jurisdiction: US

text: b'TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n Actions Are Needed to Strengthen\n the National Quality Review System\n for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n September 20, 2013\n\n Reference Number: 2013-30-099\n\n\n\n\n This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process\n and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.\n\n\n\n Phone Number | 202-622-6500\n E-mail Address | TIGTACommunications@tigta.treas.gov\n Website | http://www.treasury.gov/tigta\n\x0c HIGHLIGHTS\n\n\nACTIONS ARE NEEDED TO given to significant issues, contain key\nSTRENGTHEN THE NATIONAL requirements not evaluated under the NQRS.\nQUALITY REVIEW SYSTEM FOR This can create inconsistencies in how\nCORRESPONDENCE AUDITS examiners conduct audits and in how the NQRS\n evaluates the quality of those audits to identify\n errors.\nHighlights For example, TIGTA evaluated a statistical\n sample of 127 of 2,913 correspondence audits\nFinal Report issued on September that had been reviewed by the NQRS during an\n20, 2013 18-month period and found errors with penalty\n determinations in 65 of the audits (51 percent)\nHighlights of Reference Number: 2013-30-099 that had not been detected and reported by\nto the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner NQRS quality reviewers.\nfor the Small Business/Self-Employed Division.\n IRS executives and stakeholders should be\nIMPACT ON TAXPAYERS provided with a more comprehensive snapshot\n of audit quality so that needed corrective actions\nAn audit is one of the primary enforcement tools can be timely recognized and taken. Only one\nthe IRS uses to address noncompliance with the overall measure of audit quality is currently\ntax laws. Because problems with reported quarterly by the NQRS to IRS\ncorrespondence audits are not always executives and other key stakeholders even\nrecognized and reported, the IRS may be though as many as 71 items are reviewed.\nmissing opportunities to reduce the\nnoncompliance that contributes to the Tax Gap Finally, the random selection of audits for\nand promote tax system fairness among the NQRS review could not be verified. As such,\ntax-paying public. TIGTA was not able to confirm the statistical\n validity of the NQRS results.\nWHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT\n WHAT TIGTA RECOMMENDED\nThis audit was initiated to determine the\naccuracy of the results from the National Quality TIGTA recommended that the IRS ensure that\nReview System (NQRS) and how management 1) the auditing standards align with the NQRS\nuses the feedback to enhance the quality of quality measures, 2) a more complete picture of\ncorrespondence audits. The review is part of correspondence audit quality is provided to\nour Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Audit Plan and NQRS customers on a regular basis, and\naddresses the major management challenge of 3) audits are selected randomly for NQRS\nTax Compliance Initiatives. review.\n\nWHAT TIGTA FOUND In their response to the report, IRS management\n agreed with the first two recommendations and\nThe NQRS is designed to provide IRS managers disagreed with the third, indicating that they do\nat all levels with estimates of audit quality from a not have a cost-effective way to allow the\nsample of audits to use in identifying areas in randomness of the NQRS case selection\nwhich corrective actions are needed. However, process to be verified. Because the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s\nTIGTA identified areas that could be conclusion was reached after the draft report\nstrengthened to increase the accuracy of NQRS was issued, the underlying details supporting the\nreview results, enhance the ability of managers conclusion were not evaluated. If the sample\nto identify and address quality problems with selection process cannot be verified, the IRS\ncorrespondence audits, and ensure that the cannot be assured of the statistical validity of\nNQRS sample is selected at random. NQRS results.\nThe auditing standards and NQRS quality\nmeasures need to be better aligned. The\nauditing standards, including the consideration\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n\n\n\n\nTREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL\n FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n September 20, 2013\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED\n DIVISION\n\n\n FROM: Michael E. McKenney\n Acting Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n (Audit # 201130027)\n\n This report presents the results of our review to determine the accuracy of results from the\n National Quality Review System and how management uses the feedback to enhance the quality\n of correspondence audits. The review is included in our Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Audit Plan and\n addresses the major management challenge of Tax Compliance Initiatives.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix VII. Copies of this\n report are also being sent to Internal Revenue Service managers affected by the report.\n If you have any questions, please contact me or Nancy Nakamura, Assistant Inspector General\n for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement Operations).\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nBackground .......................................................................................................... Page 1\n\nResults of Review ............................................................................................... Page 3\n A Comprehensive Quality Review System\n Has Been Established to Measure the Quality\n of Correspondence Audits............................................................................. Page 3\n Steps Can Be Taken to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System .................................................................. Page 4\n Recommendation 1:........................................................ Page 9\n\n Recommendations 2 and 3: .............................................. Page 10\n\n\nAppendices\n Appendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ....................... Page 12\n Appendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ........................................ Page 15\n Appendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List ....................................................... Page 16\n Appendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Quality Attributes Considered by National\n Quality Review System Reviewers............................................................... Page 17\n Appendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Results From the Correspondence Audit\n Fiscal Year 2013 Business Performance Review (1st Quarter) ..................... Page 18\n Appendix VI \xe2\x80\x93 Glossary of Terms ................................................................ Page 20\n Appendix VII \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report ..................... Page 21\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n\n Abbreviations\n\nIRS Internal Revenue Service\nNQRS National Quality Review System\nSB/SE Small Business/Self-Employed\nTIGTA Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n\n Background\n\nThe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates that $235 billion of the $450 billion in taxes that\nshould have been reported and paid on time but were not is caused by individuals underreporting\ntheir income tax liabilities. An audit is one of the primary enforcement tools the IRS uses to\naddress the noncompliance that contributes to the Tax Gap,1 and the cornerstone of the IRS audit\nefforts is the correspondence audit program.\nIn Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012, IRS statistics show that it conducted almost 5.7 million\ncorrespondence audits and, in the process, recommended approximately $40.4 billion in\nadditional taxes. This represents about 77 percent of all audits the IRS conducted of individual\nincome tax returns and about 56 percent of the estimated\n$72.4 billion in recommended additional taxes resulting\nfrom those audits. The responsibility for conducting In Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012,\ncorrespondence audits rests largely with the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s IRS statistics show it conducted\nSmall Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, which almost 5.7 million correspondence\nhandles complex individual tax returns, and its Wage and audits and recommended\nInvestment Division, which handles simple tax returns approximately $40.4 billion in\n additional taxes.\nfiled by individuals reporting wages, interest, dividends,\nand other investment income.\nIn contrast to the more detailed and lengthy face-to-face audit at an IRS office or in the field at a\ntaxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s place of business, the correspondence audit process is less intrusive, more automated,\nand conducted by examiners who are trained to deal with less complex tax issues. Because of its\nautomated features and less complex tax issues, the correspondence audit process enables the\nIRS to reach more taxpayers at a lower cost. The IRS currently conducts correspondence audits\nin approximately 37 program areas.\nRegardless of the program, the audit process typically begins with the IRS mailing a\ncomputer-generated letter from one of its campuses to a taxpayer. The letter outlines the\nexamination process, identifies one or more items on the tax return being questioned, and\nrequests supporting information to resolve the questionable items. Once the requested\ninformation is returned, examiners review it to determine whether it resolves the questions. If\nthe questions can be sufficiently answered by the information provided, the audit is generally\nclosed without any changes to the tax; if not, the taxpayer is sent a letter requesting more\ninformation or indicating a recommended change to the tax.\n\n\n\n1\n See Appendix VI for a glossary of terms.\n Page 1\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\nThe taxpayer at this point can do one of the following:\n \xef\x82\xb7 Agree with the examiner.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Provide the examiner with clarifying information.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Appeal the decision to the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Appeals.\nIn instances where the taxpayer does not respond to IRS letters, the examiner\xe2\x80\x99s recommended tax\nchanges are assessed by default and the taxpayer will generally have to petition the court system\nto contest the assessment.\nPrior Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) audits\nIn June 2010,2 TIGTA reported that penalties were not considered and assessed in accordance\nwith IRS policies and procedures for 211 (92 percent) of 229 sample audits closed in Fiscal\nYear 2008.3 As a result, opportunities were missed to promote the preparation and submission of\ncomplete and correct information on tax returns, impose an economic cost on those who chose\nnot to voluntarily comply with Federal tax laws, and increase revenue for the Department of the\nTreasury by an estimated $17.5 million.\nIn February 2010, TIGTA reported that tests of a statistical sample of 298 correspondence audits\ninvolving sole proprietors closed in Fiscal Year 2007 identified that significant issues were not\naddressed in 129 (43 percent) of the audits.4 As a result, it was estimated that taxpayers may\nhave avoided tax and interest assessments totaling approximately $83 million.5\nThis review was performed at the IRS National Headquarters in Washington, D.C., the\nSB/SE Division Headquarters in Lanham, Maryland, and the IRS Campus in Ogden, Utah,\nduring the period September 2011 through April 2013. This performance audit was conducted in\naccordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that\nwe plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable\nbasis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the\nevidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our\naudit objectives. Detailed information on our audit objectives, scope, and methodology is\npresented in Appendix I. Major contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.\n\n\n\n2\n TIGTA, Ref. No. 2010-30-059, Accuracy-Related Penalties Are Seldom Considered Properly During\nCorrespondence Audits (Jun. 2010).\n3\n The projection was made using a confidence level of 95 percent, precision rate of \xc2\xb1 5 percent, and expected\noccurrence rate (error rate) of 79 percent.\n4\n TIGTA, Ref. No. 2010-30-024, Significant Tax Issues Are Often Not Addressed During Correspondence Audits of\nSole Proprietors (Feb. 2010).