jurisdiction: US

text: b' Statistical Portrayal of the\n Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s\n Enforcement Activities From\n Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n May 2005\n\n Reference Number: 2005-10-081\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 May 16, 2005\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION\n\n\n\n FROM: Pamela J. Gardiner\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report - Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal\n Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities From Fiscal\n Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004 (Audit # 200510011)\n\n This report presents the results of our review of statistical information that reflects\n activities of the Criminal Investigation (CI) function from Fiscal Years (FY) 1999\n through 2004. The overall objective of this review was to provide statistical information\n and trend analyses of the CI function statistics since the issuance of the Webster\n Report1 in April 1999. The audit was conducted as part of the Treasury Inspector\n General for Tax Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (TIGTA) FY 2005 Annual Audit Plan.\n Beginning in FY 2002, the CI function began to turn around the downward trends from\n earlier years. Specifically, the number of subject investigations increased, more time\n was spent directly on subject investigations, and fewer days were expended to\n discontinue an investigation. Many of the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s performance indicators\n continued to show improvement in FY 2003. While the number of subject investigations\n initiated and direct time spent on investigations decreased slightly, FY 2004 continued\n to show gains in the total numbers of subject investigations completed, prosecution\n referrals, pipeline investigations, indictments, convictions, and sentences.\n The CI function continues to lose special agents due to attrition faster than it can\n replace them. Increasing staffing in the enforcement areas of the Internal Revenue\n Service (IRS), in general, remains a challenge. The Government Accountability Office\n (GAO) testified stating priorities other than enforcement, including unbudgeted\n expenses, have consumed IRS budget increases and savings over the last several\n\n\n\n 1\n Review of the Internal Revenue Service\xe2\x80\x99s Criminal Investigation Division (Publication 3388; 4-1999), also known\n as the Webster Report.\n\x0c 2\n\nyears.2 In addition, the FY 2005 budget contains almost a $20 million decrease in\nfunding for the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)\nprogram. As a result, the CI function will reduce the amount of direct investigative time\nspent on narcotics investigations and will shift some resources to tax-related\ninvestigations. The FY 2006 budget proposes a change in the funding source for the\nOCDETF program. Instead of receiving reimbursements from the Department of\nJustice (DOJ), the DOJ will transfer about $56 million from its appropriation to the\nDepartment of the Treasury\xe2\x80\x99s appropriation.\nIn an October 2003 letter to the TIGTA, the Senate Finance Committee outlined some\nconcerns about the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s productivity. We recently completed a review to\naddress one of the concerns about the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to increase legal source\nincome tax investigations and concluded the CI function has made progress in\nincreasing all tax-related investigations, but the level of legal source investigations did\nnot materially change from FYs 1999 through 2004.3 The other concerns relating to the\nlength of time to prepare and present a case to the DOJ for prosecution and the small\nnumber of investigations (as few as two) per special agent will be taken into\nconsideration when developing our FY 2006 Annual Audit Plan.\nThe CI function initiates investigations from many different sources, both from within\nand outside the IRS. During FY 2004, about 58.4 percent of subject investigations\ninitiated came from the United States Attorney Offices (USAO) or other government\nagencies. In contrast, only 30.1 percent of subject investigations initiated came from\nwithin the IRS.4 Historically, internal IRS programs have been the primary sources of\ninvestigations involving pure tax violations. Between FYs 1999 and 2004, almost\n60 percent of legal source investigations came from within the IRS. During FY 2004,\n65.8 percent of legal source investigations and 47.4 percent of tax-related investigations\ncame from internal IRS sources. On the other hand, almost two-thirds of the cases\ninitiated from the USAO and other government agencies were nontax-related\ninvestigations.\nFurther, the total number of tax and tax-related investigations initiated from FYs 2002\nto 2004 declined by 12.3 percent. Since actions on criminal investigations may span\nmore than 1 year, the more recent decline in tax and tax-related investigations initiated\nmay result in a decline in tax and tax-related convictions and sentences in later years.\nWe made no recommendations in this report. However, key CI function management\nofficials reviewed the report and provided written comments that were considered prior\nto its issuance. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the discussion draft report is\nincluded as Appendix VI. The Office of Audit\xe2\x80\x99s response to identify changes we made\n\n\n\n2\n Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request and 2004 Filing Season Performance\n(GAO-04-560T, dated March 2004).\n3\n The Criminal Investigation Function Has Made Progress in Investigating Criminal Tax Cases; However,\nChallenges Remain (Reference Number 2005-10-054, dated March 2005).\n4\n The remaining 11.5 percent came from the public or other sources.\n\x0c 3\n\nto the discussion draft report based on management\xe2\x80\x99s comments is included as\nAppendix VII.\n\nCopies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report.\nPlease contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Daniel R. Devlin,\nAssistant Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt\nOrganizations Programs), at (202) 622-8500.\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n\nBackground .............................................................................................. Page 1\nMany Performance Indicators Showed Improvements in\nFiscal Years 2003 and 2004..................................................................... Page 3\nChallenges Remain to Increase Enforcement Activities ........................... Page 4\nCongressional Interest in Criminal Investigation Activities ....................... Page 6\nInvestigations Initiated From External Sources Remain a Concern ......... Page 9\nAppendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology...................... Page 13\nAppendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ...................................... Page 14\nAppendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List ...................................................... Page 15\nAppendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Glossary of Terms............................................................. Page 16\nAppendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Charts of Statistical Information ........................... Page 19\nAppendix VI \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Discussion\nDraft Report.............................................................................................. Page 37\nAppendix VII \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Audit Comments on Management\xe2\x80\x99s\nResponse ................................................................................................. Page 44\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n In recent years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has\nBackground\n made tremendous efforts to improve customer service and\n make it easier for taxpayers to comply with their tax\n obligations. However, overall enforcement activities began\n to erode and surveys indicated that 17 percent of the\n population believed it was acceptable to cheat on their taxes.\n Since 2003, the IRS Commissioner has emphasized the\n importance and role of tax enforcement in overall tax\n compliance by recognizing the need to enhance levels of\n enforcement activity to provide a proper balance between\n service and enforcement.\n The IRS Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2005 to 2009\n provides that enforcing tax compliance is critical to\n maintaining the American taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99 expectation that the\n tax system is fair and outlines several objectives to meet the\n goal of enhanced enforcement, including discouraging and\n deterring noncompliance with emphasis on corrosive\n activity by corporations, high-income individual taxpayers,\n and other contributors to the tax gap (the difference between\n taxes owed and paid).\n The Criminal Investigation (CI) function is the only law\n enforcement organization with the authority to investigate\n criminal tax violations. The vigorous enforcement of\n criminal statutes within the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s jurisdiction is an\n integral component of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 efforts to enhance voluntary\n compliance and foster confidence in the fairness and\n integrity of the tax system.\n Over the last few decades, the Congress and the Department\n of the Treasury have expanded the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s jurisdiction\n to cover offenses under money laundering and currency\n reporting statutes.1 Accordingly, the CI function has been\n involved with both legal and illegal source income\n investigations, including those involving organized crime\n and narcotics.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections (\xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7) 1956 and 1957 (2004)\n and Title 31 U.S.C., Money and Finance, sections.\n Page 1\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n In April 1999, Judge William Webster issued a report2 of his\n review of the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s operations and concluded the CI\n function had drifted away from its primary mission of\n investigating criminal violations of the Internal Revenue\n Code. Judge Webster recommended the CI function refocus\n on its primary mission of investigating criminal violations\n of the internal revenue laws.\n The CI function addressed many of the Webster Report\n concerns by creating a revised mission statement,\n developing a compliance strategy designed to guide the\n CI function to develop and investigate cases that foster\n confidence in the tax system, reducing the resources placed\n on narcotics investigations, publicizing the results of its\n investigations, and conducting an empirical study to\n determine the effect investigations have on voluntary\n compliance. The CI function executives have recently\n emphasized the importance of developing and investigating\n those cases that have the greatest affect on tax\n administration, whether the sources of income in those\n investigations are derived from legal or illegal industries.\n We initiated this review of the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s enforcement\n statistics as part of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax\n Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (TIGTA) FY 2005 Annual Audit Plan.\n While our trend analyses covered FYs 1999 through 2004,\n our report concentrates on providing a perspective for the\n 2 most current fiscal years.\n Our data analyses were done in the TIGTA\n Chicago, Illinois, office during the period February through\n April 2005 using data accumulated by the IRS. The audit\n was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing\n Standards. However, we relied on information accumulated\n by the IRS and did not verify its accuracy. Much of the data\n in this report were updated from the prior TIGTA report on\n criminal enforcement trends.3\n\n\n\n 2\n Review of the Internal Revenue Service\xe2\x80\x99s Criminal Investigation\n Division (Publication 3388; 4-1999), also known as the Webster Report.