text:
 EUROPEISKA
 KOMMISSIONEN
 Bryssel den 29.5.2015
 COM(2015) 224 final
 ANNEX 1
 BILAGA
 PROTOKOLL
 TILL RAMAVTALET OM PARTNERSKAP OCH SAMARBETE
 mellan Europeiska unionen och dess medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra
 sidan, för att beakta Republiken Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen
 till
 förslag till
 RÅDETS BESLUT
 om ingående, på Europeiska unionens och dess medlemsstaters vägnar, av protokollet
 till ramavtalet om partnerskap och samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen och dess
 medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan, för att beakta Republiken
 Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen
 SV SV
 ---pagebreak--- BILAGA
 PROTOKOLL
 TILL RAMAVTALET OM PARTNERSKAP OCH SAMARBETE
 mellan Europeiska unionen och dess medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra
 sidan, för att beakta Republiken Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen
 KONUNGARIKET BELGIEN,
 REPUBLIKEN BULGARIEN,
 REPUBLIKEN TJECKIEN,
 KONUNGARIKET DANMARK,
 FÖRBUNDSREPUBLIKEN TYSKLAND,
 REPUBLIKEN ESTLAND,
 IRLAND,
 REPUBLIKEN GREKLAND,
 KONUNGARIKET SPANIEN,
 REPUBLIKEN FRANKRIKE,
 REPUBLIKEN KROATIEN,
 REPUBLIKEN ITALIEN,
 REPUBLIKEN CYPERN,
 REPUBLIKEN LETTLAND,
 REPUBLIKEN LITAUEN,
 STORHERTIGDÖMET LUXEMBURG,
 UNGERN,
 REPUBLIKEN MALTA,
 KONUNGARIKET NEDERLÄNDERNA,
 REPUBLIKEN ÖSTERRIKE,
 REPUBLIKEN POLEN,
 REPUBLIKEN PORTUGAL,
 RUMÄNIEN,
 REPUBLIKEN SLOVENIEN,
 REPUBLIKEN SLOVAKIEN,
 REPUBLIKEN FINLAND,
 KONUNGARIKET SVERIGE,
 FÖRENADE KONUNGARIKET STORBRITANNIEN OCH NORDIRLAND,
 SV 2 SV
 ---pagebreak--- fördragsslutande parter i fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om Europeiska
 unionens funktionssätt, nedan kallade medlemsstaterna, företrädda av Europeiska unionens
 råd, och
 EUROPEISKA UNIONEN, nedan kallad Europeiska unionen,
 å ena sidan, och
 MONGOLIET
 å andra sidan,
 nedan tillsammans för detta protokolls syften kallade de avtalsslutande parterna,
 SOM BEAKTAR Republiken Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen den 1 juli 2013,
 SOM BEAKTAR att ramavtalet om partnerskap och samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen
 och dess medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan, nedan även kallat avtalet,
 undertecknades i Ulaanbaatar den 30 april 2013,
 SOM BEAKTAR att fördraget om Republiken Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen
 undertecknades i Bryssel den 9 december 2011,
 SOM BEAKTAR att Republiken Kroatiens anslutning till avtalet i enlighet med artikel 6.2 i
 anslutningsakten för Kroatien ska godkännas genom ingående av ett protokoll till avtalet,
 HAR ENATS OM FÖLJANDE.
 Artikel 1
 Republiken Kroatien ansluter sig härmed som part i ramavtalet om partnerskap och samarbete
 mellan Europeiska unionen och dess medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan
 – som undertecknades i Ulaanbaatar den 30 april 2013 – och ska på samma sätt som övriga
 medlemsstater i Europeiska unionen anta och beakta texten till avtalet.
 Artikel 2
 Europeiska unionen ska vid lämplig tidpunkt efter paraferingen av detta protokoll översända
 den kroatiska språkversionen av avtalet till sina medlemsstater och Mongoliet. Med förbehåll
 för detta protokolls ikraftträdande ska den språkversion som avses i första meningen vara
 giltig på samma villkor som de bulgariska, danska, engelska, estniska, finska, franska,
 grekiska, italienska, lettiska, litauiska, maltesiska, nederländska, polska, portugisiska,
 rumänska, slovakiska, slovenska, spanska, svenska, tjeckiska, tyska och ungerska
 språkversionerna av avtalet.
 Artikel 3
 Detta protokoll ska utgöra en integrerad del av avtalet.
 Artikel 4
 (1) Detta protokoll ska godkännas av Europeiska unionen, av Europeiska unionens råd på
 medlemsstaternas vägnar och av Mongoliet, i enlighet med deras egna förfaranden. De
 avtalsslutande parterna ska till varandra anmäla att de förfaranden som är nödvändiga
 för detta har slutförts. Godkännandeinstrumenten ska deponeras hos Europeiska
 unionens råds generalsekretariat.
 SV 3 SV
 ---pagebreak--- (2) Detta protokoll träder i kraft den första dagen i den första månaden efter deponeringen
 av det sista godkännandeinstrumentet, dock inte före dagen för avtalets ikraftträdande.
 Artikel 5
 Detta protokoll är upprättat i två exemplar på bulgariska, danska, engelska, estniska, finska,
 franska, grekiska, italienska, kroatiska, lettiska, litauiska, maltesiska, nederländska, polska,
 portugisiska, rumänska, slovakiska, slovenska, spanska, svenska, tjeckiska, tyska, ungerska
 och mongoliska, vilka alla texter är lika giltiga.
 TILL BEVIS HÄRPÅ har undertecknade befullmäktigade undertecknat detta protokoll.
 Som skedde i ... den ...
 FÖR EUROPEISKA UNIONEN OCH DESS MEDLEMSSTATER
 FÖR MONGOLIET
 SV 4 SV
 ---documentbreak--- EUROPEISKA
 KOMMISSIONEN
 Bryssel den 29.5.2015
 COM(2015) 224 final
 2015/0113 (NLE)
 Förslag till
 RÅDETS BESLUT
 om ingående på Europeiska unionens och dess medlemsstaters vägnar av ett protokoll
 till ramavtalet om partnerskap och samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen och dess
 medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan, för att beakta Republiken
 Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen
 SV SV
 ---pagebreak--- MOTIVERING
 Föreliggande förslag till rådets beslut utgör den rättsliga grunden för ingående av ett protokoll
 till ramavtalet om partnerskap och samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen och dess
 medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan. Syftet med detta protokoll är att
 beakta Republiken Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen.
 I anslutningsakten för Kroatien anges att det landet ska tillträda de internationella avtal som
 undertecknats eller ingåtts av Europeiska unionen och dess medlemsstater genom protokoll
 till avtalen i fråga.
 Ramavtalet om partnerskap och samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen och dess
 medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan, undertecknades i Ulaanbaatar den
 30 april 2013. Avtalet håller på att ratificeras och har ännu inte trätt i kraft.
 I enlighet med rådets beslut av den ....... 2015 om undertecknande, på Europeiska unionens
 och dess medlemsstaters vägnar av protokollet till detta avtal, undertecknades protokollet i ...
 den ....
 Genom protokollet blir Kroatien avtalsslutande part i avtalet och förpliktigas EU att
 tillhandahålla den giltiga versionen av avtalet på kroatiska språket.
 Kommissionen uppmanar rådet att ingå protokollet på Europeiska unionens och dess
 medlemsstaters vägnar.
 Europaparlamentet kommer att uppmanas att godkänna protokollet.
 SV 2 SV
 ---pagebreak--- 2015/0113 (NLE)
 Förslag till
 RÅDETS BESLUT
 om ingående på Europeiska unionens och dess medlemsstaters vägnar av ett protokoll
 till ramavtalet om partnerskap och samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen och dess
 medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan, för att beakta Republiken
 Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen
 EUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR ANTAGIT DETTA BESLUT
 med beaktande av fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt, särskilt artiklarna 207 och
 209 jämförda med artikel 218.6 a,
 med beaktande av anslutningsakten för Republiken Kroatien, särskilt artikel 6.2,
 med beaktande av Europeiska kommissionens förslag,
 med beaktande av Europaparlamentets godkännande, och
 av följande skäl:
 (1) I enlighet med artikel 6.2 i anslutningsakten för Republiken Kroatien ska Kroatiens
 anslutning till ramavtalet om partnerskap och samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen
 och dess medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan, godkännas genom
 ett protokoll till avtalet. I enlighet med artikel 6.2 andra stycket i anslutningsakten ska
 ett förenklat förfarande tillämpas för att godkänna anslutningen i fall som detta, såvida
 inte annat föreskrivs. Enligt detta förfarande ska ett protokoll ingås av rådet, genom
 enhälligt beslut på medlemsstaternas vägnar, och tredjelandet eller tredjeländerna i
 fråga.
 (2) Den 14 september 2012 bemyndigade rådet kommissionen att inleda förhandlingar
 med de tredjeländer med vilka protokoll måste ingås till följd av Republiken Kroatiens
 anslutning1. Förhandlingarna slutfördes med framgång och protokollet till ramavtalet
 om partnerskap och samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen och dess medlemsstater, å
 ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan, för att beakta Republiken Kroatiens
 anslutning till Europeiska unionen undertecknades på Europeiska unionens och dess
 medlemsstaters vägnar i [...] den [...].
 (3) Protokollet bör godkännas.
 1
 Rådets beslut om bemyndigande att inleda förhandlingar om anpassning, med anledning av Republiken
 Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen, av avtal som har undertecknats eller ingåtts av Europeiska
 unionen eller Europeiska unionen och dess medlemsstater med ett eller flera tredjeländer eller
 internationella organisationer (rådsdok. 13351/12 RESTREINT UE).
 SV 3 SV
 ---pagebreak--- HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.
 Artikel 1
 1. Protokollet till ramavtalet om partnerskap och samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen
 och dess medlemsstater, å ena sidan, och Mongoliet, å andra sidan, för att beakta
 Republiken Kroatiens anslutning till Europeiska unionen godkänns härmed på
 Europeiska unionens och dess medlemsstaters vägnar.
 2. Texten till protokollet bifogas.
 Artikel 2
 Rådets ordförande ska utse den eller de personer som ska ha rätt att på Europeiska unionens
 och dess medlemsstaters vägnar göra den anmälan som avses i artikel 4.1 i protokollet.
 Artikel 3
 Detta beslut träder i kraft samma dag som det antas.Detta beslut riktar sig till medlemsstaterna
 i enlighet med fördragen.