\n5\n The projection was made using a confidence level of 95 percent, precision rate of \xc2\xb1 5.32 percent, and expected\noccurrence rate (error rate) of 43.29 percent.\n Page 2\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n\n Results of Review\n\nA Comprehensive Quality Review System Has Been Established to\nMeasure the Quality of Correspondence Audits\nTo ensure that correspondence audits are conducted in a quality manner, the IRS uses a\ncomprehensive quality review system. The system includes a statistical sampling of\ncorrespondence audits. The IRS has also integrated various internal controls into its quality\nreview system as outlined in the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.6\nThese help the IRS determine the effectiveness and efficiency of its correspondence audits and\nwhether examiners are ensuring that taxpayers are complying with laws and regulations.\n\nEstablishment of standards and performance measures\nThe IRS has established seven auditing quality standards. Each standard has key elements that\nelaborate on and further define the overall standard. For example, one of the key elements for\nAdequate Consideration of Significant Issues instructs examiners to consider and/or pursue\naudits of the prior and/or subsequent year returns when they contain the same issues as in the\nyear examined. Appendix IV contains additional details on the key elements associated with\neach quality standard. Figure 1 explains each standard and provides an overview of the standard.\n Figure 1: Quality Auditing Standards for Correspondence Audits\n\n Standard Overview\n Adequate Consideration of Measures whether consideration was given to large, unusual, or\n Significant Issues questionable items.\n Examination Depth and Determines whether the issues were pursued to the extent needed to\n Conclusions Reached determine the substantially correct tax.\n Addresses whether the audit case file documents the audit procedures\n Workpapers Support Conclusions\n followed and conclusions reached.\n Report Writing Procedures Assesses the written presentation of audit findings in terms of content,\n Followed format, and accuracy.\n Penalties Properly Considered Rates whether applicable penalties were considered and applied correctly.\n Timely Actions Addresses the timeliness of actions taken during the audit.\n Verifies whether administrative procedures were followed such as those\n Case Administration\n related to Power of Attorney privileges.\n Source: Internal Revenue Manual 4.19.13.2.\n\n6\n Government Accountability Office (formerly known as the General Accounting Office), GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1,\nStandards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Nov. 1999).\n Page 3\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\nAccurate and timely recording of events\nThe Internal Revenue Manual, quality standards, and examiner training courses emphasize the\nneed for examiners to document their decisions and the actions taken during each audit in the\naudit case file. For example, the standard for considering penalties requires that examiners\ndocument their decisions to assess or not assess all applicable penalties, along with the basis for\nthat decision. Such documentation is an important control activity because it helps ensure that\nexaminers have considered all aspects of an audit and provides the information needed in\nsubsequent reviews that evaluate whether examiners made the correct decisions.\n\nManagement reviews at the activity level\nFirst-line managers review the documentation for a sample of audit case files to identify and\ncorrect quality problems in conjunction with evaluating the performance of the examiners they\nsupervise. Managers rate examiner actions against established attributes based on the type of\naudit being reviewed. Attributes are collected into specific groups that follow the progression of\na case and are mapped to the critical job elements for examiner performance evaluations. In\naddition to rating whether the examiner action met the attribute, managers may also enter\nnarrative comments.\n\nManagement reviews at the functional level\nWhile first-line manager reviews serve as the initial mechanism for identifying and correcting\nquality problems, each of the five IRS campus sites that conduct correspondence audits also\nperform quality review audits as part of the IRS-wide National Quality Review System (NQRS).7\nUnlike first-line manager reviews that are generally used to evaluate a specific examiner\xe2\x80\x99s\nperformance, NQRS reviews focus on providing IRS managers at all levels with statistically\nreliable estimates of audit quality by evaluating a small sample of closed audits.\n\nSteps Can Be Taken to Strengthen the National Quality Review\nSystem\nThe NQRS data related to correspondence audits is not accurate. Although three of the four\nquality attributes we tested on a statistical sample of correspondence audits identified no\nsignificant concerns, tests of the accuracy-related penalty determinations identified a significant\nnumber of errors that had not been detected and reported by NQRS quality reviewers. The errors\nwere caused, in large part, by inconsistencies between the NQRS attributes and the auditing\nstandards.\n\n\n\n\n7\n Appendix IV provides an overview of the quality attributes considered by NQRS reviewers.\n Page 4\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\nOur audit tests included a review of statistical samples of 66 discretionary8 correspondence\naudits and 61 Earned Income Tax Credit correspondence audits (127 total audits) from a\npopulation of 2,913 audits reviewed by the NQRS between October 1, 2009, and\nMarch 31, 2011. Auditors\xe2\x80\x99 case reviews focused on four technical quality attributes that\ndetermined whether:\n (1) Audits properly addressed all large, unusual, and questionable issues.\n (2) Certification techniques were used to verify that required documentation was received\n from taxpayers.\n (3) Penalties were properly considered and assessed when warranted.\n (4) Tax account information residing on IRS automated data systems was used when\n appropriate to resolve large, unusual, and questionable issues.\nLimiting the review to these four attributes enabled the auditors to focus on how well quality\nreviewers were detecting and reporting areas determined in the past by TIGTA to be\nproblematic. These four quality attributes are critical to addressing underreporting\nnoncompliance.\nExcept for a few instances, TIGTA did not identify any concerns with how NQRS reviewers\nrated the quality of the large, unusual, and questionable issues that examiners were assigned to\naudit. In addition, nearly all the closed audit case files reviewed contained the required tax\naccount information from IRS automated systems that examiners could use to help address the\nlarge, unusual, and questionable issues they were assigned to audit. However, we did find a\nconcern with penalty determinations.\n\nPenalty determination errors were undetected\nSixty-five (51 percent) of the 127 total correspondence audits in our two statistical samples\ncontained errors in accuracy-related penalty determinations that NQRS quality reviewers had not\ndetected and reported. As such, the reported NQRS quality measure of 95 percent appears to be\nsignificantly overstated.\nDuring audits, examiners are responsible for considering accuracy-related penalties when\nrecommending adjustments to tax liabilities. These penalties, which typically include negligence\nand substantial understatement penalties in correspondence examinations, are designed to\npromote the preparation and submission of complete and correct information on tax returns as\nwell as impose an economic cost on taxpayers who choose not to comply with the tax law.\n\n8\n Discretionary audits focus on a variety of tax issues other than Earned Income Tax Credits and are identified from\na number of sources, including the Discriminant Index Function (an automated system for scoring individual tax\nreturns according to their audit potential), studies/research projects, third-party document matching, and Federal and\nState Government agency referrals.\n\n Page 5\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n The cases identified as having errors in penalty\n The negligence penalty can be assessed determinations involved straight-forward issues,\n when a taxpayer fails to make a reasonable\n attempt to comply with the tax law, exercise\n which indicated that reasonable care was not\n ordinary and reasonable care in preparing exercised in preparing the tax return but the case\n his or her return, or keep adequate books files did not provide reasons why the penalties\n and records.\n should not have been applied. For example, in nine\n The substantial understatement penalty cases the examiners disallowed itemized deductions\n can be assessed when an understatement\n exceeds 10 percent of the tax required to be in excess of $20,000 due to lack of documentation\n shown on the tax return or the but did not assess the negligence penalty as\n understatement is equal to or greater than required for the taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99 failure to keep adequate\n $5,000.\n books and records. In four of the nine audits, the\n The penalty for both is 20 percent of the\n underpayment. \xc2\xa0 taxpayers understated their tax liabilities by more\n than $4,000 but penalties were not considered.\n\nThere are inconsistencies between the auditing standards and the NQRS\nattributes and job aids used to evaluate correspondence audits\nThe auditing standards laid out in the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Internal Revenue Manual and the attributes used for\nNQRS rating are not all aligned. Two inconsistencies identified are penalty determinations and\nmultiyear examinations.\nAuditing standards require that accuracy-related penalties, as well as all other applicable\npenalties, be considered in all audits and assessed when warranted. The standards also specify\nthat penalties are to be accurately computed if they are recommended for assessment.\nHowever, the NQRS job aids call the penalty quality measure \xe2\x80\x9cPenalty Computation\xe2\x80\x9d and\ninstruct quality reviewers to rate the measure any time a penalty is calculated or determined by\nthe examiner. Four of the seven quality reviewers we interviewed advised us that their\ninterpretation of this NQRS quality measure meant limiting the review to checking if penalties\nwere accurately computed, not whether a penalty should have been considered. Three quality\nreviewers\xe2\x80\x99 responses were in line with audit standards because they evaluated if applicable\npenalties were considered and computed accurately when recommended for assessment.\nThere is also inconsistency and confusion over when, or if, the scope of single-year audits should\nbe expanded to include the prior and/or subsequent year returns. As of January 1, 2013, the\nauditing standards clearly indicate that the scope of single-year audits are to be expanded to the\nprior and/or subsequent year returns when they contain the same or similar large, unusual, or\nquestionable issues as in the year examined. In contrast, the NQRS quality attribute that deals\nwith audit scopes and large, unusual, and questionable issues does not discuss considering and\npursuing these issues in prior/subsequent year returns. However, it does instruct quality\nreviewers to assess if all related tax years were properly considered in conjunction with\naddressing all large, unusual, and questionable issues. This slightly different wording led several\nquality reviewers to review cases differently than what is required in the auditing standards.\n\n Page 6\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\nDuring interviews with NQRS quality reviewers in December 2012, TIGTA auditors received a\nvariety of answers when asked how the reviewers rate the attribute \xe2\x80\x9cAre all related tax years\nconsidered?\xe2\x80\x9d One reviewer was unaware of the requirement or that any other quality attribute\nrequired examiners to evaluate related tax returns. Some reviewers stated that looking at related\ntax returns depends on the type of issues that were identified for audit. Other reviewers stated\nthat prior and/or subsequent year tax returns are never considered in the context with single-year\naudits.\nIRS officials stated that correspondence examiners, unlike examiners who conduct face-to-face\naudits, are not required to perform Required Filing Checks of other tax years during\ncorrespondence audits. Instead, the IRS relies on its audit sources and return selection process\nfor correspondence audits to determine if a prior and/or subsequent year return should be\naudited. Required filing checks are used during face-to-face audits, in part, to determine whether\nthe same pattern of noncompliance identified on the audited tax return is present on the prior\nand/or subsequent year tax returns and if those tax returns also warrant auditing. Therefore, the\nNQRS attribute that asks if related tax years were considered is not valid for correspondence\naudits.