\n 3\n Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s\n Enforcement Activities From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal\n Year 2003 (Reference Number 2004-10-115, dated June 2004).\n Page 2\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\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. A\n glossary of terms is included in Appendix IV. Detailed\n charts and tables referred to in the body of the report are\n included in Appendix V.\n We previously reported4 that, beginning in FY 2002, some\nMany Performance Indicators\n of the CI function performance indicators began to show\nShowed Improvements in Fiscal\n improvements. For example, the number of subject\nYears 2003 and 2004\n investigations initiated increased, the percentage of direct\n investigative time (DIT) increased, and it took fewer days to\n discontinue an investigation.5\n Although the number of subject investigations initiated\n decreased slightly (2.1 percent) in FY 2004, many of the\n trends showed improvements from FY 2003. For example,\n the total number of subject investigations completed\n increased 16.5 percent and prosecution referrals increased\n 19.5 percent.6 In addition, the number of indictments\n increased 17 percent; convictions increased 10.1 percent;\n and number of sentences increased .5 percent from\n FY 2003.7 Finally, the total number of investigations in the\n Department of Justice (DOJ) pipeline increased\n 18.4 percent.8 The CI function has attributed the increased\n pipeline inventory to its efforts to reduce elapsed days on\n completed investigations. This also may account for the\n slight decline in subject investigations initiated.9\n Also, while the average number of days to refer an\n investigation for prosecution continued to improve from\n FY 2003 to FY 2004 (down 4.2 percent), the average\n number of days to discontinue a subject investigation\n increased 7.8 percent.10 In addition, the percent of time\n\n\n\n 4\n Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s\n Enforcement Activities From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal\n Year 2003 (Reference Number 2004-10-115, dated June 2004).\n 5\n Appendix V, Figures 2, 6, and 16.\n 6\n Appendix V, Figure 15.\n 7\n Appendix V, Figures 23 and 25.\n 8\n Appendix V, Figure 22.\n 9\n Appendix V, Figure 4.\n 10\n Appendix V, Figure 16.\n Page 3\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n spent conducting investigations, the DIT, decreased slightly\n to 56.9 percent.11\n Other noteworthy trends include:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Since FY 2001, the number of subject investigations\n initiated has increased 19.3 percent from 3,284\n to 3,917.12\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The total number of investigations completed is at a\n 6-year high, and has increased 37.1 percent from\n 3,201 to 4,387 since FY 2002.13\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Both the total number of prosecution referrals and\n discontinued investigations are up over the last\n 2 years; 42.4 percent and 26.4 percent,\n respectively.14\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The number of investigations in the DOJ pipeline is\n at a 5-year high and is up 32.2 percent from\n FY 2002.15\n These indicators demonstrate that the CI function is\n becoming more efficient in carrying out its duties. We\n believe this is attributable to CI management\xe2\x80\x99s and the\n Commissioner\xe2\x80\x99s continued emphasis on improving\n productivity and compliance.\n Between FYs 1999 and 2004, special agent staffing\nChallenges Remain to Increase\n decreased almost 2 percent from 2,849 to 2,795. However,\nEnforcement Activities\n field office special agent staffing declined by about\n 6.5 percent from 2,669 to 2,495 during the same period.16\n An analysis of the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s hiring and attrition data for\n FYs 1999 to 2004 shows the CI function was losing special\n agents to attrition faster than it could replace them. Since\n FY 2002, budget limitations caused the CI function to limit\n hiring to a level at or below attrition. The CI function\n originally planned to hire over 500 special agents in\n FY 2005; it now plans to hire only about 200 special agents.\n\n\n 11\n Appendix V, Figure 2.\n 12\n Appendix V, Figure 25.\n 13\n Appendix V, Figure 15.\n 14\n Appendix V, Figure 15.\n 15\n Appendix V, Figure 21.\n 16\n Appendix V, Figure 1.\n Page 4\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Factoring anticipated attrition, the CI function estimates a\n net increase of about 48 special agents from FY 2004.\n While the entire IRS is faced with an increasing number of\n employees who are eligible to retire, the issue is more\n pronounced in the CI function because special agents are\n generally eligible to retire 5 years earlier. According to\n the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2005 Strategy and Program Plan,\n there were 2,828 special agents on the rolls as of May 2003.\n Of these, 956 are eligible to retire between FYs 2003\n and 2008.\n Increasing staffing in the enforcement areas of the IRS, in\n general, remains a challenge. The Government\n Accountability Office (GAO) testified that priorities other\n than enforcement, including unbudgeted expenses such as\n rent increases and Congressionally mandated pay raises,\n have consumed IRS budget increases and savings over the\n last several years.17\n Proposed changes in the Organized Crime Drug\n Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program funding\n may have an effect on resources\n Another factor that affects the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s ability to\n sustain increases in enforcement activities is funding for the\n OCDETF program. Since its inception in 1982, the\n CI function has participated in OCDETF program\n investigations and other narcotics-related cases. The\n Webster Report recommended the CI function limit its\n narcotics-related investigations to the amount that is\n reimbursed from the DOJ for the OCDETF program. As a\n result, the CI function reduced the DIT on narcotics-related\n investigations to a range of about 15 to 17 percent.\n According to the FY 2005 budget, OCDETF program\n funding decreased by almost $20 million from the original\n appropriated amount of $72 million. As a result, the\n CI function field offices reduced the DIT range to\n 10 to 12 percent to correspond with the funding decrease.\n In addition, the CI function planed to complete about\n\n\n 17\n Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of Fiscal Year 2005 Budget\n Request and 2004 Filing Season Performance (GAO-04-560T, dated\n March 2004).\n Page 5\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n 11 percent fewer investigations in FY 2005, as it shifts staff\n from narcotics to tax-related investigations, which generally\n take longer to complete.\n The CI function advised they continually monitor narcotics\n related funding levels and have since reduced the DIT range\n to 9 to 11 percent to remain aligned with the reimbursement\n level. In addition, due to early FY 2005 results and to create\n ambitious performance goals, the CI function increased its\n estimate of completed investigations to 4,380, slightly\n below the 4,387 investigations completed in FY 2004.\n The FY 2006 budget proposes an overall increase of\n $85 million for the CI function, including a change in the\n funding source for the OCDETF program. Instead of\n receiving reimbursements from the DOJ, the DOJ will\n transfer about $56 million from its appropriation to the\n Department of the Treasury\xe2\x80\x99s appropriation. Since the\n FY 2006 budget is currently undergoing review by the\n Administration and Congress, it is uncertain what the final\n increase, if any, of the OCDETF program funding will be\n provided to the Department of the Treasury. We believe the\n CI function will need to remain mindful that its commitment\n to the narcotics programs remains within the level of the\n funding received.\n In an October 2003 letter to the TIGTA, the Senate Finance\nCongressional Interest in\n Committee (SFC) expressed concern about the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s\nCriminal Investigation\n productivity and its ability to increase the number of legal\nActivities\n source income tax investigations. In addition, the SFC was\n concerned there may be as few as 2 investigations per\n special agent, and that it takes on average 2 years to prepare\n and present a case to the Department of Justice for\n prosecution.18\n Trends related to legal source income tax investigations\n The CI function has consistently described legal source tax\n cases as a top investigative priority, and we believe these\n cases are an important component of all tax-related\n\n\n 18\n We plan to take this information into consideration in developing our\n FY 2006 Annual Audit Plan. Also, see page 9 of this report for\n additional information on the length of time to prepare a case for\n prosecution.\n Page 6\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n investigations. At the request of the SFC, we conducted an\n audit to evaluate the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to increase legal\n source income tax investigations. We recently issued that\n report19 and concluded the CI function has made progress in\n increasing all tax-related investigations, but the level of\n legal source investigations did not materially change from\n FYs 1999 through 2004. Also, recent trends for FYs 2002\n through 2004 are mixed for both tax-related and legal source\n tax investigations. In the management response to this\n report, the Chief, CI, provided a further explanation on the\n CI function\xe2\x80\x99s position regarding the legal source income\n statistics and reliability of the data in its management\n information system. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to\n the discussion draft report is included as Appendix VI.\n The percentage of tax-related investigations initiated\n increased 6.6 percentage points during FYs 1999\n through 2004.20 However, the percentage of legal source\n investigations initiated was virtually unchanged during this\n same period. After a significant increase in FY 2002, the\n number of legal source investigations initiated has decreased\n the last 2 years, and are down 11.8 percent in FY 2004.21\n The Chief, CI, expressed concern that our conclusion might\n imply that the sheer number of increases in legal source\n investigations is the goal, rather than an inventory of\n high-quality, high-impact legal source cases balanced with\n illegal source cases. Also, the Chief, CI, stated the CI\n function has attained 4-year highs in several quality\n indicators (e.g., the DOJ acceptance rate, average months to\n serve, and publicity rate) in the legal source program, which\n illustrates progress in achieving the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s strategies.\n Investigations referred for prosecution also reflect on the\n quality and success of the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s work. The numbers\n of tax-related and legal source tax investigations referred for\n prosecution have been consistently increasing and were at\n 6- and 5-year highs in FY 2004, respectively. However, the\n\n\n 19\n The Criminal Investigation Function Has Made Progress in\n Investigating Criminal Tax Cases; However, Challenges Remain\n (Reference Number 2005-10-054, dated March 2005).\n 20\n Appendix V, Figure 5.\n 21\n Appendix V, Figure 6.