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den
 På rådets vägnar
 Ordförande
 SV 4 SV


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' The Effectiveness of the\n Taxpayer Assistance Center Program\n Cannot Be Measured\n\n July 2005\n\n Reference Number: 2005-40-110\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 July 22, 2005\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, WAGE AND INVESTMENT DIVISION\n\n\n FROM: Pamela J. Gardiner\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report - The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer\n Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n (Audit # 200440044)\n\n\n This report presents the results of our review of the process the Internal Revenue\n Service (IRS) uses to determine the types, times, and locations of services it provides\n taxpayers that seek face-to-face assistance.\n In a report issued in April 2001, the Joint Committee on Taxation conducted a study on\n the complexity of the tax law and found that, at that time, the Internal Revenue Code\n (I.R.C.) consisted of nearly 1.4 million words. There were approximately 693 sections of\n the I.R.C. applicable to individuals. In Calendar Year 1999, a taxpayer filing a\n U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) could be faced with a 79-line tax return,\n 144 pages of instructions, 11 schedules totaling 443 lines (including instructions),\n 19 separate worksheets embedded in the instructions, and the possibility of having to\n file numerous other forms. In Calendar Year 2005, the IRS estimated it would take\n individual taxpayers from 3 hours and 46 minutes to prepare the simplest 2004 tax\n return to over 27 hours1 to complete a more complex tax return with schedules.\n Mistakes and misinformation can easily contribute to noncompliance. The IRS\n recognizes that providing quality customer service is the first step in helping taxpayers\n achieve compliance.\n The IRS provides taxpayers the option of obtaining personal, face-to-face tax\n assistance at about 400 Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TAC). IRS employees that work\n in the TACs assist customers by interpreting tax laws and regulations, preparing certain\n individual tax returns, resolving inquiries on taxpayer accounts, accepting payments,\n\n\n 1\n Included in the estimate are the Form 1040, Itemized Deductions (Schedule A), Interest and Ordinary Dividends\n (Schedule B), Capital Gains and Losses (Schedule D), and Earned Income Credit (Schedule EIC).\n\x0c 2\n\nand providing various other services designed to minimize the burden on taxpayers in\nsatisfying their tax obligations.\nThe IRS suggests that taxpayers visit the TACs when they have complex tax issues,\nneed to resolve tax problems relating to their tax accounts, have questions about how\nthe tax law applies to their individual income tax returns, or feel more comfortable\ntalking with someone in person. The services offered at the TACs are valuable\nconsidering the current complexity of the tax law as well as the diversity of the taxpayer\npopulation. In addition, not all tax-related issues can be easily explained or resolved\nover the telephone or through the IRS web site, IRS.gov.\nSince the creation of the Field Assistance Office2 in October 2000, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 focus on its\nface-to-face service has changed, but the key management information used to make\ndecisions and support changes is either absent or based on incomplete data. Improved\nmanagement information will be needed to help the Field Assistance Office move\ntoward its future goals.\nThe lack of accurate and complete management information hinders the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 ability to\nmake appropriate decisions when determining the locations and services it provides\ntaxpayers seeking face-to-face assistance. Also, there is no assurance that the\nFiscal Year 2005 TAC Program budget of $159.2 million will be used most efficiently.\nThis includes $153.6 million for employees working in the TACs and $5.6 million\nbudgeted for management oversight of the TAC Program. This oversight includes a\nDirector, 4 managers, and 74 national and field analysts and technical advisors. In\naddition, the IRS does not have:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Current data to support why the TACs are in their current locations or what services\n should be provided.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 A management information system that provides accurate or complete information\n that identifies the number and locations of the TACs, the numbers of the various\n types of services provided at the TACs, and the costs of the TACs.\nIt is imperative that the IRS develop management information to ensure the locations\nand types of services offered at the TACs are those most needed by its customers. As\nthe IRS redirects taxpayers to electronic and self-help services, it needs to know what\nservices taxpayers most need or want, so it can appropriately plan for and redirect its\nresources.\nWe recommended the Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, (1) enhance the\nmanagement information system to capture the number of taxpayers served, the\nnumbers and types of services provided, and the related resources (costs); (2) develop\na Service Delivery Plan for the short-term and long-term direction of the TAC Program\nbased on business cases and customer input; and (3) develop a process that includes\nroutine assessments of TAC operations to ensure the TACs are optimally located and\nthe services provided at the TACs are the most effective and cost efficient.\n\n2\n The Field Assistance Office is responsible for overseeing the TAC Program.\n\x0c 3\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response: While IRS management was pleased with our recognition\nthat the TACs provide a valuable service to taxpayers, they did not agree with our\nconclusion that the effectiveness of the TACs cannot be measured. They are confident\nthe current management information systems provide sufficient information to\nsuccessfully measure Program delivery. Management also disagreed with the inference\nthat the IRS is shifting its focus away from customer service and toward compliance.\nLastly, management disagreed with the report\xe2\x80\x99s implied contention that the Field\nAssistance Office should have the capability to effect the significant physical relocation\nof TACs; they believe the current IRS strategy to develop and implement multiple\ndelivery channels is far more responsive to taxpayer preferences and operational\nrealities.\nHowever, the IRS agreed with our recommendations. The Field Assistance Office is\ndeveloping a web-based Field Assistance Office Management Information System that\nwill provide management with critical program planning and control information at the\nlocal and national levels while also reducing taxpayer burden by managing wait times\nmore efficiently.\nIn addition, a new Service Delivery Model is being developed that will incorporate\npopulation demographic data, income levels, United States Census data, and related\nTAC operational costs to better inform future operational decisions. The Field\nAssistance Office is also currently exploring options to obtain customer input in the\ndevelopment of this Model. Data from this Model will enable the IRS to better plan,\nforecast, allocate, and measure the resources used to provide service to taxpayers.\nThe Field Assistance Office will conduct a comprehensive assessment that uses the\nnew Service Delivery Model to determine the optimal location for service delivery\nchannels, including TAC locations. This Model will serve as the baseline to evaluate\ndelivery effectiveness and efficiencies. The IRS will collaborate with other Federal\nGovernment organizations, such as the Social Security Administration, to evaluate and\nincorporate their best practices into its plan. In addition, the IRS will solicit input from\nCongressional and other external stakeholders on any decisions regarding TAC\nlocations. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the draft report is included as\nAppendix V.\nOffice of Audit Comment: Management strongly disagreed with our conclusion that the\neffectiveness of the TACs cannot be measured. Management also disagreed they are\nshifting their focus from customer service to compliance and the Field Assistance Office\nshould have the capability to effect the significant physical relocation of the TACs.\nHowever, management agreed to take corrective actions and has already taken steps to\naddress each of our three recommendations. We continue to believe that key\nmanagement information used to make decisions and support changes to the TACs is\neither absent or based on incomplete data as specifically discussed in the report\nbeginning on page 7. Improved management information will help the Field Assistance\nOffice move toward its future goals. We commend the IRS for initiating corrective\nactions during the course of the review and that it will explore options to obtain\n\x0c 4\n\ncustomer input and collaborate with the Social Security Administration in the\ndevelopment of its Service Delivery Model.\nSubsequent to the completion of our audit work, the IRS Commissioner announced on\nMay 27, 2005, the closing of 68 TACs by Fiscal Year 2006. The IRS believes adjusting\nthe TACs to more closely align to the decreased walk-in volume will yield savings and\nallow it the flexibility to improve efficiencies and concentrate more on front-line\nenforcement. The IRS worked with a contractor to create a unique TAC Closure Model\nto identify which TACs it will close. The TAC Closure Model is a data-driven model that\nmeasures the effect of TAC closures on taxpayers across the country. We are currently\nreviewing the TAC Closure Model development, including the completeness and\naccuracy of the data used and assessing the ranking criteria, attributes, and business\nrules used in the model. Our review results will be released later this calendar year.\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\nMichael R. Phillips, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Wage and Investment Income\nPrograms), at (202) 927-0597.\n\x0c The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n\nBackground ............................................................................................... Page 1\nTaxpayer Assistance Centers Provide a Valuable Service\nto Taxpayers Wanting Face-to-Face Interaction ....................................... Page 4\nManagement Information Is Not Sufficient to Determine the\nEffectiveness of the Program .................................................................... Page 7\n Recommendation 1: .......................................................................Page 16\n Recommendations 2 and 3: ...........................................................Page 17\n\nAppendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology....................... Page 18\nAppendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ....................................... Page 20\nAppendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List ....................................................... Page 21\nAppendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Methodology for Selecting Audit Sites ............................... Page 22\nAppendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report ..................... Page 23\n\x0c The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n One of the Congress\xe2\x80\x99 principal objectives in enacting the\nBackground\n Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform\n Act of 1998 (RRA 98)1 was to mandate that the IRS do a\n better job of meeting the needs of its customers. In the\n RRA 98, the Congress directed the IRS to achieve a better\n balance between the prefiling2 efforts of taxpayer assistance\n (through education and service) and the postfiling3 efforts of\n enforcement. To comply with this Congressional mandate,\n the IRS reorganized its functional areas and revised its\n mission statement to refocus its emphasis on helping\n taxpayers understand and meet their tax responsibilities.