\nIf the NQRS attributes do not measure quality according to the auditing requirements, the NQRS\nresults will be incorrect and could be misleading. The NQRS attributes need to be adjusted to\nalign with the actual requirements for correspondence examinations.\n\nA more complete picture of audit quality could be provided to NQRS customers\nThe ability of IRS executive managers and other NQRS customers to identify and correct quality\nconcerns with correspondence audits could be facilitated if the NQRS reporting mechanisms\nprovided not just information on overall audit quality but also specific information on the rating\nof the various quality attributes evaluated by NQRS reviewers during their case reviews.\nConsidering the potential effect that poor audit quality can have on addressing underreporting\nnoncompliance, such information could be very useful for isolating problem areas so that\ncorrective actions can be taken. It would also help ensure that quality problems in key areas are\nnot masked by reporting one overall quality score.\nThe various IRS functional areas summarize high-level performance information on a quarterly\nbasis through the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Business Performance Review reporting process. The process is\ndesigned to provide the opportunity for IRS executive managers to share accomplishments and\ncompliance concerns with the IRS Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and IRS Oversight\nBoard. However, because the Business Performance Review reports are intended to present\n\n\n\n\n Page 7\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\nhigh-level summary information, just one overall quality score is typically included in the\nquarterly review even though as many as 71 items are reviewed.9\nAlthough not specifically required by the Business Performance Review reporting process, the\nLarge Business and International Division quality reviewers also supplement the reports each\nquarter by providing executive managers with a detailed analysis of the attributes within each\nauditing standard for which improvements can be made. For example, the analysis for the first\nquarter of Fiscal Year 2013 showed that although the Large Business and International Division\nexaminers achieved an overall quality rating of 90 percent, there were at least two attributes that\nwere rated below 60 percent. When shared with examiners and their managers, such analyses\ncan serve as a means to communicate and reinforce the importance of adhering to IRS audit\nquality guidelines and directives along with focusing attention on areas in the audit process that\nneed improvement. This practice should also be considered for the SB/SE Division executives.\n\nThe random selection of audits for NQRS review cannot be verified\nThe NQRS is designed to provide statistically reliable estimates of audit quality nationwide by\nevaluating a relatively small sample of audits. The results, in turn, provide IRS management\nwith data that can be used to identify training and educational needs and improve audit quality.\nTo help ensure that the sample audits reviewed by the NQRS provide measures of audit quality\nthat are representative of all correspondence audits and can be relied upon to identify areas that\nneed improvement, IRS statisticians design and provide sampling plans for each campus. Every\nthree months, the statisticians reassess the sampling plans and provide the quality reviewers in\neach campus with a memorandum that specifies the number of closed audits that are to be\nrandomly selected at specific intervals for review.\nAudit tests of the SB/SE Division campuses quality review data showed only minor differences\nbetween the number of reviews IRS statisticians designated for the SB/SE Division sampling\nplans and the number of reviews completed by quality reviewers at all SB/SE Division\ncampuses. Figure 2 shows the results of our analysis comparing the number of NQRS quality\nreviews planned to the actual number of quality reviews completed from October 2009 through\nMarch 2011.\n\n\n\n\n9\n Appendix V contains the correspondence audit portion of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s campuses Business Performance Review report\nfor the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2013.\n Page 8\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n Figure 2: Comparison of the Number of Quality Reviews Planned to the\n Actual Number Reviewed From October 2009 Through March 2011\n\n Reviews Required by Completed Difference\n Fiscal Year Quarters NQRS Sampling Plan NQRS Reviews (Completed \xe2\x80\x93\n Required)\n Earned Income Tax Credit Audits and Discretionary Audits\n October\xe2\x80\x93December 2009 502 528 26\n January\xe2\x80\x93March 2010 521 483 (38)\n April\xe2\x80\x93June 2010 498 574 76\n July\xe2\x80\x93September 2010 490 450 (40)\n October\xe2\x80\x93December 2010 506 578 72\n January\xe2\x80\x93March 2011 490 495 5\n Total Audits 3,007 3,108 101\nSource: Our analysis of IRS data.\n\nWe also consulted with our statistician, who verified that the sample size was sufficient to\nmeasure the statistical reliability of the results. Additionally, the differences between the number\nof reviews required by the NQRS sampling plan and the number of reviews actually completed\nshould have no material impact on the estimates of audit quality.\nAlthough the requisite number of audits called for in the sampling plans was reviewed, we were\nnot able to verify or replicate the sampling process to determine if the audits were randomly\nselected for review at the specified intervals because such documentation was not maintained.\nTherefore, we were not able to confirm the statistical validity of the NQRS results.\nAccording to published statistical sampling procedures from both within and outside of the\nFederal Government, random selection is critical to ensure that samples are representative of the\npopulation from which they were selected and to eliminate personal bias or subjective\nconsiderations from the selection process. Moreover, the Office of Management and Budget\nguidance on statistical surveys specifies that sample documentation should include information\nnecessary to allow a third party to replicate and evaluate statistical sampling results.\n\nRecommendations\nThe Commissioner, SB/SE Division, should ensure that:\nRecommendation 1: The auditing standards are better aligned with the NQRS attributes and\nquality measures.\n\n\n\n Page 9\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation and\n will determine if discrepancies exist between the auditing standards and the quality\n attribute coding and adjust the process as needed.\n Office of Audit Comment: As discussed in the report, we identified two\n discrepancies between IRS auditing standards and the attributes used by NQRS for\n evaluating correspondence audits. These discrepancies involve the consideration of\n penalties and the requirement for examiners to perform filing checks on other tax years.\n IRS management should ensure that, at a minimum, these two attributes are corrected in\n the NQRS.\nRecommendation 2: A more complete picture of correspondence audit quality is provided to\nNQRS customers on a regular basis.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation and\n will determine if providing their executives and program managers additional quality data\n with greater frequency would be helpful and feasible, and make any appropriate changes.\n Office of Audit Comment: In their response, IRS management stated that they\n regularly share more specific information about program performance with executives\n and managers, who use it to monitor, evaluate, and take action to improve the programs.\n However, IRS management did not provide us with copies of these reports during the\n audit and did not specify the additional quality data it would consider providing to\n executives and program managers. As such, we do not know if IRS management\xe2\x80\x99s\n corrective action will include the types of quality errors we identified in this audit.\nRecommendation 3: The audits selected for NQRS review are randomly selected and\ndocumentation is maintained that will allow IRS management and third parties to verify that the\nsampling plan was properly implemented.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management does not agree with this\n recommendation. The IRS selects cases based upon a statistically valid methodology\n using a skip interval of every \xe2\x80\x9cNth\xe2\x80\x9d case to ensure randomness. The IRS has explored\n the feasibility of using a reproducible listing process to select cases for review. It does\n not have the capability to pull a daily automated listing using the current systems. This\n automation change would take funding and years to implement. The manual gathering of\n this information would be extremely labor intensive and subject to error; therefore, it\n would not be feasible to implement the recommendation at this time.\n Office of Audit Comment: Because the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s conclusion was reached after our audit\n work was completed and the draft report issued, we did not review the underlying details\n supporting the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s conclusion. As a result, we cannot confirm the limitations and\n feasibility of verifying the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s sample selection process. If documentation of the\n\n\n Page 10\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\nsample selection process is not maintained and cannot be verified or replicated later, the\nIRS cannot be assured of the statistical validity of the NQRS results.\n\n\n\n\n Page 11\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n Appendix I\n\n Detailed Objectives, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe objectives of this review were to determine the accuracy of results from the NQRS and how\nmanagement uses the feedback to enhance the quality of correspondence audits.\nTo accomplish these objectives, we:\nI. Evaluated the controls and procedures for the NQRS program when considering\n correspondence audits.\n A. Reviewed Internal Revenue Manual sections, management directives, quality\n reviewer training materials, and notices that provide controls and procedures for\n NQRS correspondence audits.\n B. Interviewed officials and conducted a walkthrough of the NQRS process to evaluate\n the controls and procedures for quality reviewers to follow when reviewing\n correspondence audits.\nII. Evaluated the accuracy of the sampling process for the NQRS program to determine\n whether NQRS quality reviewers are accurately identifying deficiencies for\n correspondence audits.\n A. Determined whether the NQRS case sampling process in Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011\n (through March 2011) for correspondence audits used an acceptable statistical\n sampling method.\n 1. Evaluated the sampling process by consulting with an outside statistician.\n 2. Evaluated NQRS management reports displaying sampling sizes and reviewed\n results in Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (through March 2011) for correspondence\n audits to determine if any anomalies are identified related to the sampling process.\n B. Reviewed a statistically valid sample of Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (through\n March 2011) NQRS cases for correspondence audits to determine the accuracy of\n actions by quality reviewers.\n 1. Obtained NQRS computer data for correspondence audits in Fiscal Years 2010\n and 2011 (through March 2011). We validated the data to ensure that we could\n reasonably rely on the completeness and accuracy of the data provided by\n comparing NQRS management report totals to the totals from the data provided,\n conducting scans of the provided data fields and elements, and judgmentally\n\n\n Page 12\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n researching cases on the Integrated Data Retrieval System and/or Audit\n Information Management System to confirm a correspondence audit took place.