\n Page 7\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n percentages of each type of investigation decreased in\n FY 2004 to FY 2002 levels.22\n Also, while the numbers of tax-related and legal source tax\n investigations in the pipeline are at 5- and 4-year highs,\n respectively, the percentages of each type of investigation\n have been about the same and declined slightly during\n FY 2004.23\n Although we could not conclusively determine whether the\n CI function was conducting enough legal source income tax\n investigations or to what extent it can or should increase the\n number, our recent report identified several areas in which\n the CI function can make improvements to the legal source\n investigative program and more effectively measure the\n program\xe2\x80\x99s impact on compliance.\n Trends related to the number of investigations per\n special agent\n In FY 2002, the average inventory of subject investigations\n per special agent was 1.86. This increased to 2 in FY 2003,\n and then decreased to 1.84 in FY 2004.24\n Taking this number alone creates a false sense of a CI\n function special agent\xe2\x80\x99s workload. The average inventory\n calculation includes only open subject investigations. The\n CI function does not consider subject investigations referred\n for prosecution as an open investigation, even though the\n special agent could devote significant time assisting with\n trial preparation.25 These are considered pipeline\n investigations. In addition, special agents may also be\n working on primary investigations and seizure\n investigations.\n The CI function recognized the open investigation per agent\n calculation does not always convey the actual workload of\n special agents when evaluating a special agent\xe2\x80\x99s total\n\n 22\n Appendix V, Figures 17 and 18.\n 23\n Appendix V, Figures 21 and 22.\n 24\n Appendix V, Figure 10.\n 25\n Generally, subject investigations that have been recommended for\n prosecution and the subject has not been convicted or acquitted are\n referred to as \xe2\x80\x9cpipeline investigations.\xe2\x80\x9d The CI function reported\n 9.1 percent of its DIT was spent on pipeline investigations during\n FY 2004.\n Page 8\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n inventory workload. As a result, the CI function refers to all\n open and pipeline subject investigations, primary\n investigations, and seizure investigations as the \xe2\x80\x9ctotal\n inventory.\xe2\x80\x9d\n According to the CI function, total inventory per agent\n decreased from 8.83 in FY 1999 to 7.4 in FY 2002 and\n increased to 8.16 in FY 2004.26\n Trends related to the time it takes to prepare and\n present a case to the Department of Justice for\n prosecution\n The elapsed time to recommend a case for prosecution has\n decreased 11.1 percent from FY 2002 to FY 2004 to\n 367.5 days. The elapsed time to discontinue a case has\n decreased 6.2 percent during the same period to 460.8 days.\n This includes a 7.8 percent increase over FY 2003.27 The CI\n function officials attributed the increase in elapsed time on\n discontinued investigations to their effort to close old cases.\n The CI function initiates investigations from many different\nInvestigations Initiated From\n sources, both from within and outside the IRS. The primary\nExternal Sources Remain a\n sources from within the IRS include fraud referrals from the\nConcern\n IRS\xe2\x80\x99 compliance functions and investigations developed by\n the CI function from the Questionable Refund Program and\n Return Preparer Program. The primary sources of\n investigations from outside of the IRS include the United\n States Attorney Offices (USAO) and other government\n agencies, both Federal and State. In addition, the CI\n function initiates investigations based on information\n received from public sources, including the media,\n informants, and the toll-free tax fraud hotline.\n During FY 2004, about 58.4 percent of subject\n investigations initiated came from the USAOs or other\n government agencies. This increased from 51.6 percent and\n 54.8 percent in FYs 2002 and 2003, respectively.\n In contrast, during FY 2004, only 30.1 percent of subject\n investigations initiated originated from within the IRS. This\n is trending down from the 34.2 percent and 31.6 percent\n\n\n 26\n Appendix V, Figure 10.\n 27\n Appendix V, Figure 16.\n Page 9\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n reported in FYs 2002 and 2003, respectively.28\n Furthermore, the number of subject investigations initiated\n from a public source has decreased 18.7 percent during the\n last 2 fiscal years. During FY 2004 subject investigations\n from a public source represented 11.5 percent of the total\n investigations initiated.\n In a prior TIGTA report,29 we determined referrals from the\n toll-free tax fraud hotline were rarely assigned to the CI\n function field offices for evaluation, even though these\n referrals could reveal significant fraud allegations and thus\n should be given consideration. The Chief, CI, believed the\n hotline call sites provided only a limited number of\n informant communications that met criminal prosecution\n potential, but agreed the CI function had a shared\n responsibility to provide instructions and guidance on\n potential informant communications that meet criminal\n criteria to the Wage and Investment Division, the business\n owner of the hotline call site function.\n Historically, internal IRS programs have been the primary\n sources of investigations involving pure tax violations.\n Between FYs 1999 and 2004, almost 60 percent of legal\n source investigations came from within the IRS. During\n FY 2004, 65.8 percent of legal source investigations and\n 47.4 percent of tax-related investigations came from internal\n IRS sources. On the other hand, almost two-thirds of the\n cases initiated from USAOs and other government agencies\n were nontax-related investigations.\n Initiating more cases from sources external to the IRS\n concerns us. Our recently issued report recognized that the\n tax enforcement process works most effectively if the CI\n function and the various USAOs have the same priorities.30\n Given the CI function competes with other agencies for\n inclusion in the various local USAOs\xe2\x80\x99 agendas, it is\n necessary for the CI function to maintain an effective\n\n 28\n Appendix V, Figure 8.\n 29\n The Tax Fraud Hotline Has Not Been an Effective Source for\n Criminal Tax Investigations (Reference Number 2003-10-210, dated\n September 2003).\n 30\n The Criminal Investigation Function Has Made Progress in\n Investigating Criminal Tax Cases; However, Challenges Remain\n (Reference Number 2005-10-054, dated March 2005).\n Page 10\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n working relationship with the USAOs. We believe the CI\n function must also be judicious in deciding which\n investigations to work with other agencies, especially in\n those cases where the connection to tax administration is not\n clear. In the management response to this report, the Chief,\n CI, provided further explanation and reemphasized the CI\n function\xe2\x80\x99s commitment to working the highest impact cases\n with the greatest deterrent effect.\n Further, the total number of tax or tax-related investigations\n initiated from FY 2002 to FY 2004 declined by 12.3 percent\n from 2,468 to 2,164.31 Since actions on criminal\n investigations may span more than 1 year, the more recent\n decline in tax and tax-related investigations initiated may\n result in a decline in tax and tax-related convictions and\n sentences in later years.\n Recent developments in the fraud referral program\n Our recently issued report32 concluded that IRS efforts to\n reinvigorate the fraud referral program have not been\n effective. Although the percentage of referrals accepted\n increased since FY 1999, the total number of referrals\n received has decreased. Also, after a sharp decline in\n FY 2000, the number of referrals steadily increased through\n FY 2003, but declined slightly in FY 2004.33\n The CI function has taken several steps to improve the fraud\n referral process. In addition, both the CI and Compliance\n functions appear to have made a renewed effort to increase\n referrals. Through the first quarter of FY 2005, the CI\n function has received 167 referrals, a 53.2 percent increase\n over the same period in FY 2004, and accepted 67.9 percent\n of the referrals, a 9.2 percent increase over the first quarter\n of FY 2004.\n The FY 2005 results are encouraging and we believe the CI\n and Compliance functions need to maintain this emphasis as\n fraud referrals remain a viable and important source of legal\n source income tax investigations.\n\n 31\n Appendix V, Figure 5.\n 32\n The Criminal Investigation Function Has Made Progress in\n Investigating Criminal Tax Cases; However, Challenges Remain\n (Reference Number 2005-10-054, dated March 2005).\n 33\n Appendix V, Figure 9.\n Page 11\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n We also believe the other proposed corrective actions in our\n recently issued report will assist the CI function in making\n improvements in the legal source tax program and more\n effectively monitoring the program\xe2\x80\x99s performance.\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Appendix I\n\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe overall objective of this review was to provide statistical information and trend analyses of\nthe Criminal Investigation (CI) function statistics since the issuance of the Webster Report1 in\nApril 1999.\nTo accomplish our objective, we reviewed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data publications and\nCI function management information to analyze data and identify trends. We relied on\ninformation accumulated by the IRS and the CI function in established reports and the CI\nfunction\xe2\x80\x99s management information system and did not verify its accuracy. The major issues we\nfocused on included:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Special Agent Staffing.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Investigation Initiations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Open Investigations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Pipeline Investigations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Investigation Closures.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Investigations Referred for Prosecution.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Subsequent Legal Actions.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compliance Strategy Programs.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Review of the Internal Revenue Service\xe2\x80\x99s Criminal Investigation Division (Publication 3388; 4-1999), also known\nas the Webster Report.\n\n Page 13\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Appendix II\n\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nDaniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt\nOrganizations Programs)\nJohn R. Wright, Director\nDiana M. Tengesdal, Audit Manager\nMichael J. Hillenbrand, Senior Auditor\nLynn Rudolph, Senior Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\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\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: Chief, Criminal Investigation SE:CI:S:PS\n\n\n\n\n Page 15\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Appendix IV\n\n\n Glossary of Terms\n\nBusiness Performance Review \xe2\x80\x93 On a quarterly basis, the Criminal Investigation (CI) function\nreports on its performance measures, business results, employee and customer satisfaction, and\nother items of importance to the CI function.\n\nCompliance Strategy \xe2\x80\x93 The CI function strategy comprised of three interdependent program\nareas: Legal Source Tax Crimes, Illegal Source Financial Crimes, and Narcotics-Related\nFinancial Crimes.\n\nCriminal Investigation Management Information System \xe2\x80\x93 A database that tracks the status\nand progress of criminal investigations and the time expended by special agents.\n\nDirect Investigative Time \xe2\x80\x93 Time spent by special agents conducting investigations and other\nlaw enforcement activities.