\n As part of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 restructuring efforts, in Fiscal Year\n (FY) 2001, the Field Assistance Office was created in the\n IRS Wage and Investment (W&I) Division to provide\n taxpayers the right services at the right time in the right\n locations. The Field Assistance Office is responsible for\n overseeing the IRS Taxpayer Assistance Center\n (TAC) Program nationwide.\n When created, the Field Assistance Office Design Plan\n called for approximately 3,600 employees and\n 676 assistance sites nationwide.4 However, the budget and\n staffing levels have never reached the levels outlined in the\n Design Plan (see Figure 1).\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (codified as amended in scattered\n sections of 2 U.S.C., 5 U.S.C. app., 16 U.S.C., 19 U.S.C., 22 U.S.C.,\n 23 U.S.C., 26 U.S.C., 31 U.S.C., 38 U.S.C., and 49 U.S.C.).\n 2\n Prefiling activities include educating and assisting taxpayers before\n they file their tax returns, including providing information, support, and\n assistance to help them understand and fulfill their tax obligations.\n 3\n Postfiling activities include working with taxpayers that have not filed\n their required tax returns, have a delinquent tax payment, or have an\n audit issue.\n 4\n These sites would include kiosks, mobile sites, and the TACs.\n Page 1\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n Figure 1: Field Assistance Office\n Program Budget and Staffing Levels\n by Fiscal Year\n\n $200 2,400\n\n\n\n\n Millions\n $150 2,250\n\n $100 2,100\n\n $50 1,950\n\n $- 1,800\n 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005\n Budget Staffing Levels\n\n Source: IRS Field Assistance Office.\n\n In a report issued in April 2001, the Joint Committee on\n Taxation conducted a study on the complexity of the tax law\n and found that, at that time, the Internal Revenue Code\n (I.R.C.) consisted of nearly 1.4 million words, with\n approximately 693 sections of the I.R.C. being applicable to\n individuals. In Calendar Year (CY) 1999, a taxpayer filing\n a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) could be\n faced with a 79-line return, 144 pages of instructions,\n 11 schedules totaling 443 lines (including instructions),\n 19 separate worksheets embedded in the instructions, and\n the possibility of having to file numerous other forms.\n In CY 2005, the IRS estimated it would take individual\n taxpayers from 3 hours and 46 minutes to prepare the\n simplest 2004 tax return to over 27 hours5 to complete a\n more complex tax return with schedules. Mistakes and\n misinformation can easily contribute to noncompliance.\n The IRS recognizes that providing quality customer service\n is the first step in helping taxpayers achieve compliance.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n Included in the estimate are the Form 1040, Itemized Deductions\n (Schedule A), Interest and Ordinary Dividends (Schedule B),\n Capital Gains and Losses (Schedule D), and Earned Income Credit\n (Schedule EIC).\n Page 2\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n The IRS provides taxpayers the option of obtaining\n personal, face-to-face tax assistance at about 400 TACs.6\n IRS employees that work in the TACs assist customers by\n interpreting tax laws and regulations, preparing certain\n individual tax returns, resolving inquiries on taxpayer\n accounts, accepting payments, and providing various other\n services designed to minimize the burden on taxpayers in\n satisfying their tax obligations.\n Figure 2: Percentages and Numbers of Various Services\n Provided by IRS Employees at the TACs7\n\n\n\n\n Source: IRS Field Assistance Office.\n\n To confirm its commitment to customer service, the\n IRS 2000\xe2\x80\x932005 Strategic Plan established the strategic goal\n to \xe2\x80\x9cProvide Top-Quality Service to Each Taxpayer in Every\n Interaction.\xe2\x80\x9d The IRS stated that, whenever it dealt with a\n taxpayer, the taxpayer should receive first-quality service.\n In its 2005\xe2\x80\x932009 Strategic Plan, the IRS revised its\n customer service commitment to providing \xe2\x80\x9cexcellent\n service to taxpayers and enforcing America\xe2\x80\x99s tax laws in a\n\n 6\n On May 27, 2005, the IRS Commissioner announced the closing of\n 68 TACs by FY 2006. The IRS believes adjusting the TACs to more\n closely align to the decreased walk-in volume will yield savings and\n allow it the flexibility to improve efficiencies and concentrate more on\n front-line enforcement.\n 7\n Numbers have been rounded for report purposes.\n Page 3\n\x0c The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n balanced manner.\xe2\x80\x9d Its first strategic goal was changed to\n \xe2\x80\x9cImprove Taxpayer Service.\xe2\x80\x9d As a result, the focus of the\n face-to-face service offered by the TACs is moving away\n from information and filing assistance toward compliance\n and enforcement activities. In addition, the IRS is trying to\n offer taxpayers more options, particularly services offered\n electronically.\n The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently\n rated the IRS on taxpayer service using the Program\n Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The PART is a\n systematic method of assessing program performance across\n the Federal Government and is a diagnostic tool with the\n main objective to improve performance in agency programs\n and link performance to budget decisions.\n The Field Assistance Office, the toll-free telephone\n program, and the IRS web site (IRS.gov) were included in\n the PART rating. The OMB gave taxpayer service an\n adequate rating, stating that the IRS continues to have\n trouble with the accuracy of answers, needs long-term goals,\n and needs to improve its ability to determine the costs of its\n taxpayer service activities.\n This review was performed at the IRS W&I Division\n Headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and in 30 TACs located\n nationwide (see Appendix IV) during the period\n August 2004 through April 2005. The audit was conducted\n in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.\n Detailed information on our audit objective, scope, and\n methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major\n contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.\n The IRS suggests that taxpayers visit the TACs when they\nTaxpayer Assistance Centers\n have complex tax issues, need to resolve tax problems\nProvide a Valuable Service to\n relating to their tax accounts, have questions about how the\nTaxpayers Wanting Face-to-Face\n tax law applies to their individual income tax returns, or feel\nInteraction\n more comfortable talking with someone in person. The IRS\n describes the TACs as a place where taxpayers can spread\n out their records and talk to IRS representatives across the\n counter. The services offered at the TACs are valuable\n considering the current complexity of the tax law as well as\n the diversity of the taxpayer population. In addition, not all\n tax-related issues can be easily explained or resolved over\n\n\n Page 4\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n the telephone or through IRS.gov, and some taxpayers just\n prefer the face-to-face service the TACs offer.8\n Providing the wide range of services taxpayers have come to\n expect from the TACs presents challenges for the IRS and\n its TAC employees. Limited resources, the complexity of\n the tax law, and the need to assist millions of taxpayers\n require the IRS to limit TAC services. For example,\n TAC employees are not trained to answer all tax questions\n on all tax topics. Instead, they are required to refer\n taxpayers to an IRS toll-free telephone number or to submit\n the questions in writing to subject-matter experts via the\n Internet or through correspondence. The TACs do not offer\n taxpayer account transcripts to customers and limit the\n preparation of tax returns to those under a certain income\n limit ($36,000 for CY 2005).\n TAC employees must be versatile in their knowledge of tax\n law and tax administration. They are expected to be\n knowledgeable in 318 tax law topics with 395 subtopics, to\n respond to taxpayer issues for the current and prior years,\n and to be proficient in the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 main computer system to\n ensure they can resolve tax account issues. TAC employees\n must be ready to:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Accept cash and checks in payment for taxes due and\n set up installment agreements and payment plans for\n taxpayers that owe taxes and cannot pay the full\n amounts.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Answer taxpayer questions ranging from exemptions,\n dependents, and deductions to the estimated tax penalty,\n an issue so complex that the IRS, in the Instructions for\n Form 2210, Underpayment of Estimated Tax by\n Individuals, Estates, and Trusts, strongly encourages\n taxpayers to let the IRS figure the penalty for them.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Prepare current and prior year tax returns for individual\n taxpayers, from the simplest tax returns to ones with the\n Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and\n itemized deductions.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Assist with levies on wages or bank accounts.\n\n\n 8\n W&I Division Research function presentation, How Far Are People\n Willing to Drive for a Service, issued August 2002.\n Page 5\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Review, interpret, and assist in resolving issues detailed\n in various IRS letters and notices.\n In addition, TAC employees have recently become actively\n involved in the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 enforcement efforts by focusing on\n face-to-face compliance activities and working delinquent\n taxpayer cases. The addition of this work requires\n TAC employees to be trained in intricate collection laws and\n regulations, requiring different skills and a change in\n perspective from assistance to enforcement.\n The TACs also offer appointments and multilingual\n assistance. Taxpayers can call the TACs\xe2\x80\x99 local telephone\n numbers and request appointments to meet with\n knowledgeable IRS representatives to resolve their tax\n account issues. For taxpayers that do not speak English, the\n TACs provide the use of a telephone that accesses\n interpreter services for more than 150 languages.\n Although the majority of services provided at the TACs are\n offered through IRS.gov, published materials, and the\n toll-free telephone lines, data show taxpayers want\n face-to-face service. For example:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An IRS attitudinal survey conducted of TAC customers\n in 19999 reported that taxpayers wanted face-to-face\n assistance even though there are alternative means for\n the same services. The research study concluded that\n there are taxpayers who seek face-to-face assistance and\n will never be diverted to alternate methods of contact.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The IRS Oversight Board\xe2\x80\x99s 2004 Taxpayer Attitude\n Survey shows the most valuable source of tax\n information and advice within the IRS is\n IRS representatives. Ninety percent of the customers\n surveyed stated visiting an office location where an IRS\n representative could answer a question was very\n important or somewhat important.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The National Taxpayer Advocate 2004 Annual Report to\n Congress indicated the TACs provide a valuable service\n and raised concerns about any services provided at the\n TACs being limited or eliminated.\n\n\n 9\n Walk-In Taxpayer Demographic & Attitudinal Profile Project 2.02,\n issued March 2000.\n Page 6\n\x0c The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n Since the creation of the Field Assistance Office in\nManagement Information Is\n October 2000, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 focus on its face-to-face service has\nNot Sufficient to Determine the\n changed, but the key management information used to make\nEffectiveness of the Program\n decisions and support changes is either absent or based on\n incomplete data. Improved management information will\n be needed to help the Field Assistance Office move toward\n its future goals.