\n 2. Selected two statistically valid attribute samples of NQRS correspondence audits for\n Earned Income Tax Credit \xe2\x80\x9cBusiness\xe2\x80\x9d Programs and Discretionary \xe2\x80\x9cNon-Business\xe2\x80\x9d\n Programs closed during Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (through March 2011), using a\n confidence level of 90 percent, precision rate of \xc2\xb1 10 percent, and expected\n occurrence rate (error rate) of 50 percent. A statistical sample was taken because\n we wanted to estimate the number of correspondence audits with deficiencies. The\n total number of NQRS correspondence audits was 3,098 records for Fiscal\n Year 2010 (2,039 records) and Fiscal Year 2011 through March 2011\n (1,059 records). After eliminating invalid Taxpayer Identification Numbers, the\n total population was 3,091 records, and after eliminating duplicate Taxpayer\n Identification Numbers, the review population was 2,913 records. We over sampled\n by ordering 99 Discretionary and 93 Earned Income Tax Credit cases. Our final\n sample sizes were 61 audits for Earned Income Tax Credit \xe2\x80\x9cBusiness\xe2\x80\x9d Programs\n and 66 audits for Discretionary \xe2\x80\x9cNon-Business\xe2\x80\x9d Programs. We shared our\n sampling methodology with an outside statistician who confirmed the accuracy of\n our methodology.\n 3. Obtained and evaluated the sample correspondence audit case files to determine if\n quality deficiencies existed and if the quality reviewer also identified the\n deficiencies. We confirmed our exceptions with a designated IRS employee.\n 4. Estimated the number of correspondence audit deficiencies that should have been\n identified through the NQRS and compared that with NQRS management reports\n to determine the potential number of unreliable records in the NQRS.\n 5. Determined if quality reviewers missed deficiencies that could lead to taxes being\n avoided by the taxpayer and estimated the potential number of correspondence\n audits with the amount of taxes that the NQRS did not identify.\n 6. Determined if quality reviewers missed deficiencies that could lead to taxpayer\n burden and estimated the potential number of correspondence audits with\n taxpayer burden that the NQRS did not identify.\nC. Determined whether NQRS quality reviewers were receiving consistent training and\n feedback.\n 1. Evaluated the extent of NQRS training that quality reviewers received by\n reviewing the training records of those quality reviewers included in our case\n reviews.\n 2. Determined how often the quality reviewers\xe2\x80\x99 work is reviewed and feedback is\n provided by NQRS management.\n\n Page 13\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n 3. Interviewed NQRS officials to evaluate how review results are being used to\n improve future NQRS quality review activities.\nIII. Evaluated how effectively management uses feedback from NQRS results to enhance the\n quality of correspondence audits.\n A. Obtained copies of Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012 NQRS quality review reports and\n other NQRS feedback provided to correspondence audit managers to identify the top\n 10 reported quality concerns for correspondence audits. We also assessed the\n corrective actions taken in response to the concerns and whether any follow-up was\n taken to ensure that the corrective action was effective\n B. Determined if concerns and corrective actions reported by the NQRS were reported in\n SB/SE Division business performance reports.\n C. Reviewed TIGTA and Government Accountability Office reports to identify\n weaknesses and recommended corrective actions for correspondence audits and\n whether they were similar to concerns identified by the NQRS.\nIV. Evaluated the risk for fraud, waste, and abuse to obtain reasonable assurance that\n widespread improprieties do not exist by considering actions and/or trends within our\n sample case review of closed correspondence examinations.\nInternal controls methodology\nInternal controls relate to management\xe2\x80\x99s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet their\nmission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and procedures for\nplanning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. They include the systems\nfor measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance. We determined the following\ninternal controls were relevant to our audit objectives: IRS policies, procedures, and practices\nfor determining whether examiners are meeting certain NQRS attributes during correspondence\naudits. We evaluated these controls by reviewing source materials, interviewing management,\nand reviewing a sample of 127 closed correspondence audits that had been previously reviewed\nby the NQRS.\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n Appendix II\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nNancy A Nakamura, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement\nOperations)\nAugusta R. Cook, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement\nOperations)\nCarl Aley, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement\nOperations)\nFrank Dunleavy, Director\nMichelle Philpott, Acting Director\nRobert Jenness, Audit Manager\nDebra Mason, Lead Auditor\nDonna Saranchak, Senior Auditor\nWilliam Tran, Senior Auditor\nAli Vaezazizi, Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 15\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n Appendix III\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nActing Commissioner\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Chief of Staff C\nOffice of the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE\nDeputy Commissioner, SB/SE Division SE:S\nDirector, Campus Compliance Services, SB/SE Division SE:S:CCS\nDirector, Communications, Liaison, and Disclosure, SB/SE Division SE:S:CSO\nDirector, Examination, SB/SE Division SE:S:E\nDirector, Campus Reporting Compliance, SB/SE Division SE:S:CCS:CRC\nDirector, Exam Planning and Delivery, SB/SE Division SE:S:E:EPD\nDirector, Exam Policy, SB/SE Division SE:S:E:EP\nChief Counsel CC\nNational Taxpayer Advocate TA\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nDirector, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O\nOffice of Internal Control OS:CFO:CPIC:IC\nAudit Liaison: Commissioner, SB/SE Division SE:S\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n Appendix IV\n\n Quality Attributes Considered by\n National Quality Review System Reviewers\n\nFor NQRS quality reporting purposes, attributes are grouped into the following categories:\n\n Attribute Sample Attributes Used\n Category Category Definition by NQRS Quality Reviewers\n\n Attribute 715, Correct/Complete Response/\n Resolution: Used to identify if the employee\n provided the taxpayer with the correct response\n Customer Giving the correct answer with\n or resolution to their case or issue and, if\n Accuracy the correct resolution.\n appropriate, took the necessary case actions or\n case disposition to provide response or\n resolution.\n\n Adhering to statutory/regulatory Attribute 502, Penalty Computation: Used to\n Regulatory requirements when making identify if the employee correctly determined/\n Accuracy determinations on taxpayer computed the proposed or actual assessment(s)\n accounts/issues. and/or abatement(s) of penalty as required.\n\n Attribute 100, Complete Research-Account\n Related Systems: Used to identify if the\n Adhering to nonstatutory/ employee properly researched and interpreted\n nonregulatory internal process account-related systems.\n Procedural\n requirements when making\n Accuracy Attribute 708, Addressed Full Scope of IRS\n determinations on taxpayer\n accounts/issues. Issues: Used to identify if the employee\n addressed all applicable open IRS issues when\n considering the full scope of the call/case.\n Attribute 801, Clear/Professional Written\n Communication: Used to identify if all\n Promoting a positive image of\n correspondence/documentation is professional.\n Professionalism the IRS by using effective\n This includes the use of clear and appropriate\n communication.\n language with no jargon to ensure that written\n communication is complete.\n\n Resolving an issue in the most\n Attribute 904, Appropriate Timely Actions: Used\n efficient manner through proper\n Timeliness to determine if appropriate timely actions were\n workload management and\n taken to resolve the case or issue.\n time utilization techniques.\n\nSource: Internal Revenue Manual.\n\n Page 17\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n Appendix V\n\n Results From the Correspondence Audit\n Fiscal Year 2013 Business Performance Review\n (1st Quarter)\n\n CAMPUS\n REPORTING\nCOMPLIANCE HISTORICAL DATA FISCAL YEAR CUMULATIVE DATA TARGETS\n FY 2012 % Plan FY 2012\n June June % Plan to Accomp Full Year\n FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Change Date . Plan\nCorrespondence\n Exam\n EITC\n STAFFING\nFTE 394.08 412.94 308.20 324.80 5.4% 322.05 100.9% 412.25\n CLOSURES/\n PRODUCTIVITY\nEITC Closures 149,315 145,865 109,602 107,335 -2.1% 104,494 102.7% 148,855\n IMF > $200K 11 10 9 12 33.3%\n IMF > $1Mil 3 2 2 4 100%\nClosures per FTE 379 353 356 330 -7.1% 324 101.9% 361\n TIMELINESS\nCycle Time 199 200 204 207 1.7% 193 107.3% 193\n CUSTOMER\n SATISFACTION\n% Satisfied 47.00% 47.00% 47.00% 47.00% 0.00% 47.00% 100.00% 47.0%\n QUALITY\nPaper Accuracy 95.86% 95.63% 96.43% 93.67% -2.86% 95.0% 98.60% 95.0%\nDISCRETIONARY\n STAFFING\nFTE (Gross) 1,813.74 1,758.09 1,296.59 1,230.57 -5% 1,234.17 99.7% 1,659.16\nField Support/Non-\nCompliance 413.53 361.85 272.79 261.87 -4% 265.86 98.5% 356.94\nTrue Corr Exam FTE 1,400.21 1,396.24 1,023.81 968.7 -5% 968.31 100.0% 1,302.22\n TEFRA FTE 290.00 299.27 217.45 241.87 11% 237.70 101.8% 317.62\n Discretionary\n Non-TEFRA FTE 1,110.20 1,096.98 806.35 726.84 -10% 730.61 99.5% 984.60\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n CAMPUS\n REPORTING\n COMPLIANCE HISTORICAL DATA FISCAL YEAR CUMULATIVE DATA TARGETS\n\n FY 2012 % Plan FY 2012\n June June % Plan to Accomp Full Year\n FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Change Date . Plan\n CLOSURES/\n PRODUCTIVITY\n Non-EITC Closures 412,063 405,542 324,046 321,308 -1% 306,644 104.8% 365,247\n TEFRA 31,870 22,957 17,599 32,274 83.4% 31,057 103.9% 18,202\n Discretionary\n 380,193\n Non-TEFRA 382,585 306,447 289,034 -5.7% 275,587 104.9% 347,045\n Total IMF 377,743 379,272 301,836 296,620 -2% 288,549 341,056\n IMF > $200K 65,760 66,938 52,557 63,354 21% 60,741 104.3% 64,990\n IMF > $1Mil 13,555 12,927 9,742 15,949 64% 15,420 103.4% 12,442\n Total BMF 34,320 26,270 22,210 24,688 11% 18,095 136.4% 24,191\n TIMELINESS\n Cycle Time 170 167 170 177 4% 177 100.2% 177\nSource: Correspondence Audit Fiscal Year 2013 Business Performance Review (1st Quarter). Note: BMF =\nBusiness Master File, EITC = Earned Income Tax Credit, FTE = Full-Time Equivalent, FY = Fiscal Year, IMF = Individual\nMaster File, TEFRA = Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act.\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n Appendix VI\n\n Glossary of Terms\n\nActivity Codes \xe2\x80\x93 A code that identifies the type and condition of returns selected for audit.\nAudit Information Management System \xe2\x80\x93 A computer system used to control returns, input\nassessments/adjustments to the Integrated Data Retrieval System, and provide management\nreports.\nCampus \xe2\x80\x93 The data processing arm of the IRS. The campuses process paper and electronic\nsubmissions, correct errors, and forward data to the Computing Centers for analysis and posting\nto taxpayer accounts.\nFirst-Line Manager \xe2\x80\x93 A group manager in the Examination function responsible for supervision\nof IRS examiners.\nFiscal Year \xe2\x80\x93 A 12-consecutive-month period ending on the last day of any month. The Federal\nGovernment\xe2\x80\x99s fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30.\nIndividual Master File \xe2\x80\x93 The IRS database that maintains transactions or records of individual\ntax accounts.\nIntegrated Data Retrieval System \xe2\x80\x93 The IRS computer system capable of retrieving or\nupdating stored information; it works in conjunction with a taxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s account records.\nNational Quality Review System \xe2\x80\x93 Allows national reviewers to evaluate closed audit files to\ndetermine whether examiners complied with quality attributes established by the IRS.\nSkip Interval \xe2\x80\x93 The number of elements in the population divided by the number of sampling\nunits in the sample.\nTax Gap \xe2\x80\x93 The difference between taxes that are legally owed and taxes that are paid on time.\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\n National Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n Appendix VII\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\nNational Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\nNational Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\x0c Actions Are Needed to Strengthen the\nNational Quality Review System for Correspondence Audits\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Wilhelm Eduard Weber, nemški fizik, * 24. oktober 1804, Wittenberg, Saška, (sedaj Nemčija), † 23. junij 1891, Göttingen, Nemčija.
