crush op Maxon haha, kiera cass de selectie. Heel makkelijk om te lezen en een leuk verhaal, met toch elke keer weer een verrassing. Houd me kiera cass de selectie e-mail op de hoogte van nieuwe reacties. Spannend verassend einde. Hij wil niet de reden zijn waarom ze niet zou meedoen!
 Kiera Cass mag blijven schrijven.
 Verder zijn er ook nog boeken die vanuit een andere persoon zijn geschreven. Er was een tijdje dat bijna alle series trilogieën waren en die leken qua verhaal allemaal super veel op elkaar! Spannend geweldige afsluiting.
 Ook ben ik over deze zeer te spreken net als de 1e 2 delen, het is een mooi eind op deze kiera cass de selectie en je hebt het gevoel dat je meer wilt en misschien ook dus de andere delen nog wilt lezen. Fleurinex katwijk 3 juni Ik raad dit product aan. Een echte avontuurlijke rit.
 Ik vind het een erg goed boek met een apart einde.
 Hoe kan zij goed het land regeren? Ik wil de volgende delen zeker lezen en misschien ook wel zelf aanschaffen door de prachtige covers , maar het is geen boek wat me lang zal bijblijven.
 America's moeder ziet het als een kans om uit de financiële problemen te komen.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 11992M/PRO/DE/02
 Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie - Protocol betreffende de procedure bij buitensporige tekorten - Artikel 2
 Publicatieblad Nr. C 191 van 29/07/1992 blz. 0084
 Artikel 2 In artikel 104 C van dit Verdrag en in dit Protocol wordt verstaan onder: - overheid: de algemene overheid, dat wil zeggen de centrale overheid, de regionale of lokale overheid en de fondsen voor sociale zekerheid onder uitsluiting van commerciële transacties, als omschreven in het Europees Stelsel van Economische Rekeningen; - tekort: netto financieringstekort als omschreven in het Europees Stelsel van Economische Rekeningen; - investeringen: bruto investeringen in vaste activa als omschreven in het Europees Stelsel van Economische Rekeningen; - schuld: totale aan het eind van het jaar uitstaande brutoschuld tegen nominale waarde, geconsolideerd tussen en binnen de sectoren van de algemene overheid als omschreven in het eerste streepje.


text:
Trolejbus (v slangu: trolej alebo troflák ) je hromadný dopravný prostriedok určený na prepravu osôb. Je poháňaný trakčným elektromotorom. Elektrickú energiu získava pomocou elektrickej trakcie - vodičov upevnených pomocou prevesov nad vozovkou (pozri trolejové vedenie). Elektrická trakcia je napájaná jednosmerným elektrickým napätím 600V, 750V alebo 1000V, v závislosti od miesta, kde sa trolejbusová prevádzka nachádza a od typu vozidiel používaných v danej prevádzke. Na prívod prúdu sa používajú tzv. zberače. Sú ukončené uhlíkovými kontaktnými prvkami, tzv. „botkami“ (z českého slova „bota“).
 Trolejbusové prevádzky na Slovensku
 Zaujímavosti
 Trolejbus sa v Číne nazýva „bezdráhová električka (無軌電車)“.
 Galéria
 Referencie
 Iné projekty