\n As the Field Assistance Office Program shifts from\n educating and assisting taxpayers in prefiling activities to\n providing more postfiling activities, it is encouraging\n taxpayers to use self-help and electronic services, such as\n those provided by IRS.gov and the toll-free telephone lines.\n The Field Assistance Office Concept of Operations\n (CONOPS) provides the vision for \xe2\x80\x9cHelping Taxpayers\n Help Themselves\xe2\x80\x9d and supports E-government.10 The\n CONOPS outlines plans to offer self-help mechanisms and\n technology-driven services, including kiosks and virtual\n TACs.11\n However, the lack of accurate and complete management\n information hinders the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 ability to make appropriate\n decisions when determining the locations and services it\n provides taxpayers seeking face-to-face assistance. In\n addition, there is no assurance that the FY 2005 TAC\n Program budget of $159.2 million12 will be used most\n efficiently. This includes $153.6 million for employees\n working in the TACs and $5.6 million budgeted for\n management oversight of the TAC Program. This oversight\n includes a Director, 4 managers, and 74 national and field\n analysts and technical advisors.\n The FY 2006 IRS budget calls for substantial budget cuts to\n customer service, and current plans call for closing a\n number of the TACs. Without improvements, the IRS will\n be unable to ensure its limited TAC resources are used\n\n\n 10\n E-government is one of the five Federal Government-wide initiatives\n of the President\xe2\x80\x99s Management Agenda.\n 11\n A virtual TAC provides all services electronically; is self-help; and\n has a computer, telephone, and/or kiosk so taxpayers can help\n themselves.\n 12\n This cost includes salaries, benefits, overtime, awards, premium pay,\n and accrued leave for departing employees. It also includes all of the\n support costs such as travel, training, supplies, services, relocation,\n enforcement, and equipment.\n Page 7\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n effectively to deliver the most-needed services to the largest\n number of taxpayers.\n There are no current data to support why the TACs are\n in their current locations or if the locations are the most\n optimal\n The TACs are currently in the same locations they were in\n when the Field Assistance Office took ownership of the\n TAC Program in October 2000. IRS management stated the\n budget drives the decision to keep the TACs in their current\n locations. Further, because of Congressional resistance to\n closing or relocating TACs, they have not conducted any\n studies to determine if TACs should be closed or relocated.\n Before the Field Assistance Office officially began\n operations in October 2000, TAC locations were based on\n the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 prior structure, which included geographic\n boundaries of regions and districts. In 2001, the IRS and an\n independent contractor developed the Field Assistance\n Office Design Plan, which was followed by the Service\n Delivery Model and the CONOPS. These documents varied\n in target population goals, types of sites (from mobile sites\n to kiosks), and numbers of sites.\n The Field Assistance Office could not provide data or\n research results supporting the actions and\n recommendations included in the Design Plan and the\n Service Delivery Model. In November 2004, Field\n Assistance Office management informed us they were no\n longer using the Service Delivery Model. They explained\n that the information contained in the Service Delivery\n Model was never validated and funding had not been\n provided to meet goals established. Management indicated\n they are working with the W&I Division Research function\n to develop a new Model.\n With the assistance of the W&I Division Research function,\n the Field Assistance Office developed the Planning and\n Allocation Model and the Field Assistance Resource\n Database Model databases. The information from both\n databases will eventually be incorporated into a new\n Field Assistance Office Service Delivery Model, with\n implementation anticipated at the end of FY 2005.\n The IRS did provide information regarding the process\n followed for developing its CONOPS. To develop the\n Page 8\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n CONOPS, the IRS used data from four different studies,\n including the IRS attitudinal survey conducted in 1999 and\n a study to determine how customers define good service and\n consumer preferences for a variety of types of customer\n service. The Field Assistance Office staff also met with\n other IRS employees to discuss the reports as well as the\n results of various internal studies.\n Although information from the studies was cited in\n developing the CONOPS, it does not appear the IRS\n conducted specific data research or obtained input from\n those taxpayers that seek face-to-face assistance. Without\n this information, the IRS cannot be assured that the\n CONOPS is driving the IRS to make the right decisions on\n what face-to-face services taxpayers need or want.\n There are no current data to support what services\n should be provided at the TACs\n Although a number of studies have been conducted by the\n W&I Division to identify its present and future customer\n base, the Field Assistance Office has not recently conducted\n similar studies to identify the specific characteristics of\n customers who seek face-to-face assistance as well as the\n services they desire. Research performed since 1999 has\n focused primarily on learning about customer expectations\n and ways to improve the taxpayer experience when visiting\n the TACs.\n Taxpayers that need or desire face-to-face assistance have\n not been involved in determining what services are offered\n at the TACs. Management indicated the identification of\n the services offered at the TACs has been based primarily\n on input from Field Assistance Office field management.\n Other factors affecting the services provided include internal\n priorities, resource demands, and shifts in the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 customer\n service perspective. For example:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Beginning in October 2003, the Field Assistance Office\n stopped providing account transcripts to taxpayers,\n unless there is an extreme hardship. This decision was\n made to shift TAC resources from printing transcripts to\n assisting taxpayers that have tax problems requiring\n face-to-face assistance. Taxpayers can order transcripts\n by calling the IRS toll-free telephone number.\n\n Page 9\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Beginning in FY 2003, the Field Assistance Office\n began an initiative to reduce tax return preparation\n assistance in the TACs by 20 percent each year. This\n decision was based on the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 desire to redirect\n TAC resources to other face-to-face services that can be\n provided only in a TAC.\n No documentation was provided that identifies why either\n of these services is being eliminated or reduced. Customer\n input or demand was not factored into the decisions.\n Currently, the Field Assistance Office obtains customer\n feedback via its customer satisfaction survey. The survey is\n completed by taxpayers that actually visit a TAC and is used\n to measure customer satisfaction immediately after the\n taxpayer receives the service. The types of questions asked\n are limited because of the size of the survey card. The\n National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) expressed a concern\n that the current survey may result in an overstatement of\n positive customer feelings about TAC locations and service\n hours because the survey is applicable only to customers\n getting service. The NTA believes there should be a survey\n conducted outside of the TACs; it should be more detailed;\n and it should capture the taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99 needs, rather than just\n their experiences within the TACs.\n The current management information system does not\n provide accurate or complete information\n During this audit, the Field Assistance Office listings of\n open TACs were inconsistent and inaccurate. The Field\n Assistance Office provided five different listings\n representing the number of open and closed TACs and their\n locations (see Figure 3).\n\n\n\n\n Page 10\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n Figure 3: Listings of the TACs Provided During This Review\n\n\n\n\n Source: IRS Field Assistance Office.\n\n In March 2005, when we presented the above discrepancies\n to IRS officials, Field Assistance Office management\n acknowledged that the information provided to us had been\n inconsistent. In an April 1, 2005, meeting, they explained\n that some of the inconsistencies resulted from a\n misunderstanding on our part of how the Field Assistance\n Office defined open and closed TACs.\n As of April 1, 2005, IRS officials informed us that there\n were 407 TACs\xe2\x80\x94400 TACs open and providing services to\n the public and 7 considered \xe2\x80\x9cabandoned.\xe2\x80\x9d Abandoned\n TACs are not staffed, provide no customer service, are not\n officially closed, but are included in the listing of open\n TACs. The IRS is continuing to pay rent for the seven\n abandoned TACs, but no employees are working in those\n offices. In addition to the 407 open (and abandoned) TACs,\n there are 13 TACs considered officially closed.\n The Field Assistance Office\xe2\x80\x99s management information\n system does not track costs by TAC. Staffing costs are\n Page 11\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n captured for the Field Assistance Program as a whole and by\n TAC. However, management information does not include\n other Program operating costs, such as rent, utilities, or\n equipment. Management advised us they are currently\n working with responsible IRS functions to obtain the\n operating costs for each TAC.\n In addition, workplans used before FY 2004 to determine\n staffing needs were inaccurate and incomplete. Although\n we did not conduct testing on the workplan data, we were\n advised by IRS analysts that the data supporting the\n FYs 2002 and 2003 workplans were sketchy and poor, but\n the data for FY 2004 were significantly improved and under\n development.\n During our review, Field Assistance Office management\n stated they have begun to work with the W&I Division\n Research function to develop a Field Assistance Office\n workplan that will use information to statistically forecast\n the appropriate staffing in the TACs to correspond with the\n demands of Field Assistance Office customers. This\n forecasting model will allow the Field Assistance Office to\n determine the best location(s) for any additional future\n TAC(s), since all the workplan information will be tied to a\n Service Delivery Model. This will ensure the Field\n Assistance Office\xe2\x80\x99s ability to meet taxpayer demands. The\n forecasting model will allow the IRS to determine where\n specific assistance may be needed, based on language, age,\n and income levels.\n The Field Assistance Office\xe2\x80\x99s current management\n information system does not provide an adequate picture of\n all services provided at the TACs. As detailed in one of our\n prior audit reports,13 data\n captured on the Field Assistance\n Office\xe2\x80\x99s management\n information system cannot be\n relied upon for timely, accurate\n workload performance\n information due to the manual\n process of recording taxpayer\n\n\n 13\n Trends in Customer Service in the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Continue to Show Procedural Causes for Inaccurate Answers to Tax\n Law Questions (Reference Number 2003-40-158, dated August 2003).