\n\nDiscontinued Investigation \xe2\x80\x93 A subject investigation that resulted in a determination there was\nno prosecution potential.\n\nElapsed Days \xe2\x80\x93 The number of days between the initiation of a subject investigation to another\ndate such as the date discontinued or date referred for prosecution.\n\nField Special Agent \xe2\x80\x93 A special agent in 1 of the CI function\xe2\x80\x99s 33 field offices.\n\nFraud Detection Center \xe2\x80\x93 A CI function organization responsible for identifying and detecting\nrefund fraud, preventing the issuance of false refunds, and providing support for the CI function\nfield offices.\n\nGrand Jury Investigation \xe2\x80\x93 Investigation conducted through the use of a Federal grand jury to\ndetermine if a subject should be charged with a crime. The use of the Federal grand jury to\ninvestigate the potential crime(s) may be initiated by the CI function or by an attorney for the\nFederal Government.\n\nIllegal Source Financial Crimes \xe2\x80\x93 Those crimes involving illegally earned income. They\ninclude crimes involving money laundering, 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections (\xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7) 1956\nand 1957, sections of U.S.C. Title 31, Money and Finance, and U.S.C. Title 26 violations\ninvestigated in conjunction with other agencies.\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\nInventory/Agent \xe2\x80\x93 The number of open subject investigations divided by the number of field\nspecial agents whose salary grade level is 13 or below and having various position descriptions\nincluding those of coordinator and reviewer.\n\nLegal Source Tax Crimes \xe2\x80\x93 Those crimes involving legal industries and occupations and\nlegally earned income.\n\nOrganized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Program\xe2\x80\x93 Organized in 1982,\nthe OCDETF program is a multi-agency effort to identify, investigate, and prosecute members of\nhigh-level drug trafficking enterprises.\n\nNarcotics-Related Financial Crimes \xe2\x80\x93 Those crimes involving tax and money laundering that\nare related to narcotics and drug trafficking.\n\nPipeline Inventory \xe2\x80\x93 A subject investigation that has been recommended for prosecution and\nthe subject has not been convicted or acquitted, or the case dismissed. It excludes investigations\nwhere the subject became a fugitive after indictment.\n\nPrimary Investigation \xe2\x80\x93 An evaluation of an allegation that an individual or entity is in\nnoncompliance with the internal revenue laws and related financial crimes.\n\nQuestionable Refund Program - A nationwide multifunctional program designed to identify\nfraudulent returns, stop the payment of fraudulent refunds, and refer identified fraudulent refund\nschemes to CI function field offices.\n\nReferred for Prosecution \xe2\x80\x93 A subject investigation that resulted in the determination of\nprosecution potential referred to the Department of Justice or a United States Attorney Office.\n\nReturn Preparer Program - A program that pursues unscrupulous return preparers who\nknowingly claim excessive deductions and exemptions on returns prepared for clients. The\nclients may or may not have knowledge of the false claims.\n\nSpecial Agent \xe2\x80\x93 A CI function law enforcement employee who investigates potential criminal\nviolations of the internal revenue laws and related financial crimes.\n\nSubject Investigation \xe2\x80\x93 An investigation of an individual or entity alleged to be in\nnoncompliance with the laws enforced by the Internal Revenue Service and having prosecution\npotential.\n\nSubject Seizure Investigation \xe2\x80\x93 An investigation to locate and seize assets that are subject to\nseizure or forfeiture under various U.S.C. titles and sections such as 26 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 7302 or\n18 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 981, 982, or 984.\n\n Page 17\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\nTax-Related Violation \xe2\x80\x93 A violation involving a Title 26 section or one of the following\nTitle 18 sections: \xc2\xa7 286, \xc2\xa7 287, or \xc2\xa7 371 associated with a Title 26 violation or \xc2\xa7 371 associated\nwith a Title 26 and a Title 31 violation.\n\nTitle 18 \xe2\x80\x93 U.S.C. Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Various sections of Title 18 apply to\nviolations that are within the jurisdiction of the CI function. Examples include \xc2\xa7 286,\nConspiracy to Defraud the Government with Respect to Claims; \xc2\xa7 287, False, Fictitious, or\nFraudulent Claims; \xc2\xa7 371, Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States; and\n\xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1956 and 1957, Laundering of Monetary Instruments and Engaging in Monetary Transactions\nin Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity. The most common section investigated\nunder this statute is money laundering.\n\nTitle 26 \xe2\x80\x93 U.S.C. Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.\n\nTitle 31 \xe2\x80\x93 U.S.C. Title 31, Money and Finance. Several sections of Title 31 apply to violations\nthat are within the jurisdiction of the CI function. Examples include \xc2\xa7 5322, Criminal Penalties\n(for willful violations of Title 31 sections), and \xc2\xa7 5324, Structuring Transactions to Evade\nReporting Requirement Prohibited.\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Appendix V\n\n\n Detailed Charts of Statistical Information\n\nFigure 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Special Agent and Field Special Agent Staffing at the\n End of Each Fiscal Year.................................................................................Page 21\n\nFigure 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Special Agent Direct Investigative Time Expended Each Fiscal Year ..........Page 21\n\nFigure 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Percentage of Direct Investigative Time Spent on Legal Source and\n Tax-Related Investigations Each Fiscal Year ...............................................Page 22\n\nFigure 4 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Initiated and the Number Initiated per\n Field Special Agent Each Fiscal Year.............................................................Page 22\n\nFigure 5 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year for a\n Tax-Related or Nontax-Related Violation and the Percentage\n That Is Tax-Related ........................................................................................Page 23\n\nFigure 6 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year by\n Compliance Strategy Program and the Percentage That Is\n Legal Source Tax Crimes ...............................................................................Page 23\n\nFigure 7 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year by\n Principle United States Code Title..................................................................Page 24\n\nFigure 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year by\n Source of the Allegation or Information ..........................................................Page 24\n\nFigure 9 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Fraud Referrals Received and the Percentage Accepted\n Each Fiscal Year.............................................................................................Page 25\n\nFigure 10 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Open Subject Investigations and the Total of All Investigations\n at the End of Each Fiscal Year and the Number per Nonsupervisory\n Special Agent in Field Offices ........................................................................Page 26\n\nFigure 11 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of All Types of Investigations Open in Various Stages at\n the End of Each Fiscal Year...........................................................................Page 26\n\nFigure 12 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Open Subject Investigations Each Fiscal Year for\n a Tax-Related or Nontax-Related Violation and the Percentage\n That Is Tax-Related........................................................................................Page 27\n\nFigure 13 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Open Subject Investigations Each Fiscal Year by Compliance\n Strategy Program and the Percentage That Is Legal Source Tax Crimes.....Page 27\n\nFigure 14 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Open Subject Investigations at the End of Each Fiscal Year\n by Type of Investigation: Grand Jury or Nongrand Jury Investigation ..........Page 28\n\nFigure 15 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Discontinued or Referred for\n Prosecution Each Fiscal Year and the Percentage Referred\n for Prosecution................................................................................................Page 29\n\n Page 19\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\nFigure 16 \xe2\x80\x93 Average Elapsed Days of Subject Investigations Discontinued and\n Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year....................................................Page 29\n\nFigure 17 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution\n Each Fiscal Year for a Tax-Related or Nontax-Related Violation\n and the Percentage That Is Tax-Related .......................................................Page 30\n\nFigure 18 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution\n Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy Program and the\n Percentage That Is Legal Source Tax Crimes ...............................................Page 30\n\nFigure 19 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution\n Each Fiscal Year by Principle United States Code Title ................................Page 31\n\nFigure 20 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal\n Year by Type of Investigation: Grand Jury or Nongrand Jury\n Investigation....................................................................................................Page 31\n\nFigure 21\xe2\x80\x93 Number of Tax-Related and Nontax-Related Subject Investigations\n in the Pipeline Each Fiscal Year and the Percentage That Is\n Tax-Related ....................................................................................................Page 32\n\nFigure 22 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations in the Pipeline Each Fiscal Year by\n Compliance Strategy Program and the Percentage That Is\n Legal Source Tax Crimes ...............................................................................Page 32\n\nFigure 23 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subjects Convicted of and Sentenced for a Crime\n Each Fiscal Year.............................................................................................Page 33\n\nFigure 24 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subjects Convicted of a Crime Each Fiscal Year by\n Compliance Strategy Program and the Percentage That Is\n Legal Source Tax Crimes ...............................................................................Page 33\n\nFigure 25 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subject Investigations Initiated, Referred for Prosecution,\n Indicted, and Convicted Each Fiscal Year......................................................Page 34\n\nFigure 26 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year for a\n Tax-Related or Nontax-Related Violation and the Percentage\n That Is Tax-Related ........................................................................................Page 34\n\nFigure 27 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year by\n Compliance Strategy Program and the Percentage That Is\n Legal Source Tax Crimes ...............................................................................Page 35\n\nFigure 28 \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year by\n Principle United States Code Title..................................................................Page 35\n\nFigure 29 \xe2\x80\x93 Average Number of Months a Subject Is Incarcerated Each\n Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy Program ...............................................Page 36\n\nFigure 30 \xe2\x80\x93 Percentage of Investigations That Received Publicity Each\n Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy Program ...............................................Page 36\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 1: Special Agent and Field Special Agent Staffing at the End of Each Fiscal Year.