 Življenje
 Njegov oče Michael Weber je bil v Wittenbergu profesor teologije. Wilhelm je bil drugi od treh bratov. Starejši brat, Ernst Heinrich (1795–1878) je bil fiziolog in anatom, mlajši Eduard Friedrich (1806–1871) pa fiziolog in zdravnik. Po razpustitvi Univerze v Wittenbergu je oče leta 1815 odšel v Halle. Najprej ga je učil oče, kasneje pa so ga poslali učiti v zavetišče za sirote in klasično gimnazijo v Halleju. Nato je začel študirati na univerzi in se posvetil naravoslovju. Bil je zelo dober študent in se je iskazal po svojem izvirnem delu. Po doktoratu je postal privatni docent (Privatdozent) in kasneje izredni profesor naravoslovja v Halleju.
 Leta 1831 so ga na Gaussovo priporočilo s sedemindvajsetimi leti imenovali za profesorja fizike na Univerzi v Göttingenu. Njegova predavanja so bila zanimiva, poučna in vzpodbudna. Menil je, da so za globlje razumevanje fizike in njeno uporabo v vsakdanjem življenju premalo zgolj predavanja z dodanimi poskusi. Zaman je v univerzitetnem laboratoriju spodbujal svoje študente, naj sami izvajajo poskuse. Pri triindvajsetih je skupaj s starejšim bratom Ernstom, profesorjem anatomije v Leipzigu, napisal knjigo o valovni teoriji in tekočinah, po kateri sta postala znana. V tem času je izdelal občutljive magnetometre in druge inštrumente za merjenje magnetizma.
 Zelo se je zanimal za akustiko in je s tega področja objavil več člankov v revijah Poggendorffs Annalen, Schweiggerjevi Jahrbücher für Chemie und Physik in v glasbeni Carcilia. Sodeloval je tudi mlajšim bratom Eduardom, svoja raziskovanja pa sta objavila med letoma 1825 in 1838.
 Zaradi svojih svobodomiselnih nazorov ga je hanoverska vlada odpustila in je nekaj časa potoval. Med drugim je obiskal Anglijo. Leta 1843 je postal profesor fizike v Leipzigu, kjer je ostal do leta 1849. Nato se je vrnil v Göttingen.
 Leta 1855 je z Dirichletom postal začasni predstojnik tamkajšnjega observatorija.
 Dosežki
 Eno od njegovih najpomembnejših del je bil Atlas geomagnetizma (Atlas des Erdmagnetismus), niz zemljevidov o magnetizmu. Z njegovim prizadevanjem so ustanovili observatorije za proučevanje magnetizma. Njegovo delo o razmerju med elektrodinamičnimi in elektrostatičnimi enotami naboja je bilo zelo pomembno za razvoj Maxwellove elektromagnetne teorije svetlobe. Z Gaussom je proučeval magnetizem in leta 1864 je objavil svoje delo Elektrodinamične sorazmernostne meritve, ki je vsebovalo sistem absolutnih meritev za električne tokove. Te meritve so pomembne za prakso.
 Priznanja
 Nagrade
 Kraljeva družba iz Londona mu je leta 1859 za njegove raziskave, objavljene v njegovem delu Maasbestimmungen, ter druge raziskave o elektriki, magnetizmu in akustiki podelila svojo Copleyjeveo medaljo.
 Poimenovanja
 Po njem se imenuje izpeljana enota SI za magnetni pretok weber z oznako Wb, ter krater Weber na oddaljeni strani Lune.
 Sklici
 Zunanje povezave
 Akademsko drevo Wilhelma Eduarda Webra na Physics Tree
 Stran o Wilhelmu Eduardu Webru Univerze svetega Andreja
 Rojeni leta 1804
 Umrli leta 1891
 Nemški fiziki
 Predavatelji na Univerzi v Göttingenu
 Predavatelji na Univerzi v Leipzigu
 Prejemniki Copleyjeve medalje
 Prejemniki Matteuccijeve medalje
 Ljudje, po katerih so poimenovali krater na Luni
 Tuji člani Kraljeve družbe
 Nemški univerzitetni učitelji
 Člani Kraljeve švedske akademije znanosti
 Nemški akademiki


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21991D1112(09)
 91/579/CEE:Decisione n. 1/91 del Comitato misto CEE- Islanda, del 18 settembre 1991, che completa e modifica, nell'ambito della dichiarazione comune riguardante la revisione delle modifiche alle regole di origine in conseguenza dell'introduzione del sistema armonizzato, l'allegato III del protocollo n. 3 relativo alla definizione della nozione di «prodotti originari» ed ai metodi di cooperazione amministrativa
 Gazzetta ufficiale n. L 311 del 12/11/1991 pag. 0014 - 0014
 DECISIONE N. 1/91 DEL COMITATO MISTO CEE-ISLANDA del 18 settembre 1991 che completa e modifica, nell'ambito della dichiarazione comune riguardante la revisione delle modifiche alle regole di origine in conseguenza dell'introduzione del sistema armonizzato, l'allegato III del protocollo n. 3 relativo alla definizione della nozione di «prodotti originari» ed ai metodi di cooperazione amministrativa (91/579/CEE)IL COMITATO MISTO, visto l'accordo tra la Comunità economica europea e la Repubblica dell'Islanda, firmato a Bruxelles il 22 luglio 1972, visto il protocollo n. 3 relativo alla definizione della nozione di «prodotti originari» ed ai metodi di cooperazione amministrativa, in appresso denominato «protocollo n. 3», in particolare l'articolo 28, considerando che la dichiarazione comune, allegata alla decisione n. 1/88 del Comitato misto CEE-Islanda prevede la revisione delle modifiche apportate alle regole di origine in conseguenza dell'introduzione del sistema armonizzato laddove tali modifiche determinano una situazione pregiudizievole agli interessi dei settori in questione;che essa prevede anche la possibilità di ristabilire la sostanza della norma in questione quale essa era precedentemente alla decisione n. 1/88; considerando che le norme di origine applicabili a fodere interno collo e polsi, tagliate, della voce SA ex 62.17, come previsto dalla decisione n. 1/88 del Comitato misto CEE-Islanda, andrebbe modificata per ristabilire la sostanza di tali norme quale essa era precedentemente all'introduzione del sistema armonizzato, DECIDE: Articolo 1 La voce doganale e le relative regole di cui alla lista allegata alla presente decisione sono aggiunte alla voce e le regole corrispondenti nella lista dell'allegato III del protocollo n. 3 dell'accordo CEE-Islanda. Articolo 2 La presente decisione è applicabile a decorrere dal 1o gennaio 1988. Fatto a Bruxelles, addì 18 settembre 1991. Per il Comitato Il Presidente H. HAFSTEIN


type: other

text:
OUG pentru amânarea ratelor. Ce trebuie să știți dacă vreți să suspendați returnarea unui credit: - devreme.rodevreme.ro
 OUG pentru amânarea ratelor. Ce trebuie să știți dacă vreți să suspendați returnarea unui credit:
 sursa foto: Tumisu, pixabay
 Guvernul Orban a adoptat în ședința de joi, 26 martie, mult așteptata ordonanță de urgență (OUG) care permite celor afectați financiar de criza generată de COVID-19 să își amâne plata ratelor la creditele bancare. Toți cei care au probleme financiare dovedite pot să le solicite băncilor amânarea ratelor pe o perioadă maximă de 9 luni, dar nu mai târziu de 31.12.2020. Solicitarea o pot face persoanele fizice, persoanele fizice autorizate, întreprinderile individuale, întreprinderile familiale și întreprinderile mici și mijlocii.
 Cererea de amânare a ratelor poate fi făcută prin email sau prin telefon cel mai târziu până la încetarea stării de urgență pe teritoriul României. Dacă starea de urgență nu va fi prelungită, aceasta va înceta la data de 16 aprilie. Ministrul de finanțe, Florin Cîțu, a precizat că solicitările pot fi trimise abia după publicarea normelor de aplicare a ordonanței, adică peste maximum 15 zile. Dacă normele de aplicare nu sunt publicate mai repede de atât, iar starea de urgență nu se prelungește, vor mai rămâne fix 5 zile pentru trimiterea cererilor. În ordonanță se stipulează foarte clar că banca analizează solicitarea și o aprobă în condițiile prevăzute în normele de aplicare. Fără norme de aplicare, totul e blocat.