\n Page 12\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n visits. The Field Assistance Office extracts daily\n information from reports generated from three systems, the\n automated queuing system called the Queuing Management\n System (Q-MATIC) and two manual systems. According to\n the IRS, these data are the basis to support staffing,\n Program, and budget decisions for the TACs.\n Once taxpayers are in the TAC, they and/or Field Assistance\n Office employees use the Q-MATIC to select the type of\n assistance required. Prior audit results show that IRS\n employees do not always input the information.\n Consequently, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 estimation of the number of\n taxpayers visiting the TACs could be significantly\n understated.\n In addition, only one service per customer is recorded. The\n current management information system does not collect the\n total number of services provided to taxpayers; it captures\n only the most significant service provided to each taxpayer.\n In cases where multiple services are provided to the same\n taxpayer, guidelines direct the TAC employees to record the\n service they believe was the most significant provided to the\n taxpayer. This is usually based on the amount of time spent\n assisting the taxpayer with a specific service.\n The Field Assistance Office\xe2\x80\x99s current management\n information system does not capture all services provided\n at the TACs, and TAC employees inconsistently record\n services. For example:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An analysis of an extract of system data for FY 2004\n showed no tax returns were prepared in the state of\n California.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One TAC counts one taxpayer and one service if a\n taxpayer asks the employee where a form is or what\n form to use. Another TAC does not record this service.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One TAC counts multiple payments from one taxpayer\n as one service and one taxpayer. Another TAC counts\n each separate payment as a separate service and a\n separate taxpayer.\n In addition, little or no validation is done to ensure the\n management information system data are accurate. A\n review of the data used to prepare the FY 2004 workplan\n showed a discrepancy of approximately 1 million taxpayers\n Page 13\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n when compared with actual FY 2004 totals. This happened\n because the current Field Assistance Office workplan\n process is a manual process that limits the ability to update\n completed fiscal year data, even when new information\n becomes available. The Field Assistance Office is working\n on a new model that will provide the capability to enhance\n projections based on actual fiscal year data, ensuring\n consistency in forecasting.\n An inconsistency also results when comparing TAC\n services to the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 toll-free telephone services. This\n happens because of inconsistency in the way the two\n Programs count taxpayers and services. When the IRS\n measures quality on the toll-free telephone lines, it counts\n services provided, not the number of taxpayers that call the\n toll-free telephone lines. If a taxpayer calls with one tax law\n question, one account question, and a third question relating\n to getting a tax form, the IRS counts that as three services\n provided. If the same taxpayer walks into a TAC for the\n same services, only one of the three services provided is\n counted.\n The inconsistency in the counting of services provided\n creates a misconception of the true services the TACs\n provide taxpayers. The Field Assistance Office stated that it\n does not track multiple services provided to those taxpayers\n requesting more than one service for two reasons. First,\n TAC employees would have to manually input the multiple\n services provided. Second, counting taxpayers was\n consistent with how other IRS business units and functions\n track services.\n The Social Security Administration (SSA) may serve as a\n best practice for the IRS when developing a service delivery\n process. The SSA has become a President\xe2\x80\x99s Management\n Agenda leader and is focused on producing results for the\n American public by improving service and stewardship.\n The SSA faces many of the same challenges as the IRS,\n such as struggling to increase the availability of various\n types of electronic services. However, as the SSA increases\n the number of services offered electronically, it has\n continued to maintain the same level of service to customers\n seeking face-to-face assistance.\n Discussion with the SSA identified ongoing efforts to\n deliver service to the public. The SSA routinely conducts\n Page 14\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n service delivery assessments (at least every 5 years). These\n assessments require each field office to perform a service\n delivery analysis, consisting of demographic data, workload\n data, availability and use of public transportation, quality of\n roads, geographic barriers, economic conditions, etc. The\n assessment may be triggered by certain events, such as\n workload increase, population trends and demographic\n shifts, staffing changes or imbalances, and lease or space\n considerations. The assessments are performed to ensure\n the SSA field sites are in the most effective geographical\n areas.\n The SSA also conducts surveys of the public on a regular\n basis, performing all design and analysis functions in-house\n and using vendors for telephone interviewing or printing\n and mail handling. The SSA surveys cover areas such as\n satisfaction with employee performance, clarity of oral\n explanations, preferences for doing business, and what\n services are most important to the customer. The SSA also\n conducts focus groups and is always looking for ways to\n improve or expand its services.\n The inability to measure the effectiveness of the\n TAC Program limits the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 ability to make sound\n business decisions\n Limited resources, the complexity of the tax law, and the\n need to assist millions of taxpayers require the IRS to limit\n TAC services. Therefore, it is imperative that the IRS\n develop management information to ensure the locations\n and types of services offered at the TACs are those most\n needed by its customers. As the IRS redirects taxpayers to\n electronic and self-help services, it needs to know what\n services taxpayers most need or want, so it can\n appropriately plan for and redirect its resources. Until\n accurate and complete management information is available,\n management does not have all the data needed to make\n sound business decisions.\n If improvements are not made, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 TAC Program will\n be unable to meet the requirements set forth by Executive\n Order 12862, \xe2\x80\x9cSetting Customer Service Standards.\xe2\x80\x9d This\n Executive Order defines a customer as an individual who is\n directly served by a department or agency and also sets\n requirements for each Federal Government agency to\n identify and survey its customers, post service standards and\n Page 15\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n measure results against them, and benchmark customer\n service against the best in the business.\n The Government Performance and Results Act of 199314\n directs Federal Government agencies to focus on their\n missions and goals, how to achieve them, and how to\n improve their structural organizations and business\n processes. Performance measures need to be based on\n program-related characteristics and performance data and\n must be sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent.\n Performance data must be used to improve organizational\n processes, identify performance gaps, and set improvement\n goals.\n\n Recommendations\n\n The Commissioner, W&I Division, should:\n 1. Enhance the management information system to capture\n the number of taxpayers served, the numbers and types\n of services provided, and the related resources (costs).\n The system should include controls to ensure the data\n are reliable (i.e., complete, accurate, and consistent).\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed that\n improving their management information system is critical\n to improved operational performance. The Field Assistance\n Office is developing a web-based Field Assistance Office\n Management Information System (FAMIS), which will\n provide management with critical program planning and\n control information at the local and national levels while\n also reducing taxpayer burden by managing wait times more\n efficiently. The FAMIS will be tested in FY 2006 and\n deployed in all TACs during FY 2007.\n Enhancements to capture multiple services provided to\n customers would require a technology solution that,\n management believes, is cost prohibitive at this time.\n However, management believes the FAMIS will provide\n adequate detailed information about the types of services\n provided in the TACs.\n\n\n\n 14\n Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (codified as amended in scattered\n sections of 5 U.S.C., 31 U.S.C., and 39 U.S.C.).\n Page 16\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n In addition, as the new Service Delivery Model is\n developed, it will incorporate population demographic data,\n income levels, United States (U.S.) Census data, and related\n TAC operational costs to better inform future operational\n decisions. Data from this Model will enable the IRS to\n better plan, forecast, allocate, and measure the resources\n used to provide service to taxpayers.\n 2. Develop a Service Delivery Plan for the short-term and\n long-term direction of the TAC Program based on\n business cases and customer input.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The IRS agreed with this\n recommendation. The Field Assistance Office is currently\n exploring options to obtain customer input in the\n development of its Service Delivery Model. This will\n include working with the SSA and various W&I Division\n functions to determine the scope and method of obtaining\n taxpayer feedback on TAC services and to enhance the\n Model to incorporate items such as population\n demographics, income levels, U.S. Census data, and\n delivery costs.\n 3. Develop a process that includes routine assessments of\n TAC operations to ensure the TACs are optimally\n located and the services provided at the TACs are the\n most effective and cost efficient.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The IRS disagreed with the\n report\xe2\x80\x99s implied contention that it should have the capability\n to effect the significant physical relocation of the TACs; it\n believes the current IRS strategy to develop and implement\n multiple delivery channels is far more responsive to\n taxpayer preferences and operational realities. However, the\n IRS agreed with this recommendation.\n The Field Assistance Office will conduct a comprehensive\n assessment that uses the new Service Delivery Model to\n determine the optimal location for service delivery channels,\n including TAC locations. This Model will serve as the\n baseline to evaluate delivery effectiveness and efficiencies.\n The IRS will collaborate with other Federal Government\n organizations, such as the SSA, to evaluate and incorporate\n their best practices into its plan. In addition, the IRS will\n solicit input from Congressional and other external\n stakeholders on any decisions regarding TAC locations.\n Page 17\n\x0c The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n Appendix I\n\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe overall objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the process the Internal\nRevenue Service (IRS) uses to determine the types, times, and locations of services it provides\ntaxpayers that seek face-to-face assistance. To accomplish our objective, we:\nI. Assessed the effectiveness of the Field Assistance Office process for determining the\n types of services provided at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TAC).1\n A. Interviewed representatives from the Field Assistance Office to discuss the process\n followed for determining the types of services provided at the TACs.