\n\n\n 3,000\n 2,907\n 2,849\n 2,800 2,820 2,805 2,795\n 2,746\n 2,669\n 2,600 2,616\n 2,543\n 2,495 2,477 2,495\n 2,400\n\n\n 2,200\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Special Agents Field Special Agents\n\n Source: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Data Book, Publication 55B, for special agents. The Criminal\n Investigation (CI) function\xe2\x80\x99s Business Performance Review (BPR) reports for field special agent staffing.\n Figure 2: Special Agent Direct Investigative Time Expended Each Fiscal Year.\n\n\n 59.0%\n 58.5% 58.5%\n 58.0% 58.0%\n 57.5% 57.5%\n 57.0% 56.9%\n 56.7%\n 56.5%\n 56.0%\n 55.5%\n 55.0% 55.1%\n 54.5%\n 54.0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Source: The Criminal Investigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Report 2, Total Time by\n Criminal Investigation Program and Activity.\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 3: Percentage of Direct Investigative Time Spent on Legal Source and Tax-Related\n Investigations Each Fiscal Year.\n\n\n\n\n %\n\n\n\n\n %\n\n\n\n\n %\n %\n\n\n\n\n %\n\n\n\n\n %\n 70%\n\n\n\n\n .3\n\n\n\n\n .7\n\n\n\n\n .2\n .9\n\n\n\n\n .8\n\n\n\n\n .9\n\n\n\n\n 61\n\n\n\n\n 65\n\n\n\n\n 66\n 59\n\n\n\n\n 59\n\n\n\n\n 59\n 60% %\n\n\n\n\n %\n %\n %\n\n\n\n\n %\n .3\n\n\n\n\n .2\n %\n\n\n\n\n .4\n .8\n 50%\n 43\n\n\n\n\n 43\n .9\n\n\n\n\n 42\n .1\n 41\n\n\n\n\n 39\n 39\n 40%\n 30%\n 20%\n 10%\n 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Legal Source Tax-Related\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s BPR reports and analysis of the CIMIS.\n Figure 4: Number of Subject Investigations Initiated and the Number Initiated per Field Special\n Agent Each Fiscal Year.\n\n\n\n 1\n 2\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\n\n\n\n 7\n 00\n 4500 3.0\n 95\n\n\n\n\n 90\n\n\n\n\n 91\n 4,\n 3,\n\n\n\n\n 3,\n\n\n\n\n 3,\n 2\n\n\n\n\n 4000\n 4\n 37\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\n\n\n\n 2.5\n 3,\n\n\n\n\n 3,\n\n\n\n\n 3500\n 3000 2.0\n 2500\n 1.76 1.5\n 2000 1.66 1.67 1.76\n 1.51 1.49\n 1500 1.0\n 1000\n 0.5\n 500\n 0 0.0\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Subject Investigations Initiated Initiated per Field Agent\n\n Source: IRS Data Book, Publication 55B, for investigations initiated. Treasury Inspector General for Tax\n Administration (TIGTA) analysis based on the number of field agents provided by the CI function.\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 5: Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year for a Tax-Related or\n Nontax-Related Violation and the Percentage That Is Tax-Related.\n\n\n 3000 8 2 100%\n 46 45\n 2, 2, 4 90%\n 2500 3 16\n 9 3 2, 80%\n ,91 2,0 6 85\n 4 3\n 1 78 86 1, 75 70%\n 2000 1, 5 0 8 54\n 9 1,\n 1, 43 43 1, 60%\n 1, 1,\n 63.2% 61.3%\n 1500 56.5% 55.2% 50%\n 48.6% 53.0%\n 40%\n 1000 30%\n 500 20%\n 10%\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Tax-Related Nontax-Related % Tax-Related\n\n Source: The CI Function\xe2\x80\x99s BPR reports and analysis of the CIMIS.\n Figure 6: Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy\n Program and the Percentage That Is Legal Source Tax Crimes.\n\n 1800 100%\n 4\n\n\n\n\n 7\n 35\n 55\n\n\n\n\n 06\n\n\n\n\n 53\n 5\n\n\n\n\n 5\n 49\n\n\n\n\n 5\n 48\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 1600\n 1, 90%\n 4\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 37\n\n\n\n\n 37\n 3\n 31\n 4\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 80%\n 25\n\n\n\n\n 1400\n 1,\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 9\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 70%\n 10\n 08\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 1200\n 02\n 1,\n 00\n\n\n\n\n 01\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 1\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 60%\n 96\n 95\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\n\n\n\n 1000\n 86\n\n\n\n\n 50%\n 800\n 39.8% 37.6% 40%\n 34.8% 37.2% 35.0%\n 600 31.1% 30%\n 400 20%\n 200 10%\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Legal Source Illegal Sourc e Narc otic s -Related % Legal Sourc e\n\n\n Source: IRS Data Book, Publication 55B. The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s BPR report for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999.\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 7: Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year by Principle United States\n Code Title. See Glossary of Terms in Appendix IV for definitions.\n\n\n 2500\n 2,374\n 2,004 2,199\n 2000 1,911\n 1,922 1,875\n 1,700 1,847\n 1,602\n 1500 1,490 1,482\n 1,360\n 1000\n\n 500\n\n 88 99 102 148 122 116\n 0\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Title 18 Title 26 Title 31\n\n Source: CIMIS Report 11, Program Summary Analysis.\n Figure 8: Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year by Source of the Allegation or\n Information. IRS sources include fraud referrals from the Compliance functions, investigations developed\n by the Fraud Detection Centers and Lead Development Centers, and currency transactions.\n\n\n 3000\n\n 2500 2,513\n 2,191 2,286\n 2,144 2,064\n 2000 2,016\n\n 1500\n 1,334 1,266 1,179\n 1000 924 812 809\n 500 515 556 544 452\n 416 411\n 0\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n US Attorney & Other Agencies Internal Revenue Service Public and Other\n\n Source: TIGTA analysis of the CIMIS Report 11, Program Summary Analysis. The TIGTA reclassified\n some investigations from Public and Other to IRS based on our analysis of the CIMIS and the CI function\n advising that some sources in Report 11 were misclassified.\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 9: Number of Fraud Referrals Received and the Percentage Accepted Each Fiscal Year.\n\n\n 700 605 100%\n 559\n 526 530\n 600 486 80%\n 436\n 500\n 62.9% 61.2%\n 400 58.0% 60%\n 50.8% 53.8%\n 300 45.4%\n 40%\n 200\n 20%\n 100\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Fraud Referrals Received Percent Accepted\n\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s BPR reports for FYs 2000 to 2004, and the TIGTA analysis of the CIMIS and\n CIMIS Report 11, Program Summary Analysis for FY 1999.\n\n\n\n\n Page 25\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 10: Number of Open Subject Investigations and the Total of All Investigations at the End of\n Each Fiscal Year and the Number per Nonsupervisory Special Agent in Field Offices. The total\n inventory includes open subject investigations, as well as other investigations agents may have been\n assigned concurrently with open subject investigations, such as primary investigations, subject seizure\n investigations, and subject investigations that have been referred for prosecution (pipeline).\n\n\n 25000 44 12\n\n\n\n\n 98\n ,0\n\n\n\n\n 99\n 96\n 21\n\n\n\n\n ,5\n\n\n\n\n 58\n\n\n\n\n 75\n 19\n\n\n\n\n ,1\n ,0\n ,6\n 10\n\n\n\n\n ,2\n\n\n\n\n 18\n 18\n 20000\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\n\n\n\n 17\n 8.83 8.80 8\n 15000 8.03 7.95 8.16\n 7.40 6\n 10000 5 5\n 2 9 2 6\n 88 74 70 39 61 13\n 4\n 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4,\n 5000 2\n 1.63 1.68 1.66 1.86 2 1.84\n 0 0\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Subject Investigations Total Inventory\n Average Subject Inventory per Agent Average Total Inventory per Agent\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s analysis of the CIMIS and Nation Criminal Investigation Statistics.\n Figure 11: Number of All Types of Investigations Open in Various Stages at the End of Each Fiscal\n Year.\n\n\n 24000\n\n 20000 1,361\n 1,361\n 3,839 1,340 1,538\n 3,474 1,319 1,198\n 16000\n 2,936 2,740 3,061 3,623\n 3,882\n 3,749\n 12000 3,702 4,615\n 4,395 4,136\n 8000\n 11,962 11,014 9,701 8,942 9,080 8,902\n 4000\n\n 0\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n\n\n Primary Investigations Subject Investigations Pipeline Inventory Seizure Investigations\n\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s analysis of the CIMIS and Nation Criminal Investigation Statistics.\n\n\n\n Page 26\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 12: Number of Open Subject Investigations Each Fiscal Year for a Tax-Related or\n Nontax-Related Violation and the Percentage That Is Tax-Related.\n\n\n 4000 100%\n\n\n\n\n 8\n 45\n 7\n 33\n 90%\n\n\n\n\n 3,\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 3500\n\n\n\n\n 14\n 3,\n 9\n 5\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 72\n 70\n\n\n\n\n 3,\n 62\n 3000 80%\n\n\n\n\n 2,\n 2,\n\n\n 75.9% 74.9% 75.9%\n\n\n 2,\n 70.1% 73.7%\n 69.7% 70%\n 2500\n 60%\n 2000\n 50%\n 7\n\n\n\n\n 7\n 0\n\n\n\n\n 8\n 17\n\n\n\n\n 15\n 12\n\n\n\n\n 05\n 1500\n\n\n\n\n 6\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 1, 40%\n\n\n\n\n 99\n 1,\n 97\n 1000 30%\n 500 20%\n 0 10%\n FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04\n\n Tax-Related Nontax-Related % Tax-Related\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s BPR reports and analysis of the CIMIS.\n Figure 13: Number of Open Subject Investigations Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy\n Program and the Percentage That Is Legal Source Tax Crimes.\n\n 2 0\n 2500\n 10 17 0 80%\n 8\n 2, 2, 05\n 96 9 2,\n 1, 83 1 5 78\n 3 70%\n 2000 1, 68 69 1, 4\n 1, 2 1, 54 60%\n 50.7% 40 1,\n 1500 1 49.1% 1, 47.8% 49.6% 50%\n 5 11 45.4% 47.0%\n 00 9 1,\n 1, 40%\n 90 9\n 1000 79 9 2 30%\n 61 59\n 8 66 2\n 54\n 20%\n 500\n 10%\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Legal Illegal Narcotics % Legal\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s BPR reports and analysis of the CIMIS.\n\n\n\n\n Page 27\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 14: Number of Open Subject Investigations at the End of Each Fiscal Year by Type of\n Investigation: Grand Jury or Nongrand Jury Investigation.\n\n\n 3500\n 3000 2,863\n 2500 2,634 2,566\n 2,472 2,377 2,334\n 2000\n 1,761 1,751\n 1500 1,570\n 1,409 1,371 1,367\n 1000\n 500\n 0\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Grand Jury Nongrand Jury\n\n Source: CIMIS Report 11, Program Summary Analysis.\n\n\n\n\n Page 28\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 15: Number of Subject Investigations Discontinued or Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal\n Year and the Percentage Referred for Prosecution.\n\n 0 7\n 3500 12 03\n 100%\n 3, 3, 90%\n 3000 5 1\n 43\n 4\n 33 54\n 73.2%\n 2, 2, 3 2, 80%\n 13\n 2500 69.6% 69.9% 2, 67.5% 69.2% 70%\n 66.6%\n 2000 60%\n 50 50%\n 43 25 1,3\n 1500\n 1,1 65 05 68 1,2 40%\n 1,0 1,0 1,0\n 1000 30%\n 20%\n 500\n 10%\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Discontinued Referred for Prosecution % Referred for Prosecution\n\n Source: IRS Data Book, Publication 55B.\n Figure 16: Average Elapsed Days of Subject Investigations Discontinued and Referred for\n Prosecution Each Fiscal Year.\n\n\n 550\n 500 506\n 483.5 491\n 450 460.8\n 420.5 427.5\n 413.2\n 400\n 383.8\n 362.4 367.5\n 350\n 307.9 315.7\n 300\n 250\n 200\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Discontinued Prosecution Recommendations\n\n Source: The CIMIS Report 11, Program Summary Analysis.\n\n\n\n\n Page 29\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 17: Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year for a\n Tax-Related or Nontax-Related Violation and the Percentage That Is Tax-Related.\n\n\n 2000 61 100%\n 1,7 3\n 1800 90%\n 64 1,57\n 9 89 9 4\n 1600\n 35 26 35 1, 80%\n 1, 1,3 1,\n 1400 1,3 82 70%\n 5 9 9 04 1,1\n 1200 1,\n 04 00 02 1,1 60%\n 1, 1,\n 53.5%\n 1000 48.2% 48.2% 50%\n 43.6% 42.9% 43.2%\n 800 40%\n 600 30%\n 400 20%\n 200 10%\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Tax-Related Nontax-Related % Tax-Related\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s BPR reports and analysis of the CIMIS.