 Încă nu e clar cum vor fi plătite ratele amânate. Ordonanța spune că perioada maximă de creditare prevăzută în reglementările creditorilor poate fi depășită cu o perioadă egală cu durata suspendării ratelor, dar acel „poate” lasă la latitudinea băncilor ce soluție vor adopta. Unele bănci deja au anunțat că ratele amânate se vor aduna la ratele la zi atunci când lunile de suspendare a returnării creditului se vor fi încheiat. Ceea ce înseamnă că nu se gândesc să prelungească perioada de creditare, iar oamenii vor avea rate mai mari după ce vor reîncepe să le plătească. Exemplu concret: dacă un client mai are în clipa de față de platit rate timp 12 luni, iar el solicită șase luni de amânare, înseamnă că toată suma pe care o mai are de dat în cele 12 luni va trebui să o plătească în șase luni. Ceea ce va face ca, după perioada de amânare, rata sa să se dubleze.
 Care sunt principalele prevederi din ordonanța de urgență privind amânarea ratelor la bănci? Le prezentăm în continuare exact așa cum au fost formulate ele în textul adoptat de guvern. Am accentuat articolele și aliniatele cele mai importante:
 Articolul 1: În înțelesul prezentei ordonanțe de urgență, termenii de mai jos au următoarele semnificații:
 f) credit ipotecar – credit acordat de un creditor unui debitor persoana fizica, garantat cu ipotecă asupra unui imobil și credit ce implică un drept legat de un bun imobil, astfel cum sunt acestea reglementate de Ordonanța de urgență nr. 52/2016 privind contractele de credit oferite consumatorilor pentru bunuri imobile, precum și pentru modificarea și completarea Ordonanței de urgență a Guvernului nr. 50/2010 privind contractele de credit pentru consumatori, precum și creditele acordate prin programul “Prima casă”, aprobat prin Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 60/2009 privind unele măsuri în vederea implementării programului “Prima casă”, aprobată cu modificări şi completări prin Legea nr. 368/2009, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare;
 Articolul 2: (1) Prin derogare de la OUG nr. 50/2010 privind contractele de credit pentru consumatori și de la OUG nr. 52/2016 privind contractele de credit oferite consumatorilor pentru bunuri imobile, precum și pentru modificarea și completarea OUG nr. 50/2010 privind contractele de credit pentru consumatori, obligația de plată a ratelor scadente aferente împrumuturilor, reprezentand rate de capital, dobânzi și comisioane, acordate debitorilor de către creditori până la data intrării în vigoare a prezentei ordonanțe de urgență se suspendă la cererea debitorului cu până la 9 luni dar nu mai mult de 31.12.2020.
 Articolul 3: (1) Pentru a beneficia de suspendarea rambursării ratelor, dobânzilor și comisioanelor, debitorii trimit creditorilor o solicitare în acest sens, în format letric sau prin poșta electronică, la datele de contact precizate în contractul de credit sau printr-un alt canal de comunicare la distanță oferit de creditor, cel mai târziu până la încetarea stării de urgență pe teritoriul României.
 Articolul 4: Dobânda datorată de debitori corespunzătoare sumelor scadente a căror plată este suspendata potrivit art. 2 se capitalizează la soldul creditului existent la finele perioadei de suspendare. Capitalul astfel majorat se plătește eșalonat pe durata rămasă până la noua maturitate a creditelor, ulterior perioadei de suspendare, cu excepția creditelor ipotecare pentru care se plătește eșalonat până la maximum 5 ani.
 Articolul 5: (1) Statul român, prin Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, denumit in continuare M.F.P., garantează în procent de 100 % plata dobânzii capitalizate potrivit articolului 4 aferentă creditelor ipotecare contractate de debitori persoane fizice.
 (3) În termen de 30 de zile de la primirea solicitării, creditorul notifică debitorului clauzele contractuale modificate pentru implementarea prevederilor prezentei ordonante de urgență.
 (4) Fiecare creditor comunică FNGCIMM pe propria răspundere valoarea totală a angajamentului de garantare rezultat din cumularea sumelor de plată conform graficelor de eșalonare a plății sumelor reprezentând dobânzi datorate de debitorii potrivit alin. (1).
 (5) După efectuarea plăţii valorii de executare a garanţiei de Ministerul Finanţelor Publice, FNGCIMM întocmeste un titlu de creanță prin care se individualizează obligațiile de plată ale persoanelor fizice beneficiare ale facilității prevăzute la alin. (1). Titlu de creanță devine titlu executoriu în condițiile legii.
 Articolul 6: Pentru a beneficia de suspendarea rambursarii ratelor, dobânzilor și comisioanelor in conformitate cu prevederile art.2 alin. (1), IMM-urile trebuie sa indeplineasca cumulativ urmãtoarele condiții:
 Articolul 7: În aplicarea prezentei ordonanțe de urgență, MFP elaborează normele de implementare, inclusiv modalitatea şi condiţiile de acordare şi recuperare a garanţiilor de stat, care se aprobă prin hotărâre a Guvernului în termen de 15 de zile de la intrarea în vigoare a prezentei ordonanțe de urgență.
 Care sunt precizările Băncii Naționale? Bănca Națională a României (BNR) a subliniat că doar cei afectați de criza generată de infecțiile cu coronavirus pot să ceară amânarea ratelor. BNR spune că este posibilă amânarea returnării pentru toate tipurile de credite: prima casă, ipotecare, de consum, inclusiv carduri de credite, dar şi împrumuturilor pentru IMM-uri. Oficialii BNR spun că se pot amâna inclusiv creditele de la instituţii financiare nebancare.
 amanarea ratelor banci bnr coronavirus covid-19 credit ordonanta oug rate


text:
 23.8.2018
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 L 215/46
 ΑΠΌΦΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΜΕΙΚΤΉΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΉΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΟΧ
 αριθ. 249/2016
 της 2ας Δεκεμβρίου 2016
 για την τροποποίηση του παραρτήματος XX (Περιβάλλον) της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ [2018/1185]
 Η ΜΕΙΚΤΗ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΤΟΥ ΕΟΧ,
 Έχοντας υπόψη τη συμφωνία για τον Ευρωπαϊκό Οικονομικό Χώρο («η συμφωνία για τον ΕΟΧ»), και ιδίως το άρθρο 98,
 Εκτιμώντας τα ακόλουθα:
 (1)
 Η απόφαση (ΕΕ) 2016/1796 της Επιτροπής, της 7ης Ιουλίου 2016, για την τροποποίηση των αποφάσεων 2011/263/ΕΕ, 2011/264/ΕΕ, 2012/720/ΕΕ και 2012/721/ΕΕ, ώστε να ληφθούν υπόψη οι εξελίξεις στην ταξινόμηση ουσιών (1) πρέπει να ενσωματωθεί στη συμφωνία για τον ΕΟΧ.
 (2)
 Επομένως, το παράρτημα XX της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ θα πρέπει να τροποποιηθεί αναλόγως,
 ΕΞΕΔΩΣΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΑ ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ:
 Άρθρο 1
 Στα σημεία 2ε (απόφαση 2011/264/ΕΕ της Επιτροπής), 2η (απόφαση 2011/263/ΕΕ της Επιτροπής), 2λγ (απόφαση 2012/720/ΕΕ της Επιτροπής) και 2λδ (απόφαση 2012/721/ΕΕ της Επιτροπής) του παραρτήματος XX της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ προστίθεται η ακόλουθη περίπτωση:
 «—
 32016 D 1796: Απόφαση (ΕΕ) 2016/1796 της Επιτροπής της 7ης Ιουλίου 2016 (ΕΕ L 274 της 11.10.2016, σ. 55).»
 Άρθρο 2
 Τα κείμενα της απόφασης (ΕΕ) 2016/1796 στην ισλανδική και τη νορβηγική γλώσσα, τα οποία δημοσιεύονται στο συμπλήρωμα ΕΟΧ της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, είναι αυθεντικά.
 Άρθρο 3
 Η παρούσα απόφαση αρχίζει να ισχύει στις 3 Δεκεμβρίου 2016, υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι έχουν πραγματοποιηθεί όλες οι κοινοποιήσεις δυνάμει του άρθρου 103 παράγραφος 1 της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ (*1).
 Άρθρο 4
 Η παρούσα απόφαση δημοσιεύεται στο τμήμα ΕΟΧ και στο συμπλήρωμα ΕΟΧ της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
 Βρυξέλλες, 2 Δεκεμβρίου 2016.
 Για τη Μεικτή Επιτροπή του ΕΟΧ
 Η Πρόεδρος
 Bergdís ELLERTSDÓTTIR
 (1) ΕΕ L 274 της 11.10.2016, σ. 55.
 (*1) Δεν έχουν αναφερθεί συνταγματικές απαιτήσεις.


type: caselaw

text:
 2.9.2006
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 C 212/43
 Beroep ingesteld op 18 juli 2006 — SNIA/Commissie
 (Zaak T-194/06)
 (2006/C 212/73)
 Procestaal: Italiaans
 Partijen
 Verzoekster: SNIA SpA (vertegenwoordigers: A. Santa Maria en C. Biscaretti di Rufia, advocaten)
 Verweerster: Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen
 Conclusies van verzoekster
 —
 nietig te verklaren, beschikking C(2006) 1766 def. van de Commissie van 3 mei 2006 in zaak COMP/F/38.620 — Waterstofperoxide en natriumperboraat, voor zover SNIA SpA daarbij tot de adressaten daarvan wordt gerekend, en hoofdelijk wordt veroordeeld met Caffaro Srl tot betaling van een geldboete van 1,078 miljoen EUR;
 —
 de Commissie te verwijzen in de kosten.
 Middelen en voornaamste argumenten
 De bestreden beschikking in de onderhavige zaak is dezelfde als die in zaak T-185/06, L'Air Liquide/Commissie.