\n B. Determined internal factors that contribute to the decision about the types of services\n provided at the TACs, including transition of resources from assistance to compliance\n work.\n C. Determined external factors that contribute to the decision about the types of services\n provided at the TACs, including taxpayer feedback.\n D. Obtained and reviewed IRS guidelines to determine what standard services are\n offered at the TACs.\n E. Independently confirmed the services provided at the TACs.\n F. Visited a judgmental sample of 30 TACs to discuss the services offered, ensuring we\n selected a TAC in each of the Field Assistance Office\xe2\x80\x99s 5 geographical Areas. We\n selected the TACs based on (1) the locations relative to the audit team\xe2\x80\x99s Treasury\n Inspector General for Tax Administration office, (2) the economic characteristics of\n the particular areas where the TACs were located, (3) the populations of taxpayers in\n the vicinities of the TACs, and (4) resources. We did not select a statistical sample\n because we did not plan to project results.\n G. Obtained and reviewed data from the IRS management information system to identify\n the volumes of taxpayers and the types of services being sought by taxpayers that\n visit the TACs.\n H. If the process followed for determining the types of services provided at the TACs\n was not effective, determined the effect on taxpayers.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The Field Assistance Office is responsible for overseeing the TAC Program.\n Page 18\n\x0c The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\nII. Assessed the Field Assistance Office process for determining where to locate face-to-face\n assistance.\n A. Interviewed representatives from the Field Assistance Office to discuss the process\n followed for determining where to locate face-to-face assistance, as well as the effect\n future plans for virtual TACs2 and kiosks will have on identifying locations.\n B. Determined internal and external factors that affect where face-to-face assistance will\n be provided.\nIII. Contacted the Social Security Administration to discuss what process it uses to determine\n the types, times, and locations of services it provides its customers that seek face-to-face\n assistance. We selected the Social Security Administration because it was another\n Federal Government agency that services the American public through local offices.\nIV. Determined what effect the locations of the TACs have on the Field Assistance Office\n budget formulation process.\n\n\n\n\n2\n A virtual TAC provides all services electronically; is self-help; and has a computer, telephone, and/or kiosk so\ntaxpayers can help themselves.\n Page 19\n\x0c The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n Appendix II\n\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nMichael Phillips, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Wage and Investment Income\nPrograms)\nRandee Cook, Director\nRussell Martin, Audit Manager\nLena Dietles, Lead Auditor\nGrace Terranova, Senior Auditor\nRobert Baker, Auditor\nJerry Douglas, Auditor\nRoberta Fuller, Auditor\nTom Joyner, Manager, Information Technology Specialist\nJoseph Butler, Information Technology Specialist\nKevin O\xe2\x80\x99Gallagher, Information Technology Specialist\nLayne Powell, Information Technology Specialist\nRon Stuckey, Information Technology Specialist\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\x0c The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n Appendix III\n\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nCommissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE\nDeputy Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division SE:W\nDirector, Customer Assistance, Relationships, and Education, Wage and Investment Division\n SE:W:CAR\nActing Director, Strategy and Finance, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S\nActing Chief, Performance Improvement, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S:PI\nDirector, Field Assistance, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:CAR:FA\nDirector, Stakeholder Partnerships, Education, and Communication, Wage and Investment\n Division SE:W:CAR:SPEC\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: Acting Senior Operations Advisor, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\x0c The Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n Appendix IV\n\n\n Methodology for Selecting Audit Sites\n\nWe judgmentally selected 30 Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TAC) from the 5 Wage and\nInvestment Division geographical areas. Our selection was based on the TAC\xe2\x80\x99s location relative\nto our home office, the economic characteristics of a particular area in which the TAC was\nlocated, and the population of taxpayers in the vicinity of the TAC.\n\n TACs Visited During the Review\n Area 1 (Survey Phase) Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5\n 1\nHartford, Connecticut Chicago, Illinois Atlanta, Georgia Austin, Texas Oakland, California\n Downers Grove, Baton Rouge, Corpus Christi, San Francisco,\nWaterbury, Connecticut\n Illinois Louisiana Texas California\n Merrillville, Lafayette, San Jose,\nPortland, Maine San Antonio, Texas\n Indiana Louisiana California\n New Orleans, Santa Rosa,\nBoston, Massachusetts Columbus, Ohio\n Louisiana California\n Columbus,\nBrockton, Massachusetts Lima, Ohio\n Mississippi\nWorcester, Hattiesburg,\nMassachusetts Mississippi\nManchester,\nNew Hampshire\nPortsmouth,\nNew Hampshire\nBrooklyn, New York2\nNew York, New York\n(Harlem)\nNew York, New York\n(Manhattan)\nProvidence,\nRhode Island\nSource: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration TAC selection.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The Atlanta, Georgia, TAC maintains a compliance inventory.\n2\n The Brooklyn, New York, TAC maintains a compliance inventory.\n Page 22\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n Appendix V\n\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n\n\n\n Page 25\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n\n\n\n Page 26\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n\n\n\n Page 27\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n\n\n\n Page 28\n\x0cThe Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Program Cannot Be Measured\n\n\n\n\n Page 29\n\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 22002D0085
 Oficialusis leidinys L 266 , 03/10/2002 p. 0050 - 0051
 EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimasNr. 85/20022002 m. birželio 25 d.iš dalies keičiantis EEE susitarimo VII priedą (Profesinių kvalifikacijų abipusis pripažinimas)EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,Atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą, patikslintą Protokolu, patikslinančiu Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą, toliau — Susitarimas, ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,kadangi:(1) Susitarimo VII priedas buvo iš dalies pakeistas 2001 m. gegužės 18 d. EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimu Nr. 55/2001 [1].(2) kadangi 1998 m. vasario 16 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 98/5//EB, skirta padėti teisininkams verstis nuolatine advokato praktika kitoje valstybėje narėje nei ta, kurioje buvo įgyta kvalifikacija [2], reikia įtraukti į Susitarimą,NUSPRENDĖ:1 straipsnisSusitarimo XVII priede po 2 punkto (Tarybos direktyva 77/249/EEB) įterpiamas toks punktas:"2a. 398 L 0005: 1998 m. vasario 16 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 98/5/EB, skirta padėti teisininkams verstis nuolatine advokato praktika kitoje valstybėje narėje nei ta, kurioje buvo įgyta kvalifikacija (OL L 77, 1998 3 14, p. 36).Šio Susitarimo tikslais direktyvos nuostatos adaptuojamos taip:1 straipsnio 2 dalis papildoma taip:"Islandija: | Lögmaður |Lichtenšteinas | Rechtsanwalt, |Norvegija | Advokat"," |2 straipsnisDirektyvos 98/5/EB tekstas islandų ir norvegų kalbomis, kuris turi būti paskelbtas Europos Bendrijų oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede, yra autentiškas.3 straipsnisŠis sprendimas įsigalioja 2000 m. birželio 26 d., jei EEE jungtiniam komitetui buvo pateikti visi pranešimai pagal Susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį [3].4 straipsnisŠis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Bendrijų oficialiojo leidinio EEE dalyje ir EEE priede.Priimta Briuselyje, 2002 m. birželio 25 d.EEE jungtinio komiteto varduPirmininkasP. Westerlund[1] OL L 165, 2001 6 21, p. 60.[2] OL L 77, 1998 3 14, p. 36.[3] Konstituciniai reikalavimai nurodyti.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21999D1020(01)
 EU-Liettua-assosiaationeuvoston päätös N:o 5/1999, tehty 16 päivänä syyskuuta 1999, ehdoista, jotka koskevat Liettuan osallistumista tutkimuksen, teknologisen kehittämisen ja esittelyn alalla toteutettaviin yhteisön ohjelmiin (1998-2002) - Liettuan ja yhteisön yhteinen julistus
 Virallinen lehti nro L 270 , 20/10/1999 s. 0017 - 0025
 EU-LIETTUA-ASSOSIAATIONEUVOSTON PÄÄTÖS N:o 5/1999,tehty 16 päivänä syyskuuta 1999,ehdoista, jotka koskevat Liettuan osallistumista tutkimuksen, teknologisen kehittämisen ja esittelyn alalla toteutettaviin yhteisön ohjelmiin (1998-2002)(1999/680/EY)ASSOSIAATIONEUVOSTO, jokaottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisöjen ja niiden jäsenvaltioiden sekä Liettuan tasavallan välisestä assosiaatiosta tehdyn Eurooppa-sopimuksen, jäljempänä "Eurooppa-sopimus",sekä katsoo, että1) Eurooppa-sopimuksen 110 artiklan ja liitteen XX mukaan Liettua osallistuu yhteisön puiteohjelmiin, erityisohjelmiin, hankkeisiin tai muihin yhteisön toimiin erityisesti tutkimuksen alalla,2) Eurooppa-neuvosto edellytti päätelmissään 12 ja 13 päivänä joulukuuta 1997 Luxemburgissa pitämässään kokouksessa tiettyjen yhteisön ohjelmien (esimerkiksi tutkimusohjelmien) avaamista jäsenyyttä hakeneille maille, jotta nämä voivat tutustua unionin politiikkoihin ja työtapoihin; kunkin jäsenyyttä hakeneen maan olisi osallistuttava rahoitukseen tasaisesti kasvavalla osuudella (hakijavaltioiden kansallisia rahoitusosuuksia voidaan tarvittaessa rahoittaa osittain PHARE-ohjelmasta),3) edellä mainitun kokouksen päätelmissä edellytettiin myös, että jäsenyyttä hakeneet maat voivat osallistua niitä koskevissa asioissa tarkkailijoina työskentelyyn komiteoissa, jotka avustavat komissiota sellaisten ohjelmien toteuttamisessa, joiden rahoitukseen kyseiset maat osallistuvat,4) Euroopan parlamentti ja Euroopan unionin neuvosto hyväksyivät päätöksellä N:o 182/1999/EY tutkimusta, teknologista kehittämistä ja esittelyä koskevan Euroopan yhteisön puiteohjelman (1998-2002)(1), jäljempänä "viides puiteohjelma", ja5) Eurooppa-sopimuksen 110 artiklan mukaan ehdoista, jotka koskevat Liettuan osallistumista mainitun sopimuksen liitteessä XX tarkoitettuun toimintaan, päättää assosiaationeuvosto,ON PÄÄTTÄNYT SEURAAVAA:1 artiklaLiettua saa osallistua erityisohjelmiin, jotka kuuluvat viidenteen puiteohjelmaan niiden ehtojen, periaatteiden ja sääntöjen mukaisesti, jotka on määritetty tähän päätökseen erottamattomina osina kuuluvissa liitteissä I, II ja III.2 artiklaTätä päätöstä sovelletaan viidennen puiteohjelman keston ajan.3 artiklaTätä päätöstä noudatetaan sen hyväksymistä seuraavan kuukauden ensimmäisestä päivästä.Tehty Brysselissä 16 päivänä syyskuuta 1999.Assosiaationeuvoston puolestaPuheenjohtajaA. SAUDARGAS(1) EYVL L 26, 1.2.1999, s. 1.LIITE IEHDOT, JOTKA KOSKEVAT LIETTUAN OSALLISTUMISTA VIIDENNEN PUITEOHJELMAN ERITYISOHJELMIIN1. Liettuaan sijoittautuneet tutkimusyksiköt saavat osallistua kaikkiin viidennen puiteohjelman erityisohjelmiin. Liettualaiset tutkijat tai tutkimuslaitokset saavat osallistua yhteisen tutkimuskeskuksen toimintaan siltä osin kuin edellinen virke ei koske kyseistä toimintaa.Tässä päätöksessä tarkoitetut "tutkimusyksiköt" käsittävät korkeakoulut, tutkimuslaitokset, teollisuusyritykset - mukaan luettuina pienet ja keskisuuret yritykset sekä luonnolliset henkilöt.2. Edellä 1 kohdassa tarkoitetaan seuraavaa:- Liettuaan sijoittautuneiden tutkimusyksiköiden osallistuminen kaikkien viidennen