\n Figure 18: Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year by\n Compliance Strategy Program and the Percentage That Is Legal Source Tax Crimes.\n\n 1400 100%\n\n\n\n\n 9\n 28\n 1\n\n\n\n\n 90%\n\n\n\n 1,\n 16\n\n\n\n\n 1200\n 4\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 03\n\n 80%\n 1,\n 1\n 8\n\n\n\n\n 3\n 97\n 98\n\n\n\n\n 95\n 6\n\n\n\n\n 9\n 1000\n 92\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\n\n\n\n 9\n 70%\n\n\n 87\n 86\n\n\n\n\n 86\n 7\n\n\n\n\n 3\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 84\n\n\n\n\n 82\n 79\n\n\n\n\n 60%\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\n\n\n\n 800\n 70\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 68\n 65\n 0\n\n\n\n\n 50%\n 61\n 5\n 53\n\n\n\n\n 600 40%\n 31.3% 32.4%\n 400 29.1% 28.6% 28.6% 30%\n 22.9% 20%\n 200\n 10%\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Legal Sourc e Illegal Source Narcotic s-Related % Legal Source\n\n Source: IRS Data Book, Publication 55B, for FYs 2000 through 2004. The numbers of Illegal Source\n Financial Crimes and Legal Source Tax Crimes were not published for FY 1999. FY 1999 numbers were\n obtained from the CI function based on its analysis of the CIMIS.\n\n\n\n\n Page 30\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\n Figure 19: Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year by Principle\n United States Code Title.\n\n\n 2500\n\n 2000 1,988 1,922\n 1,573 1,539 1,594\n 1500\n 1,289\n 1000 1,068 1,002\n 794 876\n 728 772\n 500\n\n 64 67 68 72 71 113\n 0\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Title 18 Title 26 Title 31\n\n Source: The CIMIS Report 11, Program Summary Analysis.\n Figure 20: Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year by Type of\n Investigation: Grand Jury or Nongrand Jury Investigation.\n\n\n 3000\n\n 2500 2,507 2,449\n 2000 1,990 1,955 2,051\n 1,700\n 1500\n\n 1000\n 613 588\n 500 444 433 490\n 380\n 0\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Grand Jury Nongrand Jury\n\n Source: The CIMIS Report 11, Program Summary Analysis.\n\n\n\n\n Page 31\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 21: Number of Tax-Related and Nontax-Related Subject Investigations in the Pipeline Each\n Fiscal Year and the Percentage That Is Tax-Related.\n\n\n\n 9\n 24\n 2500 100%\n\n\n\n\n 4\n 2,\n\n\n\n\n 05\n 7\n 90%\n\n\n\n\n 92\n\n\n\n\n 2,\n 0\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 79\n 2000 80%\n 0\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 9\n 1,\n 7\n 59\n\n\n\n\n 56\n\n\n\n\n 56\n 54\n\n\n\n\n 6\n 3\n 70%\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 48\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 37\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 4\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 27\n 25\n 1,\n 1500 60%\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 1,\n 58.6% 58.5% 56.7% 50%\n 55.5%\n 1000 53.2% 54.2% 40%\n 30%\n 500 20%\n 10%\n 0 0%\n FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04\n\n Tax-Related Nontax-Related % Tax-Related\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s BPR reports and analysis of the CIMIS.\n Figure 22: Number of Subject Investigations in the Pipeline Each Fiscal Year by Compliance\n Strategy Program and the Percentage That Is Legal Source Tax Crimes.\n\n\n 1750 80%\n 6\n 56\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 47\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\n\n\n\n 70%\n\n\n\n 1,\n 1500\n 27\n 0\n\n\n\n\n 9\n 22\n\n\n\n\n 20\n 5\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 70\n 1\n 14\n\n\n\n\n 8\n 10\n\n\n\n\n 60%\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 07\n\n 1\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 1250\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 2\n\n\n 1,\n 05\n\n\n\n\n 02\n\n\n 1,\n 05\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\n\n\n\n 50%\n 9\n\n\n\n\n 4\n 1,\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 7\n 91\n\n\n 91\n\n\n\n\n 94\n 0\n\n\n\n\n 1000\n 86\n\n\n\n\n 3\n 85\n\n\n\n\n 81\n\n\n\n\n 40%\n 750 40.8% 36.8% 35.2% 33.4% 30%\n 500 31.2% 31.6%\n 20%\n 250 10%\n 0 0%\n FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04\n\n Legal Illegal Narcotics % Legal\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s BPR reports and analysis of the CIMIS.\n\n\n\n\n Page 32\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 23: Number of Subjects Convicted of and Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year.\n\n 2800\n 2,713\n 2600\n 2,619 2,475\n 2400\n 2,249 2,251\n 2200 2,201\n 2,238\n 2000 2,008\n 1,926 1,824\n 1800 1,777\n 1600 1,768\n 1400\n 1200\n 1000\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Convictions Sentenced\n\n Source: IRS Data Book, Publication 55B.\n Figure 24: Number of Subjects Convicted of a Crime Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy\n Program and the Percentage That Is Legal Source Tax Crimes.\n 4\n\n\n\n\n 1200 100%\n 03\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 90%\n 7\n 93\n\n\n\n\n 1000 6\n 86\n\n\n\n\n 7\n 80%\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 83\n 8\n 5\n 81\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 6\n\n\n\n\n 78\n 78\n\n\n\n\n 76\n\n\n\n\n 8\n 76\n 75\n\n\n\n\n 800 70 70%\n 6\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\n\n\n\n 3\n 60%\n 5\n 61\n\n\n\n\n 8 57\n\n\n\n 59\n 58\n\n 54 2\n 600 52 479 50%\n 40%\n 400 31.9% 31.5%\n 27.1% 26.3% 28.8% 30%\n 24.3%\n 200 20%\n 10%\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Legal Source Illegal Source Narcotics-Related % Legal Source\n\n Source: IRS Data Books, Publication 55B, for FYs 2000 through 2004. The numbers of Illegal Source\n Financial Crimes and Legal Source Tax Crimes were not published for FY 1999. FY 1999 numbers were\n obtained from the CI function based on its analysis of the CIMIS.\n\n\n\n\n Page 33\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 25: Number of Subject Investigations Initiated, Referred for Prosecution, Indicted, and\n Convicted Each Fiscal Year. Since actions on a specific case may cross fiscal years, the data shown in\n investigations initiated may not always represent the same universe of cases shown in other actions within\n the same fiscal year.\n\n\n 4100\n 3,952 4,001 3,917\n 3,906\n 3800\n 3500\n 3,372 3,284\n 3200 3,120\n 2,952 3,037\n 2900\n 2,713\n 2600 2,469 2,335 2,541 2,489\n 2300 2,434 2,292 2,133\n 2,249 2,251 1,926 2,128\n 2000 2,008\n 1,924 1,824\n 1700\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Investigations Initiated Referred for Prosecution Indictments Convictions\n\n Source: IRS Data Book, Publication 55B.\n Figure 26: Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year for a Tax-Related or\n Nontax-Related Violation and the Percentage That Is Tax-Related.\n\n\n 1600 100%\n 2\n\n\n\n\n 2\n 1\n 45\n\n\n\n\n 33\n 34\n\n\n\n\n 90%\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 1,\n 7\n\n\n\n\n 1400\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 8\n 4\n 16\n\n\n\n\n 17\n 13\n\n\n\n\n 80%\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 3\n 1,\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 02\n\n\n\n\n 1200\n 70%\n 1,\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\n\n\n 2\n 6\n\n\n\n\n 93\n\n\n\n\n 92\n 90\n\n\n\n\n 5\n 5\n\n\n\n\n 1000\n 85\n 60%\n 83\n\n\n\n\n 800 45.8% 46.5% 47.2% 48.1% 50%\n 44.6%\n 600 40.5% 40%\n 30%\n 400\n 20%\n 200 10%\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Tax-Related Nontax-Related % Tax-Related\n\n Source: CI function enforcement statistics derived from the IRS Internet web site.\n\n\n\n\n Page 34\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 27: Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy\n Program and the Percentage That Is Legal Source Tax Crimes.\n\n 1000 100%\n\n\n\n 8\n 92\n 0\n\n\n\n\n 8\n 89\n\n\n\n\n 88\n 9\n 85\n 6\n 90%\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 9\n\n\n 84\n\n\n\n\n 83\n 0\n 81\n 1\n\n\n\n\n 81\n 80\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 800 80%\n\n\n\n\n 75\n 6\n 1\n\n\n\n 72\n 72\n 70%\n\n\n\n\n 2\n 59\n\n\n\n\n 8\n 56\n 8\n 600 60%\n\n\n\n\n 54\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 7\n\n 52\n 50\n 4\n 47\n 50%\n\n 400 40%\n 34.0% 33.1%\n 26.9% 26.8% 28.5% 30%\n 24.5%\n 200 20%\n\n 10%\n\n 0 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Legal Sourc e Illegal Source Narcotic s-Related % Legal Source\n\n Source: IRS Data Books, Publication 55B, for FYs 2000 through 2004. The numbers of Illegal Source\n Financial Crimes and Legal Source Tax Crimes were not published for FY 1999. FY 1999 numbers were\n obtained from the CI function based on its analysis of the CIMIS.\n Figure 28: Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year by Principle United States\n Code Title.\n\n\n 1600\n 1400 1,412\n 1,342 1,324\n 1200 1,236\n 1000 1,018 1,040\n 911 868\n 800 769\n 666\n 600 594 573\n 400\n 296 265 248\n 200 196 156 164\n 0\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Title 18 Title 26 Title 31\n\n Source: CIMIS Report 11, Program Summary Analysis. Title 31 also includes other statutes.\n\n\n\n\n Page 35\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Figure 29: Average Number of Months a Subject Is Incarcerated Each Fiscal Year by Compliance\n Strategy Program. Incarcerated may include prison time, home confinement, electronic monitoring, or a\n combination thereof.\n\n\n 90\n 79 81\n 74 76 77\n 80 72\n 70\n 60\n 50\n 40\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\n\n\n\n 32\n 31\n 30\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\n 30\n\n\n\n\n 18\n 16\n 15\n\n\n\n\n 15\n 20\n 13\n 12\n\n\n\n\n 10\n 0\n FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04\n\n Legal Source Illegal Source Narcotics-Related\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s analysis of the CIMIS.\n Figure 30: Percentage of Investigations That Received Publicity Each Fiscal Year by Compliance\n Strategy Program.\n\n 100%\n 90%\n\n %\n\n\n\n\n %\n %\n\n\n\n\n .7\n\n\n\n\n .1\n 0%\n .1\n\n\n\n\n 77\n\n\n\n\n 78\n %\n\n\n\n\n %\n 80%\n\n\n\n .\n 76\n\n\n\n\n 71\n .7\n\n\n\n\n .9\n %\n 69\n\n\n\n\n 67\n %\n\n\n\n\n %\n\n\n\n .8\n %\n\n\n\n\n 70%\n %\n\n\n\n\n .5\n\n\n\n\n .5\n\n\n\n 62\n\n\n\n\n 0%\n %\n .0\n\n\n\n\n 59\n\n\n\n\n 64\n .1\n\n\n\n\n %\n\n\n\n\n %\n 58\n\n\n\n\n .6\n 58\n\n\n\n %\n\n\n\n\n .0\n\n\n\n\n .8\n .\n 57\n\n\n\n\n 60%\n 54\n\n\n\n\n %\n %\n\n\n\n\n 56\n\n\n\n\n 55\n .6\n\n\n\n\n .1\n .1\n 49\n\n\n\n\n 48\n 49\n\n\n\n\n 50%\n 40%\n 30%\n 20%\n 10%\n 0%\n FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04\n\n Legal Sourc e Illegal Sourc e Narcotics -Related\n\n Source: The CI function\xe2\x80\x99s analysis of the CIMIS.\n\n\n\n\n Page 36\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Appendix VI\n\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Discussion Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 37\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\n\n\n Page 38\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\n\n\n Page 39\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\n\n\n Page 40\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\n\n\n Page 41\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\n\n\n Page 42\n\x0cStatistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\n\n\n Page 43\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n Appendix VII\n\n\n Office of Audit Comments on Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response\nAlthough Criminal Investigation function management generally agreed with the contents of this\nreport, they provided additional and/or clarifying information. We have taken this information\ninto consideration in revising the report and, where appropriate, have included portions of\nmanagement\xe2\x80\x99s response and our related comments below to identify the revisions.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Cover Memo, Page 2, first full paragraph and Draft Report, page 5, last paragraph.