 Volgens verzoekster stelt de Commissie in deze beschikking dat Industrie Chimiche Caffaro SpA (ICC) ten tijde van de feiten zelf geen beslissingsbevoegdheid had, maar op dit gebied afhankelijk was van Caffaro SpA, die genoteerd stond aan de Italiaanse beurs en ICC volledig controleerde, alsook van verzoekster zelf, die met een aandeel van 53 à 59 % meerderheidsaandeelhouder van Caffaro SpA was. Verzoekster zou hoofdzakelijk op grond van deze indirecte band hoofdelijk aansprakelijk zijn gehouden voor de inbreuk die de Commissie aan Caffaro Srl verwijt.
 Tot staving van haar vorderingen betoogt verzoekster:
 —
 dat de Commissie niet heeft aangetoond dat in de betrokken periode sprake was van een afhankelijkheidsrelatie tussen SNIA en ICC. De Commissie heeft evenmin aangetoond dat in dezelfde periode een afhankelijkheidsrelatie tussen Caffaro SpA en ICC bestond;
 —
 dat de Commissie, wat betreft de relevantie van de fusie van Caffaro SpA en SNIA ter vaststelling van de beslissende invloed van SNIA, eraan is voorbijgegaan dat de fusie door overneming van Caffaro SpA door SNIA SpA (evenals de naamswijziging van ICC in Caffaro SpA, thans Caffaro Srl) heeft plaatsgevonden in 2000, dit wil zeggen één jaar nadat zij de markt van de bleekmiddelen heeft verlaten, en dat de Commissie, zoals reeds gezegd, geenszins heeft aangetoond dat Caffaro SpA in de relevante periode een beslissende invloed op ICC heeft uitgeoefend;
 —
 dat uitsluitend ICC (thans Caffaro Srl), die overigens niet heeft opgehouden juridisch te bestaan, maar gewoon van naam is veranderd, voor de gestelde inbreuk aansprakelijk is. Ook al zou, verder, Caffaro SpA voor de gestelde inbreuk aansprakelijk worden gehouden, dan is niet SNIA maar Caffaro Srl rechtsopvolgster van de bedoelde onderneming.


type: legislation

text:
 EIROPAS KOMISIJA
 Briselē, 13.8.2021
 COM(2021) 479 final
 2021/0272(NLE)
 Priekšlikums
 PADOMES LĒMUMS
 par nostāju, kas attiecas uz Transporta kopienas 2022. gada budžeta pieņemšanu un Eiropas Savienības vārdā jāieņem Transporta kopienas Reģionālajā pārvaldības komitejā
 PASKAIDROJUMA RAKSTS
 1.Priekšlikuma priekšmets
 Šis priekšlikums attiecas uz lēmumu, ar ko attiecībā uz paredzēto lēmuma pieņemšanu par Transporta kopienas 2022. gada budžetu izveido nostāju, kas Eiropas Savienības vārdā jāieņem Reģionālajā pārvaldības komitejā, kas izveidota saskaņā ar Transporta kopienas dibināšanas līgumu (TKL).
 2.Priekšlikuma konteksts
 2.1.Transporta kopienas dibināšanas līgums
 TKL mērķis ir izveidot Transporta kopienu autoceļu, dzelzceļa, iekšējo ūdensceļu un jūras transporta jomā, kā arī attīstīt transporta tīklu starp Eiropas Savienību un Dienvidaustrumeiropas pusēm. TKL stājās spēkā 2019. gada 1. maijā.
 Eiropas Savienība ir TKL puse
 1
 .
 2.2.Reģionālā pārvaldības komiteja
 Reģionālā pārvaldības komiteja ir izveidota ar TKL 24. pantu. Tā atbild par TKL pārvaldību un tā pienācīgas īstenošanas nodrošināšanu. Šajā nolūkā tā sniedz ieteikumus un pieņem lēmumus gadījumos, kas paredzēti TKL. Konkrēti Reģionālā pārvaldības komiteja:
 (a)sagatavo Ministru padomes darbu;
 (b)lemj par tehnisko komiteju izveidi;
 (c)veic vajadzīgos pasākumus saistībā ar jaunpieņemtiem ES tiesību aktiem, jo īpaši — pārskata TKL I pielikumu;
 (d)pēc apspriešanās ar Ministru padomi ieceļ Pastāvīgā sekretariāta direktoru;
 (e)var iecelt vienu vai vairākus Pastāvīgā sekretariāta direktora vietniekus;
 (f)izklāsta Pastāvīgā sekretariāta noteikumus;
 (g)var pārskatīt budžeta iemaksu apjomu, pieņemot attiecīgu lēmumu;
 (h)pieņem Transporta kopienas gada budžetu;
 (i)pieņem lēmumu, kurā nosaka budžeta izpildes, pārskatu iesniegšanas un revīzijas, kā arī pārbaužu procedūru;
 (j)pieņem lēmumus par līgumslēdzēju pušu strīdiem;
 (k)pieņem vispārējus principus attiecībā uz piekļuvi dokumentiem, kurus glabā struktūras, kas izveidotas ar vai saskaņā ar TKL;
 (l)pieņem gada ziņojumus par visaptverošā tīkla īstenošanu un iesniedz tos Ministru padomei;
 (m)attiecībā uz konkrētiem Savienības tiesību aktiem nosaka termiņus un veidus, kā Dienvidaustrumeiropas puses tos transponē.
 Reģionālajā pārvaldības komitejā ir katras līgumslēdzējas puses pārstāvis un pārstāvja aizvietotājs. Novērotāja statusā var piedalīties visas ES dalībvalstis.
 Reģionālā pārvaldības komiteja lēmumus pieņem vienprātīgi.
 2.3.Paredzētais Reģionālās pārvaldības komitejas akts
 Reģionālās pārvaldības komiteja 2021. gada pēdējā sanāksmē pieņems lēmumu par Transporta kopienas 2022. gada budžetu (“paredzētais akts”).
 Paredzētā akta mērķis ir noteikt Transporta kopienas 2022. gada budžetu.
 Paredzētais akts pusēm kļūs saistošs saskaņā ar TKL 25. panta 1. punktu, kas nosaka: “Reģionālās pārvaldības komitejas lēmums līgumslēdzējām pusēm ir saistošs. Ja Reģionālās pārvaldības komitejas lēmums ietver prasību līgumslēdzējai pusei rīkoties, minētā puse veic vajadzīgos pasākumus un par to informē Reģionālo pārvaldības komiteju.”
 3.Nostāja, kas jāieņem Savienības vārdā
 Iemaksas Transporta kopienas budžetā ir noteiktas TKL V pielikumā. Savienības daļa ir 80 % no budžeta, bet atlikušos 20 % nodrošina Rietumbalkānu puses.
 Kopējais budžets 2021. gadam ir 3,000 miljoni EUR, no kuriem 2,400 miljoni EUR (80 %)
 2
 ir no ES un 0,6 miljoni EUR — no Rietumbalkānu pusēm.
 2022. gadam tiek ierosināts 3,002 miljonu EUR budžets. 80 % jauno kredītu nāks no ES (2,401 miljons EUR), un atlikušie 20 % jauno kredītu (0,6 miljoni EUR) — no Rietumbalkānu pusēm.
 Šī summa segs Pastāvīgā sekretariāta darbības izmaksas un Transporta kopienas dažādo struktūru sanāksmju organizēšanu. Ierosinātais palielinājums ir pamatots ar gaidāmo papildu darbinieku pieņemšanu darbā, plānoto tehnisko komiteju sanāksmju biežumu, nepieciešamā IT aprīkojuma un programmatūras iegādi un plānotajiem direktora un Pastāvīgā sekretariāta ierēdņu biežākajiem braucieniem. Paredzams, ka 2022. gads būs otrais Pastāvīgā sekretariāta normālas darbības gads, kad darbā būs pieņemti visi vadošie un ar vadību nesaistītie darbinieki, kā arī spēkā stājusies galvenā administratīvā sistēma. Saskaņā ar I pielikumu mītnes nolīgumā starp Transporta kopienu un Serbiju, uzņemošo valsti, Serbija bez maksas nodrošina Pastāvīgā sekretariāta birojus un daļu no aprīkojuma un pakalpojumiem, kas saistīti ar šiem birojiem (mēbeles, drošība, elektrība, ūdens un tīrīšana).
 Lai īstenotu TKL un nodrošinātu Pastāvīgā sekretariāta darbību, šis lēmums ir jāpieņem Reģionālajā pārvaldības komitejā.
 4.Juridiskais pamats
 4.1.Procesuālais juridiskais pamats
 4.1.1.Principi
 Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību (LESD) 218. panta 9. punktā paredzēti lēmumi, ar kuriem nosaka “nostāju, kas Savienības vārdā jāapstiprina kādā ar nolīgumu izveidotā struktūrā, ja šāda struktūra ir tiesīga pieņemt lēmumus ar juridiskām sekām, izņemot lēmumus, kas papildina vai groza attiecīgajā nolīgumā noteikto iestāžu sistēmu”.
 Jēdziens “lēmumi ar juridiskām sekām” ietver aktus, kam ir juridiskas sekas saskaņā ar starptautisko tiesību normām, kuras reglamentē attiecīgo struktūru. Tas ietver arī instrumentus, kam nav saistoša spēka saskaņā ar starptautiskajām tiesībām, bet kas “var būtiski ietekmēt Savienības likumdevēja pieņemtā tiesiskā regulējuma saturu”
 3
 .
 4.1.2.Piemērošana konkrētajā gadījumā
 Piemērošana konkrētajā gadījumā
 Reģionālā pārvaldības komiteja ir struktūra, kas izveidota ar nolīgumu, proti, TKL.