puiteohjelman yhteydessä hyväksyttyjen erityisohjelmien toteuttamiseen niiden ehtojen mukaisesti, joista on määrätty Euroopan yhteisön viidennen puiteohjelman (1998-2002) täytäntöönpanoa varten laadituissa yritysten, tutkimuskeskusten ja korkeakoulujen osallistumista sekä tutkimustulosten levittämistä koskevissa säännöissä,- Liettuan osallistuminen viidennen puiteohjelman toteuttamiseksi hyväksyttyjen ohjelmien rahoitukseen Liettuan bruttokansantuotteen ja Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioiden sekä Liettuan yhteenlaskettujen bruttokansantuotteiden välisen suhteen perusteella.3. Liettuaan sijoittautuneilla tutkimusyksiköillä, jotka osallistuvat yhteisön tutkimusohjelmiin, on tällaisen osallistumisen yhteydessä tuotettavan tiedon ja teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksien omistuksen, käytön ja levittämisen osalta samat oikeudet ja velvoitteet kuin yhteisöön sijoittautuneilla tutkimusyksiköillä, jollei liitteen II määräyksistä muuta johdu.4. Assosiaationeuvoston Eurooppa-sopimuksen mukaisesti perustama asianomainen alakomitea tarkastelee ja arvioi säännöllisesti ja vähintään kerran vuodessa tämän päätöksen täytäntöönpanoa.5. Rahoitusosuus, jonka Liettua maksaa osallistumisesta erityisohjelmien toteuttamiseen, vahvistetaan suhteessa siihen määrään ja sen määrän lisäksi, joka on kunakin vuonna varattu Euroopan yhteisöjen yleiseen talousarvioon maksusitoumusmäärärahoiksi näiden ohjelmien toteuttamiseen, hallinnointiin ja toimintaan liittyvien komission rahoitusvelvoitteiden täyttämistä varten.Liettuan rahoitusosuuden määräävä suhdeluku saadaan määrittämällä Liettuan markkinahintaisen bruttokansantuotteen ja Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioiden ja Liettuan yhteenlaskettujen markkinahintaisten bruttokansantuotteiden välinen suhde. Tämä suhde lasketaan Euroopan yhteisöjen alustavan talousarvioesityksen julkaisuajankohtana saatavissa olevien Euroopan yhteisöjen tilastotoimiston (Eurostat) tuoreimpien samaa vuotta koskevien tilastotietojen perusteella.Jotta voitaisiin helpottaa Liettuan osallistumista erityisohjelmiin, sen rahoitusosuus määritetään käytännössä seuraavasti:>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Euroopan yhteisön rahoitusosuutta koskevat säännöt määritetään päätöksen N:o 182/1999/EY liitteessä IV.Liettuan rahoitusosuutta koskevat säännöt määritetään liitteessä III.6. Liettuaan sijoittautuneilla tutkimusyksiköillä, jotka osallistuvat viidenteen puiteohjelmaan, on samat sopimukselliset oikeudet ja velvoitteet kuin yhteisöön sijoittautuneilla tutkimusyksiköillä, ottaen huomioon yhteisön ja Liettuan molemminpuoliset edut, sanotun kuitenkaan rajoittamatta 3 kohdan soveltamista.Ehdotusten jättämisessä ja arvioinnissa sekä yhteisön ohjelmiin kuuluvien sopimusten myöntämisessä ja tekemisessä sovellettavat ehdot ovat Liettuan tutkimusyksikköjen osalta samat kuin sopimuksissa, jotka tehdään samojen ohjelmien yhteydessä yhteisöön sijoittautuneiden tutkimusyksiköiden kanssa, ottaen huomioon yhteisön ja Liettuan molemminpuoliset edut.Liettuan asiantuntijat otetaan huomioon yhteisön asiantuntijoiden ohella valittaessa tutkimusta, teknologista kehittämistä ja esittelyä koskevien yhteisön ohjelmien yhteydessä arvioijia ja asiantuntijoita sekä jäseniä neuvoa-antaviin ryhmiin ja muihin konsultoiviin elimiin, jotka avustavat komissiota viidennen puiteohjelman toteuttamisessa.Liettuan tutkimusyksiköt voivat olla hankkeen koordinoijina samoin ehdoin kuin yhteisöön sijoittautuneet yksiköt. Liettuan tutkimusyksiköiden kanssa tehdyissä tai niiden tekemissä sopimusjärjestelyissä on yhteisön varainhoitoasetusten mukaisesti määrättävä valvonnasta ja tarkastuksista, jotka suoritetaan komission ja tilintarkastustuomioistuimen toimesta tai niiden valtuutuksella. Tilintarkastuksia voidaan suorittaa mainittujen yksiköiden sellaisten tulojen ja menojen selvittämiseksi, jotka liittyvät niiden sopimusvelvoitteisiin yhteisöön nähden. Liettuan asianomaisten viranomaisten on yhteistyön ja molemminpuolisen edun nimissä annettava kohtuulliseksi ja mahdolliseksi katsottavissa määrin apua tällaisen valvonnan ja tällaisten tarkastusten suorittamisessa siten kuin kussakin tilanteessa on tarpeen tai hyödyllistä.7. Yhteisö ja Liettua pyrkivät parhaansa mukaan helpottamaan voimassa olevien säännösten mukaisesti niiden tutkijoiden vapaata liikkumista ja asumista, jotka osallistuvat tämän päätöksen mukaiseen toimintaan Liettuassa ja yhteisössä, sekä tällaisessa toiminnassa käytettäviksi tarkoitettujen tavaroiden liikkumista rajojen yli.Tämän päätöksen mukaisessa toiminnassa käytettäviksi tarkoitettuihin tavaroihin ja palveluihin ei sovelleta Liettuan välillisiä veroja, tullimaksuja eikä tuontia ja vientiä koskevia kieltoja tai rajoituksia.8. Liettuan edustajat osallistuvat heitä koskevia asioita käsiteltäessä tarkkailijoina viidennen puiteohjelman ohjelmakomiteoiden työskentelyyn. Äänestettäessä komiteat kokoontuvat myös ilman Liettuan edustajia. Äänestyksessä tehdyistä päätöksistä ilmoitetaan Liettualle. Tässä kohdassa tarkoitetussa osallistumisessa sovelletaan, tiedon ja asiakirjojen saantiin liittyvät menettelyt mukaan luettuina, samoja muotoja kuin jäsenvaltioiden edustajien osalta.9. Yhteisö ja Liettua voivat lopettaa tämän päätöksen mukaisen toiminnan milloin tahansa ilmoittamalla asiasta kirjallisesti kaksitoista kuukautta aikaisemmin. Hankkeita ja toimia, jotka ovat käynnissä lopettamishetkellä, jatketaan, kunnes ne saadaan päätökseen tässä päätöksessä määrättyjen edellytysten mukaisesti.Jos yhteisö päättää tarkistaa yhtä tai useampaa yhteisön ohjelmista, tämän päätöksen mukainen toiminta voidaan lopettaa molemminpuolisesti hyväksytyin edellytyksin. Liettualle on ilmoitettava tarkistettujen ohjelmien täsmällisestä sisällöstä viikon kuluessa siitä, kun yhteisö on ne hyväksynyt. Yhteisön ja Liettuan on ilmoitettava toisilleen toiminnan lopettamista koskevasta aikomuksestaan kuukauden kuluessa siitä, kun tarkistuksia koskeva yhteisön päätös on tehty.Yhteisön hyväksyessä uuden monivuotisen tutkimusta, teknologista kehittämistä ja esittelyä koskevan puiteohjelman assosiaationeuvosto voi päättää Liettuan osallistumisen ehdoista.LIITE IITEOLLIS- JA TEKIJÄNOIKEUKSIEN JAKOA KOSKEVAT PERIAATTEETOikeudet tämän päätöksen mukaisesti tuotettuihin tai käyttöön annettuihin teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksiin jaetaan tässä liitteessä määrätyllä tavalla.I SoveltaminenTämän liitteen määräyksiä sovelletaan tämän päätöksen mukaisesti tehtävään tutkimukseen, jäljempänä "yhteinen tutkimus", jolleivät yhteisö ja Liettua, jäljempänä "osapuolet", nimenomaisesti muuta sovi.II Oikeuksien omistus, jako ja käyttö1. Tässä päätöksessä tarkoitetaan "teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksilla" Maailman henkisen omaisuuden järjestön perustamisesta Tukholmassa 14 päivänä heinäkuuta 1967 tehdyn yleissopimuksen 2 artiklassa tarkoitettuja teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksia.2. Tämä liite koskee oikeuksien, osuuksien ja tekijänpalkkioiden jakamista osapuolten ja niiden osanottajien kesken. Kumpikin osapuoli ja sen osanottajat huolehtivat siitä, että toinen osapuoli ja sen osanottajat voivat saada niille tämän liitteen mukaisesti jaettavat oikeudet teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksiin. Tämä liite ei muulla tavoin muuta eikä rajoita oikeuksien jakamista osapuolen ja sen kansalaisten tai osanottajien kesken kuhunkin osapuoleen sovellettavien lakien ja käytäntöjen mukaisesti.3. Sopimusjärjestelyissä noudatetaan seuraavia periaatteita, joista on määrättävä kyseisten järjestelyjen yhteydessä:a) teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksien riittävä suoja. Osapuolten, niiden elinten ja/tai osanottajien on ilmoitettava toisilleen kohtuullisen ajan kuluessa tämän päätöksen tai sen täytäntöönpanojärjestelyjen mukaisesti syntyneistä teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksista ja pyrittävä hyvissä ajoin suojaamaan nämä oikeudet;b) osapuolten tai niiden osanottajien panosten huomioon ottaminen määritettäessä osapuolten ja osanottajien oikeuksia ja osuuksia;c) tulosten tehokas hyödyntäminen;d) toisen osapuolen osanottajien syrjimätön kohtelu verrattuna omien osanottajien kohteluun;e) liiketoiminnan kannalta luottamuksellisen tiedon suojaaminen.4. Osanottajat laativat yhdessä teknologian hallintasuunnitelman, joka koskee yhteisessä tutkimuksessa tuotettavan tiedon ja teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksien omistusta ja käyttöä, mukaan luettuna julkaiseminen. Teknologian hallintasuunnitelman pääpiirteet on esitetty tämän liitteen lisäyksessä. Tutkimuksen rahoitukseen osallistuvan osapuolen rahoituksesta vastaavan elimen tai yksikön on hyväksyttävä suunnitelma ennen siihen liittyvän erityisen tutkimus- ja kehittämisyhteistyösopimuksen tekemistä.Teknologian hallintasuunnitelmia laadittaessa otetaan huomioon yhteisen tutkimuksen tavoitteet, osapuolten tai osanottajien suhteelliset rahoitus- tai muut panokset, alueittaisen tai käyttöaloittaisen lupien myöntämisen hyödyt ja haitat, sovellettavissa laeissa - mukaan luettuina teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksia koskevat osapuolten lait - säädetyt vaatimukset sekä muut osanottajien aiheellisina pitämät tekijät. Lisäksi yhteisissä teknologian hallintasuunnitelmissa määritetään vierailevien tutkijoiden tekemiin tutkimuksiin liittyvät oikeudet ja velvollisuudet teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksien osalta.5. Yhteisessä tutkimuksessa tuotettu tieto tai teollis- ja tekijänoikeudet, joista ei erikseen määrätä teknologian hallintasuunnitelmassa, jaetaan osapuolten suostumuksella teknologian hallintasuunnitelmassa määritettyjen periaatteiden mukaisesti. Jos asiasta ei päästä yhteisymmärrykseen, kyseisen tiedon tai teollis- ja tekijänoikeudet omistavat yhdessä kaikki osanottajat, jotka ovat osallistuneet yhteiseen tutkimukseen, jossa tieto tai teollis- ja tekijänoikeudet on tuotettu. Jokaisella osanottajalla, johon tätä määräystä sovelletaan, on oikeus käyttää tällaista tietoa tai teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksia omiin kaupallisiin tarkoituksiinsa ilman maantieteellisiä rajoituksia.6. Kumpikin osapuoli huolehtii siitä, että toiselle osapuolelle ja sen osanottajille voidaan jakaa teollis- ja tekijänoikeudet näiden periaatteiden mukaisesti.7. Samalla kun osapuolet pitävät yllä kilpailuedellytyksiä tämän päätöksen soveltamisalaan kuuluvilla aloilla, ne pyrkivät siihen, että tämän päätöksen mukaisesti saatuja oikeuksia ja sen mukaisia järjestelyjä käytetään tavalla, joka edistää erityisesti: i) päätöksen mukaisesti tuotetun, julkistetun tai muuten käytettäväksi saatetun tiedon levittämistä ja käyttöä ja ii) kansainvälisten standardien käyttöönottoa ja soveltamista.8. Yhteistyön lopettaminen ei vaikuta tämän liitteen mukaisiin oikeuksiin ja velvollisuuksiin.III Kansainväliset yleissopimuksetOsapuolten tai niiden osanottajien teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksille annetaan asianmukaisten osapuoliin sovellettavien kansainvälisten yleissopimusten, mukaan lukien teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksien kauppaan liittyvistä näkökohdista tehdyn Maailman kauppajärjestön sopimuksen (TRIPS-sopimus) sekä Bernin yleissopimuksen (vuoden 1971 Pariisin asiakirjan) ja Pariisin yleissopimuksen (vuoden 1967 Tukholman asiakirja) mukainen kohtelu.IV Tieteelliset kirjalliset teoksetJollei yhteisessä teknologian hallintasuunnitelmassa muuta sovita, osapuolet tai yhteisen tutkimuksen osanottajat julkaisevat tutkimuksen tulokset yhteisesti, sanotun kuitenkaan rajoittamatta V jakson määräysten soveltamista. Jollei edellä olevasta yleisestä säännöstä muuta johdu, sovelletaan lisäksi seuraavia menettelyjä:1) Jos osapuoli tai sen julkiset elimet julkaisevat tieteellisiä tai teknisiä lehtiä, artikkeleita, raportteja tai kirjoja taikka tämän päätöksen mukaiseen yhteiseen tutkimukseen perustuvia videoita tai tietokoneohjelmia, toisella osapuolella on maailmanlaajuinen mutta ei yksinomainen, peruuttamaton ja tekijänpalkkioista vapautettu lupa kääntää, jäljentää, mukauttaa, lähettää sähköisissä tiedotusvälineissä sekä levittää julkisesti kyseisiä teoksia.2) Osapuolet huolehtivat siitä, että tämän päätöksen mukaiseen yhteiseen tutkimukseen