\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response:\nThe proposed budget increase for FY 2006, $85.4 million, does not actually increase CI\nresources by 12.5 percent. Sixty-five percent of this increase is a $55.6 million transfer (rounded\nin the draft report to $56 million) from the Department of Justice. However, this transfer\nrepresents a change in the funding source of an existing budgetary item, not additional resources.\nThe remaining $29.8 million includes $19 million to cover anticipated increases in costs of labor,\netc. and $10.8 million to fund 22 new positions and provide additional database research\ncapabilities to investigate additional fraudulent refund claims. Therefore, the resource increase\nprovided for CI programs by the FY 2006 budget proposal is 1.5 percent ($10.8 million).\nOffice of Audit Comment: Report clarified by deleting reference to percentage increase in\nFY 2006 budget.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Cover Memo Page 2, last paragraph (continuing on page 3)\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cFurther, the total number of tax and tax-related investigations initiated during FY 2004\ndeclined by 12.3 percent. This occurred primarily because there was an 11.8 percent decline\nin legal source investigations initiated, while illegal source investigations initiated remained\nthe same.\xe2\x80\x9d\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response:\nCriminal Investigation\xe2\x80\x99s case initiation rate trended downward in FY 2004, largely due to an\nincreased focus on completing open investigations and reducing cycle time.\nOffice of Audit Comment: Second statement removed from the transmittal (cover memo) to be\nconsistent with the text in the report.\n\n\n\n\n Page 44\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Draft Report Page 4, next to last paragraph\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response:\n\nThe FY 2005 Congressional Justification approved 350 new special agent (SA) hires and CI\nplanned attrition hiring of 68 additional SAs. However, the final funding levels only supported\n216 hires. Therefore, CI currently projects a net increase of 48 SA positions for FY 2005. Even\nwith the slight reduction in SA levels over time, the current total inventory per SA (8.3) remains\nat the highest level since FY 2001.\nOffice of Audit Comment: Report changed to reflect current staffing projection.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Draft Report Page 5, last full paragraph\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response:\nCriminal Investigation continually monitors narcotics related funding levels and makes\nadjustments to the narcotics program guidance to ensure resource utilization is consistent with\nfunding levels. As a result, CI reduced the narcotics DIT range to 9 \xe2\x80\x93 11 percent in the first\nquarter of FY 2005, to remain aligned with the reimbursement level.\nThe statement that CI \xe2\x80\x9cplans to complete 11 percent fewer investigations in FY 2005\xe2\x80\x9d is based\non initial projections of 3,895 completed investigations. Based on early FY 2005 results, and to\ncreate ambitious performance goals for the organization, CI increased the projection by 12.5\npercent to 4,380. The revised goal is slightly below actual FY 2004 completions of 4,387, which\nrepresented a 4-year high. Criminal Investigation anticipates meeting or exceeding the current\nprojection, having already achieved over 50 percent of the revised FY 2005 goal.\nOffice of Audit Comment: Report clarified to recognize the revised narcotics DIT range and the\nrevised goal for completed investigations.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Draft Report Page 6, first full paragraph\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response:\n\nThe numbers presented on page eight of the draft report reflect CI\xe2\x80\x99s average elapsed time is\nactually 367.5 days, not two years.\nOffice of Audit Comment: Report clarified by adding information to footnote 18.\n\n\n\n\n Page 45\n\x0c Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function\xe2\x80\x99s Enforcement Activities\n From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Draft Report Figure 9\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response:\nThe percentage of fraud referrals accepted for FY 1999 was 45.4 percent, versus the 44.3 percent\nreflected in the chart.\nOffice of Audit Comment: Report revised to reflect correct percentage.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Draft Report Figure 14\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response:\nThe correct number of non-grand jury subject investigations open at the end of FY 2000 was\n1,371, not 1,374 as depicted in the chart.\nOffice of Audit Comment: Report revised to reflect correct figure.\n\n\n\n\n Page 46\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 29.10.2005
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 271/4
 ROZSUDEK SOUDNÍHO DVORA
 (velkého senátu)
 ze dne 5. července 2005
 ve věci C-376/03 (žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch): D. proti Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (1)
 (Daňové právní předpisy - Daň z majetku - Nárok na snížení základu daně - Odlišné zacházení s rezidenty a nerezidenty - Smlouva o zamezení dvojího zdanění)
 (2005/C 271/08)
 Jednací jazyk: nizozemština
 Ve věci C-376/03, jejímž předmětem je žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce na základě článku 234 ES, podaná rozhodnutím Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch (Nizozemsko) ze dne 24. července 2003, došlým Soudnímu dvoru dne 8. září 2003, v řízení D. proti Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen, Soudní dvůr (velký senát), ve složení V. Skouris, předseda, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas a A. Borg Barthet, předsedové senátů, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (zpravodaj), M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, J. Klučka a U. Lõhmus, soudci, generální advokát: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, vedoucí soudní kanceláře: M.-F. Contet, vrchní rada, vydal dne 5. července 2005 rozsudek, jehož výrok je následující:
 1)
 Články 56 ES a 58 ES nebrání právní úpravě, kterou členský stát nepřiznává poplatníkům nerezidentům, kteří drží podstatnou část svého majetku ve státě svého bydliště, možnost snížení základu daně, které je přiznáno poplatníkům rezidentům.
 2)
 Články 56 ES a 58 ES nebrání tomu, aby pravidlo stanovené v bilaterální smlouvě o zamezení dvojího zdanění, jako je pravidlo dotčené v původním řízení, nebylo v situaci a za podmínek v původním řízení rozšířeno na rezidenta členského státu, který není smluvní stranou uvedené smlouvy.
 (1) Úř. věst. C 289, 29.11.2003.


text:
 25.10.2008
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 272/10
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Holandsko) 21. júla 2008 – X Holding BV/Staatssecretaris van Financiën
 (Vec C-337/08)
 (2008/C 272/15)
 Jazyk konania: holandčina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Navrhovateľka v konaní o odvolaní: X Holding BV
 Ďalší účastník konania: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
 Prejudiciálna otázka
 Má sa článok 43 ES v spojení s článkom 48 ES vykladať v tom zmysle, že bráni tomu, aby vnútroštátna právna úprava členského štátu,... podľa ktorej si materská spoločnosť a jej dcérska spoločnosť môžu zvoliť, že daň za obe tieto spoločnosti zaplatí materská spoločnosť usadená v tomto členskom štáte, ako keby išlo o jedinú zdaniteľnú osobu, vyhradzovala túto voľbu iba spoločnostiam, ktoré na účely zdanenia svojich ziskov spadajú do daňovej právomoci predmetného členského štátu?


type: other

text:
Skatteverkets rättsfallssammanställning 10/99 | FAR Online
 RR:s dom den 26 februari 1999, målnr 3162-1998. Fråga om skattefrihet för utdelning från dotterbolag enligt skatteavtalet med Schweiz
 KR:s i Jönköping dom den 19 mars 1999, målnr 2625-1996. Fråga om en ideell förening är begränsad skattskyldig enligt 7 § 5 mom. 4 st lagen (1947:576) om statlig inkomstskatt
 Skatteverkets rättsfallssammanställning 10/99
 Ärende behandlat vid Riksskatteverkets rättsfallsseminarium den 30 mars 1999.
 X AB är moderbolag i en koncern som bedriver verksamhet främst genom dotterbolag i och utanför Sverige. Dotterbolagen har emellanåt behov av att lånefinansiera sin verksamhet och koncernen har därför byggt upp en central finansfunktion i en schweizisk filial till ett holländskt bolag. På grund av ändrade skatteregler i Nederländerna överväger moderbolaget att låta bolagisera verksamheten i Schweiz och föra över ägandet till Sverige alternativt etablera ett nytt helägt dotterbolag i Schweiz.
 X AB önskar få besked om verksamheten i det tilltänkta finansbolaget utgör sådan förvaltning av värdepapper eller därmed likartad lös egendom som avses i artikel 25 § 5 i skatteavtalet med Schweiz.
 SRN svarade ja på frågan i ett förhandsbesked meddelat den 3 april 1998 och ansåg att utdelning från det planerade finansbolaget inte är skattefri för det svenska moderbolaget.
 Sökanden har den 29 april 1998 överklagat förhandsbeskedet. RR ändrade i dom den 26 februari 1999 nämndens besked och förklarade att den i ansökan beskrivna verksamheten inte kan anses utgöra förvaltning av värdepapper eller annan därmed likartad lös egendom i avtalets mening.
 RR:s dom är kortfattad och det är svårt att avgöra när en verksamhet ska anses utgöra förvaltning av värdepapper. Frågan kan möjligen klargöras ytterligare genom en ny ansökan om förhandsbesked där ett omsökt moderföretag avser att genomföra en omstrukturering av företag i Schweiz. Fråga är bland annat huruvida lämnad utdelning blir skattefri för sökanden.
 Överklagande av föreningen.
 Föreningen har åsatts taxering för i deklarationen redovisad nettointäkt av rörelse med 53 771 kr.
 Föreningen har anfört besvär mot taxeringsbeslutet och yrkat att den skall anses vara en allmännyttig ideell förening samt att all verksamhet som den bedriver bedöms som allmännyttig och därmed skattefri.
 Länsrätten avslog besvären och anförde bland annat.
 Föreningen är en intresseförening för husvagns- och husbilsägare. Föreningen är ansluten till riksorganisationen, som har 17 lokalföreningar. Föreningens syfte är att personer med samma intresse, husvagnar och campmobiler, skall kunna umgås och utbyta erfarenheter samt att hela familjer skall kunna delta. Enligt de stadgar för riksorganisationen, som gällde det nu aktuella inkomståret, är föreningens syfte bl.a. att
 – främja användande av husvagn eller motsvarande för aktiv fritid och nytta
 – verka för god medlemsvård och goda relationer med föreningens omvärld
 – som remissinstans tillvarata medlemmars intressen, varvid speciellt trafiksäkerhetsfrågor och utformning av campingplatser skall beaktas
 – genom utbildning och träning göra medlemmarna till ett föredöme i trafiken.
 Föreningen, som är religiöst och politiskt neutral, driver en campingplats, dit endast medlemmar har tillträde, samt en campingplats, dit även allmänheten har tillträde. Skötsel av campingplatserna ombesörjs av campingvärdar, vilka är föreningsmedlemmar. Ersättning för utfört arbete utgår ej. Medlemmar verkar även som parkeringsvakter vid husvagnsutställningen på Elmia i Jönköping en gång om året. För detta erhåller föreningen viss procent av parkeringsavgifterna. Föreningen bekostar mat och dryck för parkeringsvakterna. Under 1990 har föreningen varit arrangör för det nordiska medlemsmötet, vilket var förlagt till Karlsborg. Till detta möte har föreningen engagerat bl.a. musiker, discjockeys och trollerikonstnärer. Övriga aktiviteter i föreningens regi har varit fisketävlingar, flugbindning, boulemästerskap, boccia, varpa, gemensam städning och upprustning av campingplatserna, diverse samkväm med mat etc vid årets högtider samt arrangerande av grisfester. Härutöver har barn- och ungdomsaktiviteter anordnats. Dessa har inte varit av den art och sådant omfång att föreningen sökt lokalt aktivitetsstöd för denna del av verksamheten.
 Föreningen har anfört bl.a. följande: Den är definitivt inte någon intresseförening. Den har granskats av Lotterinämnden och efter överklagande av nämndens beslut, av Civildepartementet bedömts som allmännyttig. Överskottet av verksamheten beror på ideellt arbete. Av medlemmarna i föreningen är cirka tio icke husvagnsägare. Föreningen förlorar medlemmar därför att man har ett starkt krav på att medlemmarna skall ställa upp i olika aktiviteter. Campingverksamheten har enligt bokslutet en stor tyngd men i verkligheten förekommer en mängd aktiviteter, som inte kommer fram i något bokslut. Det är campingverksamheten som visar sig i räkenskaperna.
 Skattemyndigheten har förklarat sig inte bestrida att social verksamhet eller andra aktiviteter av allmännyttig karaktär förekommer men hävdat att dessa dock är av ganska liten omfattning. Myndigheten har vidare anfört följande: Vad som enligt räkenskaperna föreningen lagt ned på dess aktiviteter är mycket blygsamma belopp. Föreningens huvudsyfte är att främja användandet av husvagn och att driva camping i kommersiella former. Campingverksamheten har gett ett ganska stort överskott, dom dock inte använts till att bestrida verksamheter av allmännyttig karaktär. Den är inte någon hävdvunnen finansieringskälla och den har ej naturlig anknytning till det allmännyttiga ändamålet. 85 procent av verksamhetsvolymen ligger utanför vad som kan anses som allmännyttigt. Det rör sig om affärsmässigt drivna campingplatser. Enligt utförd sammanställning utvisar även de allmännyttiga aktiviteterna överskott både för åren 1990, 1991 och 1992 med icke obetydliga belopp.
 Ideella föreningar som uppfyller i 7 § 5 mom. SIL fjärde stycket angivna villkor är frikallade från skattskyldighet för all annan inkomst än inkomst av fastighet och rörelse. Sådan skattebefrielse inträder om
 a) föreningen har till huvudsakligt syfte att främja vissa allmännyttiga ändamål utan begränsning till bestämda personers ekonomiska intressen,
 b) föreningen i sin verksamhet uteslutande eller så gott som uteslutande tillgodoser sådana ändamål som angivits ovan,
 c) föreningen inte utan att särskilda skäl motiverar det vägrar någon inträde som medlem samt
 d) föreningen bedriver en verksamhet som skäligen svarar mot avkastningen av föreningens tillgångar.
 Det i stadgarna angivna syftet har såvitt avser föreningen fullföljts dels genom att föreningen drivit två campingplatser och dels genom andra aktiviteter. Föreningens räkenskaper upptar separat redovisning för varje aktivitet. Av campingplatserna har den ena varit tillgänglig enbart för medlemmar. Båda campingplatserna har varit avgiftsbelagda med differentierad avgift för medlemmar och icke medlemmar. Denna verksamhet får anses ha drivits under affärsmässiga former och kan inte bedömas som allmännyttig. Såvitt framgår av det räkenskapsmaterial som företetts för länsrätten har samtliga aktiviteter givit överskott. Detta har förklarats med att allt funktionärsarbete varit oavlönat. Även med beaktande härav kvarstår likväl förhållandet att överskottet från de under affärsmässiga former drivna campingplatserna inte behövt tagas – och såvitt visats heller inte tagits – i anspråk för att finansiera den övriga verksamheten, som uppenbarligen har annan karaktär. Av det sagda framgår inte klart att verksamheten bedrivits på ett sätt som skäligen svarar mot avkastningen av sektionens tillgångar. På grund av omfattningen av campingverksamheten och med hänvisning till det ovan sagda finner länsrätten inte visat att föreningen i sin verksamhet uteslutande eller så gott som uteslutande tillgodosett sådana ändamål som medför att skattebefrielse enligt 7 § 5 mom. lagen om statlig inkomstskatt skall kunna medges. Överklagande skall därför lämnas utan bifall och åsatta taxeringar lämnas utan ändring.
 Föreningen överklagade länsrättens dom till Kammarrätten i Jönköping, som avslog överklagandet och anförde bland annat.
 Frågan i målet är om föreningen uppfyller de krav som anges i 7 § 5 mom. 4 st. lagen (1947:576) om statlig inkomstskatt (SIL) och således kan anses begränsat skattskyldig. En sådan förening är frikallad från skattskyldighet för bl.a. inkomst av rörelse som till huvudsaklig del härrör från verksamhet som har naturlig anknytning till föreningens allmännyttiga ändamål eller av hävd utnyttjas som finansieringskälla för ideellt arbete. Övriga inkomster av rörelse utgör således i sin helhet skattepliktig inkomst för föreningen (7 § 5 mom. SIL).
 Vad gäller frågan om den bedrivna verksamheten med campingplatser är att anse som rörelse gör kammarrätten följande bedömning. För att rörelse skall föreligga krävs att verksamheten är yrkesmässigt bedriven. Detta innebär att verksamheten betingas av varaktighet, självständighet och i regel också av vinstsyfte. I fråga om juridiska personers verksamhet gäller dock enligt praxis att avsaknaden av ett vinstsyfte inte behöver hindra att verksamheten betraktas som rörelse, förutsatt att den inte har en alltför begränsad omfattning. Verksamheten skall bedrivas på kommersiell basis, vilket innebär att den avser tillhandahållande av varor och tjänster på en inte alltför begränsad marknad (jfr. RÅ 1998 ref. 10 och Skattenytt 1997 s. 321). Vad beträffar den i målet aktuella campingverksamheten framgår att den bedrevs stadigvarande, att den riktade sig både mot föreningens medlemmar och mot allmänheten, att den finansierades med avgifter från campinggästerna och att den för aktuellt beskattningsår hade en omsättning om 545 410 kr. Med hänsyn till dessa omständigheter finner kammarrätten att verksamheten är att bedöma som rörelse. Verksamhetens överskott är således en sådan inkomst som föreningen i princip skall beskattas för.
 Beträffande frågan om föreningen är att anse som en sådan förening som är begränsat skattskyldig enligt 7 § 5 mom. 4 st. SIL görs följande bedömning.
 I förarbetena till aktuella bestämmelser om begränsad skattskyldighet anförs bland annat följande. Verksamhet som från allmän synpunkt är värd att stödja kan omfattas av befrielsen. Frågan om ändamålet kan inte bedömas enbart med hänsyn till stadgarnas innehåll. En mer generell bedömning erfordas mot bakgrund av föreningens allmänna karaktär och inriktning (SkU 1976/77:45 s. 28). Innebörden av begreppet idrott ansågs vara i behov av klarläggande. Till idrott sades numera allmänt räknas även gymnastik, sport, skytte och friluftsliv. En skytteklubb, båtklubb eller en ridklubb borde således yrkesmässigt kunna behandlas på samma sätt som t.ex. en friidrottsklubb (prop. 1976/77:135 s. 75). Som en förutsättning för den förmånligare skattebehandlingen gäller dock att den faktiskt bedrivna verksamheten står i överensstämmelse med innehållet i stadgarna. Detta uttrycks så att föreningen i sin verksamhet uteslutande eller så gott som uteslutande skall tillgodose ändamål som uppfyller kraven på allmännytta.
 I länsrättens dom har relevanta avsnitt av föreningens stadgar avseende verksamhetens inriktning återgivits. Härutöver anges i stadgarna även att det till medlemmarnas förfogande skall finnas lägerplatser över hela landet där träffar och andra meningsfyllda aktiviteter anordnas. Även den faktiskt bedrivna verksamheten har beskrivits i länsrättens dom. Härutöver framgår av revisionspromemoria den 15 december 1992 att föreningen anordnar manöverkörningar med husvagn ca fyra gånger per år varvid ca 10 – 13 personer av föreningens 468 medlemsfamiljer deltar vid varje tillfälle. Vidare har föreningen enligt uppgift hållit en sjukvårdskurs vid vardera campingplatsen.
 Föreningen gör gällande att den främjar flera allmännyttiga ändamål, såsom att engagera människor till ett ökat friluftsliv, en aktivare fritid, idrottsinslag och en större social gemenskap. Föreningen bedriver även trafiksäkerhetsarbete genom t.ex. utbildning. Till styrkande av omfattningen av sina aktiviteter har föreningen åberopat aktivitetslista med förslag på kurser och aktiviteter. Föreningen har enligt stadgarna vissa ändamål som skulle kunna bedömas som allmännyttiga-t.ex. utbildning och även främjande av god medlemsvård, vilket torde kunna hänföras till ett socialt ändamål. Såvitt framgår av utredningen i målet är emellertid den huvudsakliga verksamheten inriktad på drivandet av de två campingplatserna. Frågan är då om detta kan anses vara ett sådant allmännyttigt ändamål som anges i 7 § 5 mom. 4 st. SIL. Närmast till hands ligger att denna verksamhet skulle anses främja idrottsliga ändamål genom att camping skulle utgöra friluftsliv. En så vidsträckt innebörd anser dock kammarrätten att begreppet friluftsliv inte har. Inte heller kan den bedrivna verksamheten anses utgöra ett led i fullgörandet av något föreningens allmännyttiga ändamål. Kammarrätten finner därför att det inte är visat att föreningen i sin verksamhet uteslutande eller så gott som uteslutande tillgodoser allmännyttiga ändamål. Den kan sålunda inte anses vara begränsat skattskyldig i enlighet med bestämmelserna i 7 § 5 mom. SIL. Överklagandet kan därför inte bifallas.
 Saken: Fråga om avdrag får göras för skatt på drycker som har utförts ur landet av annan än den skattskyldige själv eller för annans räkning.RR:s målnr 5037-1997.
 Lagrum: 13 § första stycket i lagen (1977:306) om dryckesskatt (jfr 32 § första stycket d) lagen (1994:1564) om alkoholskatt).
 Saken: Fråga om beslut om särskild avgift enligt 10 kap. 5 § lagen (1994:1776) om skatt på energi gäller utan hinder av överklagande och beslut om inhibition till följd därav kan meddelas. RR:s målnr 6589-1998.
 Lagrum: 28 § förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291).
 Saken: Fråga om skyldighet för konkursbo att betala arbetsgivaravgifter på ersättning som i form av utdelning betalats enligt en skiljedom till en tidigare anställd hos konkursgäldenären. RR:s målnr: 546-1998 och 6161-1998.
 Lagrum: 1 kap. 2 § och 2 kap. 3 § lagen 81981:691) om socialavgifter; 3 kap. 2 § lagen 81962:381) om allmän försäkring.