perustuvia ja riippumattomien kustantajien julkaisemia tieteellisiä kirjallisia teoksia levitetään mahdollisimman laajasti.3) Kaikissa tekijänoikeuden piiriin kuuluvien teosten kappaleissa, joita levitetään ja valmistetaan julkisesti tämän määräyksen mukaisesti, on oltava tekijän nimi tai tekijöiden nimet, jolleivät tekijä tai tekijät nimenomaisesti sitä kiellä. Lisäksi niissä on oltava osapuolten yhdessä antamaa tukea koskeva selvä maininta.V Julkistamaton tietoA. Asiakirjoihin perustuva julkistamaton tieto1. Osapuolet, niiden elimet tai niiden osanottajat yksilöivät mahdollisimman varhaisessa vaiheessa, mieluiten teknologian hallintasuunnitelmassa, tiedon, jota ne eivät halua julkistettavaksi, ottaen huomioon muun muassa seuraavat perusteet:a) tiedon luottamuksellisuus siinä mielessä, että se ei ole kokonaisuudessaan tai samanlaisina osina taikka osien yhdistelmänä yleisesti alan asiantuntijoiden tiedossa tai laillisin keinoin heidän käytettävissään;b) tiedon luottamuksellisuudesta johtuva todellinen tai mahdollinen kaupallinen arvo;c) tiedon aiempi suojaaminen siinä mielessä, että tiedon laillinen haltija on toteuttanut sen osalta olosuhteisiin nähden aiheellisia toimenpiteitä tiedon luottamuksellisuuden säilyttämiseksi.Osapuolet, niiden elimet ja niiden osanottajat voivat tietyissä tapauksissa sopia, että jollei toisin ilmoiteta, yhteisessä tutkimuksessa annettua, vaihdettua tai tuotettua tietoa tai sen osaa ei saa julkistaa.2. Osapuolten ja niiden osaanottajien on ilmaistava selkeästi, esimerkiksi asianmukaisella merkinnällä tai rajoituksella kertovan tekstin avulla, että tietoa ei saa julkistaa. Tämä koskee myös kyseisen tiedon kaikkia täydellisiä tai osittaisia jäljennöksiä.Osapuolten ja osanottajien, jotka saavat julkistamatonta tietoa, on kunnioitettava se luottamuksellista luonnetta. Luottamuksellisuus päättyy ilman eri toimenpiteitä, kun tiedon omistaja saattaa tiedon julkisuuteen.3. Vastaanottava osapuoli tai sen organisaatio voi levittää tämän päätöksen mukaisesti saamaansa julkistamatonta tietoa osapuoleen tai sen organisaatioon kuuluville tai palkkaamille henkilöille, joille on annettu siihen erikseen oikeus käynnissä olevaa yhteistä tutkimusta varten, edellyttäen, että kaikki näin levitetty julkistamaton tieto luovutetaan luottamuksellisena ja että tieto on helposti tunnistettavissa luottamukselliseksi siten kuin edellä määrätään.4. Vastaanottava osapuoli voi levittää julkistamatonta tietoa laajemmin kuin 3 kohdassa sallitaan, jos julkistamatonta tietoa toimittava osapuoli antaa siihen ennakolta kirjallisen suostumuksen. Osapuolet laativat yhteistyössä menettelyjä, joita sovelletaan hankittaessa kirjallinen suostumus tällaista laajempaa levitystä varten, ja kumpikin osapuoli antaa tällaisen suostumuksen omien sisäisten menettelytapojensa, määräystensä ja lainsäädäntönsä sallimissa rajoissa.B. Muu kuin asiakirjoihin perustuva julkistamaton tietoOsapuolten tai niiden osanottajien on kohdeltava asiakirjoihin perustamatonta julkistamatonta tai muuten luottamuksellista tietoa, jonka ne saavat tämän päätöksen mukaisesti järjestetyissä seminaareissa ja muissa kokouksissa, sekä tietoa, jonka ne saavat henkilöstön palvelukseen ottamisen, tilojen ja laitteistojen käytön tai yhteisten hankkeiden myötä, siten, että ne noudattavat päätöksessä määritettyjä, asiakirjoihin perustuvaa tietoa koskevia periaatteita; tällöin kuitenkin edellytetään, että tällaisen julkistamattoman tai muuten luottamuksellisen taikka salassa pidettävän tiedon vastaanottajalle on tietoa välitettäessä ilmoitettu tiedon luottamuksellisesta luonteesta.C. ValvontaKummankin osapuolen on pyrittävä varmistamaan, että sen tämän päätöksen mukaisesti saamaa julkistamatonta tietoa valvotaan päätöksessä määrätyllä tavalla. Jos jompikumpi osapuolista toteaa, että se ei kykene noudattamaan tai että on aiheellista epäillä sen myöhemmin tulevan kykenemättömäksi noudattamaan A ja B kohdassa olevia tietojen levityskieltoa koskevia määräyksiä, sen on ilmoitettava asiasta välittömästi toiselle osapuolelle. Osapuolet neuvottelevat tämän jälkeen sopivasta toimintatavasta.LisäysTeknologian hallintasuunnitelman pääpiirteetTeknologian hallintasuunnitelma on osanottajien tekemä erityinen sopimus yhteisen tutkimuksen toteuttamisesta sekä osanottajien oikeuksista ja velvollisuuksista.Teknologian hallintasuunnitelmassa määritettäviä asioita ovat teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksien osalta yleensä muun muassa omistus, suojelu, käyttöoikeudet tutkimus- ja kehitystarkoituksiin, hyödyntäminen ja tiedon levittäminen, mukaan lukien yhteistä julkaisutoimintaa koskevat järjestelyt, vierailevien tutkijoiden oikeudet ja velvollisuudet sekä riitojenratkaisumenettelyt. Lisäksi teknologian hallintasuunnitelmassa voidaan määrätä tutkimuksen aikana syntyvästä uudesta tiedosta ja aiemmasta tutkimuksen alaan liittyvästä tiedosta, lupien myöntämisestä sekä suoritteista.LIITE IIILIITTEESSÄ I OLEVASSA 5 KOHDASSA TARKOITETTUA LIETTUAN RAHOITUSOSUUTTA KOSKEVAT SÄÄNNÖT1. Euroopan yhteisöjen komissio ilmoittaa Liettualle ja antaa tiedoksi liitteessä I olevassa 4 kohdassa tarkoitetulle alakomitealle mahdollisimman pian ja viimeistään syyskuun 1 päivänä kunkin varainhoitovuoden osalta seuraavat tiedot asiaa koskevan taustamateriaalin kera:- Euroopan yhteisöjen alustavan talousarvioesityksen menotaulukkoon viidettä puiteohjelmaa varten varattujen maksusitoumusmäärärahojen määrät,- alustavan talousarvioesityksen mukaisen arvion saatavasta rahoituksesta, joka vastaa Liettuan osuutta tämän osallistuessa viidenteen puiteohjelmaan.Sisäisten talousarviomenettelyjen helpottamiseksi komission yksiköt toimittavat kuitenkin vastaavat suuntaa-antavat luvut viimeistään kunkin vuoden toukokuun 30 päivänä.Kun yleinen talousarvio on lopullisesti hyväksytty, komissio ilmoittaa Liettualle ensimmäisessä alakohdassa mainitut menotaulukon luvut, jotka koskevat Liettuan osallistumista.2. Komissio esittää viimeistään kunkin varainhoitovuoden tammikuun 1 päivänä ja kesäkuun 15 päivänä Liettualle rahoituspyynnön, joka koskee sen tämän päätöksen mukaista rahoitusosuutta. Näissä pyynnöissä edellytetään:- ensimmäisen pyynnön osalta, että Liettua maksaa kuusi kahdestoistaosaa rahoitusosuudestaan viimeistään 20 päivänä helmikuuta,- toisen pyynnön osalta, että Liettua maksaa kuusi kahdestoistaosaa rahoitusosuudestaan viimeistään 15 päivänä heinäkuuta.Viimeistään 20 päivänä helmikuuta maksettava kuuden kahdestoistaosan erä lasketaan kuitenkin alustavan talousarvioesityksen tulotaulukossa olevan määrän perusteella: näin maksettu määrä tasataan toisen, viimeistään 15 päivänä heinäkuuta maksettavan kuuden kahdestoistaosan erän yhteydessä.Päätöksen ensimmäisenä voimassaolovuonna komissio esittää ensimmäisen rahoituspyynnön 30 päivän kuluessa päätöksen voimaantulosta. Jos tämä pyyntö esitetään kesäkuun 15 päivän jälkeen, siinä edellytetään, että Liettua maksaa kaksitoista kahdestatoistaosaa rahoitusosuudestaan 30 päivän kuluessa; maksettava määrä lasketaan talousarvion tulotaulukossa olevan määrän perusteella.Liettuan rahoitusosuus ilmaistaan ja maksetaan euroina.Liettua maksaa tämän päätöksen mukaisen rahoitusosuutensa tässä kohdassa esitetyn aikataulun mukaisesti. Maksun viivästymisestä maksetaan korkoa, joka vastaa International Swap Dealers' Associationin Reuterin ISDA-sivulla euroina noteeraamaa yhden kuukauden pankkien välistä korkoa (IBOR). Tätä tasoa korotetaan 1,5 prosenttia kunkin viivästyskuukauden osalta. Korotettua tasoa sovelletaan koko viivästymisajan osalta. Korkoa peritään kuitenkin vasta silloin, kun rahoitusosuus maksetaan yli kolmekymmentä päivää edellä tässä kohdassa mainittujen maksuaikataulun mukaisten maksupäivien jälkeen.Komissio korvaa liitteessä I olevassa 6 kohdassa tarkoitettujen ryhmien ja elimien ja liitteessä I olevassa 8 kohdassa tarkoitettujen komiteoiden työskentelyyn sekä viidennen puiteohjelman toteuttamiseen osallistuvien Liettuan edustajien ja asiantuntijoiden matkakustannukset Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioiden edustajiin ja asiantuntijoihin nykyisin sovellettavien perusteiden ja menettelyjen mukaisesti.3. Liitteessä I olevan 5 kohdan mukainen Liettuan rahoitusosuus viidenteen puiteohjelmaan pysyy pääsääntöisesti muuttumattomana kyseisen varainhoitovuoden ajan.Päättäessään kunkin varainhoitovuoden (n) tilit komissio suorittaa tulostilin laatimisen yhteydessä tilien tasauksen Liettuan osuuden osalta ja ottaa tässä yhteydessä huomioon muutokset, jotka ovat tapahtuneet varainhoitovuoden aikana joko varojen siirtojen, peruutusten, vapauttamisten, varainhoitovuodelta toiselle siirtämisten tai korjaavien ja täydentävien talousarvioiden muodossa. Tämä tilien tasaus tehdään vuoden n + 1 toisen maksun yhteydessä. Tilien tasaus tehdään joka vuosi vuoden 2006 heinäkuuhun saakka.Liettuan maksut kirjataan yhteisön ohjelmiin budjettisaatavina, jotka jaetaan asianmukaisille budjettikohdille Euroopan yhteisöjen yleisen talousarvion tulotaulukossa.Määrärahojen hoidossa sovelletaan Euroopan yhteisöjen yleiseen talousarvioon sovellettavaa varainhoitoasetusta.4. Edeltävään varainhoitovuoteen (n) liittyvät viidennen puiteohjelman ja viidennen Euratom-puiteohjelman määrärahalaskelmat laaditaan ja toimitetaan tiedoksi Liettualle viimeistään kunkin varainhoitovuoden (n + 1) toukokuun 31 päivänä komission tulostilin muodossa.Liettuan ja yhteisön yhteinen julistusLiettuan tasavalta ja yhteisö sopivat, että tässä assosiaationeuvoston päätöksessä vahvistettujen määräysten lisäksi Liettuan tasavallan olisi avattava tutkimusta, teknologista kehittämistä ja esittelyä koskevaa Euroopan yhteisön viidettä puiteohjelmaa (1998-2002) vastaavat kansalliset tutkimusta ja teknologian kehittämistä koskevat ohjelmansa ja toimensa yhteisöön sijoittuneille tutkimusyksiköille ja että tämä hoidetaan Liettuan tasavallan ja yhteisön erillisenä kirjeenvaihtona.


type: legislation

text:
 20.4.2012
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 108/15
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) Nr. 338/2012
 af 19. april 2012
 om udstedelse af importlicenser for ansøgninger indgivet i de første syv dage af april 2012 under det toldkontingent for import af oksekød af høj kvalitet, der forvaltes ved forordning (EF) nr. 620/2009
 KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 af 22. oktober 2007 om en fælles markedsordning for landbrugsprodukter og om særlige bestemmelser for visse landbrugsprodukter (fusionsmarkedsordningen) (1),
 under henvisning til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1301/2006 af 31. august 2006 om fælles regler for administration af toldkontingenter for import af landbrugsprodukter på grundlag af en importlicensordning (2), særlig artikel 7, stk. 2, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 620/2009 af 13. juli 2009 om forvaltning af et toldkontingent for import af oksekød af høj kvalitet (3) fastsætter nærmere regler for indgivelse af ansøgninger om og udstedelse af importlicenser.
 (2)
 Ifølge artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning (EF) nr. 1301/2006 bør der i tilfælde, hvor de mængder, licensansøgningerne gælder, er større end de mængder, der står til rådighed i den pågældende kontingentperiode, fastsættes en fordelingskoefficient, som skal benyttes på de mængder, de enkelte licensansøgninger gælder. De ansøgninger om importlicenser, der er indgivet i henhold til artikel 3 i forordning (EF) nr. 620/2009 mellem 1. og 7. april 2012, er større end de mængder, der står til rådighed. Det bør derfor fastsættes, i hvilket omfang der kan udstedes importlicenser, idet der fastsættes en fordelingskoefficient —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 De importlicensansøgninger for kontingentet med løbenummer 09.4449, der er indgivet mellem 1. og 7. april 2012 i henhold til artikel 3 i forordning (EF) nr. 620/2009, multipliceres med en fordelingskoefficient på 0,408411 %.
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på dagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 19. april 2012.
 På Kommissionens vegne For formanden
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 Generaldirektør for landbrug og udvikling af landdistrikter
 (1) EUT L 299 af 16.11.2007, s. 1.
 (2) EUT L 238 af 1.9.2006, s. 13.
 (3) EUT L 182 af 15.7.2009, s. 25.