 Akts, ko Reģionālā pārvaldības komiteja ir aicināta pieņemt, ir akts ar juridiskām sekām. Saskaņā ar TKL 35. pantu Reģionālā pārvaldības komiteja ir pilnvarota pieņemt Transporta kopienas budžetu, un šis lēmums TKL pusēm ir saistošs. Pēc būtības un saskaņā ar starptautisko tiesību normām, kas reglamentē Reģionālo pārvaldības komiteju, minētajā aktā ir ietverti elementi, kas ietekmē TKL pušu un tādējādi arī Savienības tiesisko situāciju. Tāpēc jāuzskata, ka tam ir juridiskas sekas. Paredzētais akts nepapildina un negroza TKL noteikto iestāžu sistēmu. Tādēļ ierosinātā lēmuma procesuālais juridiskais pamats ir LESD 218. panta 9. punkts.
 4.2.Materiālais juridiskais pamats
 4.2.1.Principi
 Lēmuma, kas pieņemams saskaņā ar LESD 218. panta 9. punktu, materiālais juridiskais pamats galvenokārt ir atkarīgs no paredzētā akta, par kuru nostāja Savienības vārdā jāieņem, mērķa un satura. Ja paredzētajam aktam ir divi mērķi vai divi komponenti, no kuriem viens ir klasificējams kā galvenais, bet otrs ir pakārtots, lēmums saskaņā ar LESD 218. panta 9. punktu jābalsta uz viena materiālā juridiskā pamata, proti, tā, kas nepieciešams galvenajam vai dominējošajam mērķim vai komponentam.
 4.2.2.Piemērošana konkrētajā gadījumā
 Paredzētais akts vajadzīgs TKL pienācīgai darbībai. Savukārt TKL ir izvirzīti mērķi un ietverti komponenti tādās jomās kā autoceļu, dzelzceļa un iekšējo ūdensceļu transports, kas ir transporta veidi, uz kuriem attiecas LESD 91. pants, kā arī jūras transports, kas ir transporta veids, uz kuru attiecas LESD 100. panta 2. punkts. Paredzētā akta horizontālā rakstura dēļ tas attiecas uz visiem šiem elementiem. Visi šie elementi ir nesaraujami saistīti, un neviens nav pakārtots otram.
 Tādēļ ierosinātā lēmuma materiālajā juridiskajā pamatā ir šādi noteikumi: LESD 91. pants un 100. panta 2. punkts.
 4.3.Secinājums
 Par ierosinātā lēmuma juridisko pamatu būtu jānosaka LESD 91. pants un 100. panta 2. punkts saistībā ar 218. panta 9. punktu.
 5.Paredzētā akta publicēšana
 Saskaņā ar TKL 25. panta 2. punktu Reģionālās pārvaldības komitejas lēmumus publicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī.
 2021/0272 (NLE)
 Priekšlikums
 PADOMES LĒMUMS
 par nostāju, kas attiecas uz Transporta kopienas 2022. gada budžeta pieņemšanu un Eiropas Savienības vārdā jāieņem Transporta kopienas Reģionālajā pārvaldības komitejā
 EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME,
 ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Savienības darbību un jo īpaši tā 91. pantu un 100. panta 2. punktu saistībā ar 218. panta 9. punktu,
 ņemot vērā Eiropas Komisijas priekšlikumu,
 tā kā:
 (1)Saskaņā ar Padomes Lēmumu (ES) 2017/1937
 4
 Savienība parakstīja Transporta kopienas dibināšanas līgumu (TKL). 2019. gada 4. martā to apstiprināja Savienības vārdā ar Padomes Lēmumu (ES) 2019/392
 5
 . TKL stājās spēkā 2019. gada 1. maijā.
 (2)Ievērojot TKL 35. pantu, Transporta kopienas Reģionālā pārvaldības komitejai (“Pārvaldības komiteja”) katru gadu ir jāpieņem Transporta kopienas budžets. Ar TKL 35. pantu Pārvaldības komiteja ir arī pilnvarota pieņemt lēmumus, precizējot budžeta izpildes procedūru.
 (3)Pārvaldības komiteja savā 2021. gada decembra sanāksmē pieņems lēmumu par Transporta kopienas budžetu 2022. gadam
 (4)Ierosinātais Transporta kopienas budžets 2022. gadam ir vajadzīgs Transporta kopienas struktūru pienācīgai darbībai. Tas sedz cilvēkresursu, ceļa, IT aprīkojuma un programmatūras izmaksas, kā arī darbības izdevumus, piemēram, pētījumus, tehnisko palīdzību un konferenču un sanāksmju organizēšanu.
 (5)Ir lietderīgi noteikt nostāju, kas Savienības vārdā jāieņem Pārvaldības komitejā, jo šāds lēmums ir vajadzīgs Transporta kopienas Pastāvīgā sekretariāta darbībai un tas radīs juridiskas sekas Savienībai,
 IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.
 1. pants
 Nostāju, kas Transporta kopienas Reģionālajā pārvaldības komitejā Savienības vārdā jāieņem attiecībā uz Transporta kopienas 2022. gada budžetu, balsta uz Reģionālās pārvaldības komitejas lēmuma projektu, kas pievienots šim lēmumam.
 2. pants
 Šis lēmums ir adresēts Komisijai.
 Briselē,
 Padomes vārdā –
 priekšsēdētājs
 (1)
 Padomes Lēmums (ES) 2017/1937 (2017. gada 11. jūlijs) par to, lai Eiropas Savienības vārdā parakstītu un provizoriski piemērotu Transporta kopienas dibināšanas līgumu (OV L 278, 27.10.2017., 1. lpp.).
 (2)
 Komisijas Īstenošanas lēmums C(2020) 4356 (2020. gada 25. jūnijs).
 (3)
 Tiesas spriedums, 2014. gada 7. oktobris, Vācija/Padome, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, 61.–64. punkts.
 (4)
 Padomes Lēmums (ES) 2017/1937 (2017. gada 11. jūlijs) par to, lai Eiropas Savienības vārdā parakstītu un provizoriski piemērotu Transporta kopienas dibināšanas līgumu (OV L 278, 27.10.2017., 1. lpp.).
 (5)
 Padomes Lēmums (ES) 2019/392 (2019. gada 4. marts) par to, lai Eiropas Savienības vārdā noslēgtu Transporta kopienas dibināšanas līgumu.
 ---documentbreak---
 EIROPAS KOMISIJA
 Briselē, 13.8.2021
 COM(2021) 479 final
 PIELIKUMS
 dokumentam
 Priekšlikums Padomes Lēmumam
 par nostāju, kas attiecas uz Transporta kopienas 2022. gada budžeta pieņemšanu un Eiropas Savienības vārdā jāieņem Transporta kopienas Reģionālajā pārvaldības komitejā
 PIELIKUMS
 PROJEKTS
 TRANSPORTA KOPIENAS REĢIONĀLĀS PĀRVALDĪBAS KOMITEJAS
 LĒMUMS Nr. /2021
 ...
 par Transporta kopienas 2022. gada budžeta pieņemšanu
 TRANSPORTA KOPIENAS REĢIONĀLĀ PĀRVALDĪBAS KOMITEJA,
 ņemot vērā Transporta kopienas dibināšanas līgumu un jo īpaši tā 24. panta 1. punktu un 35. pantu,
 IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.
 1. pants
 Ar šo tiek pieņemts Transporta kopienas 2022. gada budžets, kas pievienots šim lēmumam.
 2. pants
 (1)Saskaņā ar Transporta kopienai piemērojamo finanšu noteikumu un revīzijas procedūru 10. panta 1. punktu konkrētas 2022. gada budžeta pozīcijas apropriācijas kopumā līdz 10 % apmērā var izmantot mērķiem, kas budžetā noteikti citai budžeta pozīcijai. Tas neattiecas uz budžeta cilvēkresursu pozīciju.
 (2)Apropriācijas, kas pārnestas, ņemot vērā saistības, kas parakstītas 2021. gada beigās un norādītas šeit pievienotajā budžetā, nav izmantojamas tā, kā minēts pirmajā daļā. Tās neņem vērā, nosakot maksimālo apjomu, kas atbilst minētajam 10 % ierobežojumam.
 3. pants
 (1)Apropriācijas, par kurām 2020. un 2021. finanšu gada beigās saistību uzņemšanās nav notikusi, atceļ un atmaksā Pusēm saskaņā ar procentuālo daļu, kas noteikta Transporta kopienas dibināšanas līguma V pielikumā, un faktiski veiktajām iemaksām.
 [...], 2021. gada [...].
 Reģionālās pārvaldības komitejas vārdā —
 priekšsēdētājs
 TRANSPORTA KOPIENAS 2022. GADA BUDŽETS
 Budžeta pozīcija
 Summa
 EUR
 1.Pastāvīgais sekretariāts
 1.1. Cilvēkresursi
 1 504 868
 1.2. Ceļa izdevumi
 156 910
 1.3. Biroja izmaksas, aprīkojums un programmatūra
 481 300
 1.4. Citas izmaksas un pakalpojumi, tostarp:
 - ārpakalpojumi un citi pakalpojumi (revīzija, redzamība, personāla apmācība, maksa par banku pakalpojumiem)
 - sanāksmju un konferenču izmaksas
 - informācijas tehnoloģiju un sakaru izmaksas
 - darbinieku piesaistīšanas izmaksas
 274 710
 1.5. PĒTĪJUMI, tehniskā palīdzība ES acquis un rīcības plānu īstenošanas atbalstam
 220 000
 2.Ministru padome
 2.1. Sanāksmju un konferenču izmaksas
 30 400
 3.Reģionālā pārvaldības komiteja
 3.1. Sanāksmju un konferenču izmaksas
 18 560
 4.Tehniskās komitejas
 4.1. Sanāksmju un konferenču izmaksas
 154 800
 5.Sociālais forums
 5.1. Sanāksmju un konferenču izmaksas
 10 800
 6.Budžeta komiteja
 6.1. Sanāksmju un konferenču izmaksas
 6800
 Rezerve (aptuveni 8 % jauno kredītu)
 142 957
 Kopā jauni kredīti
 2 859 158
 Budžeta rezerve (aptuveni 5 %):
 142 957
 Pavisam kopā
 3 002 105
 1
 ES daļa (80 % jauno kredītu)
 2 401 684
 Dienvidaustrumeiropas pušu daļa (20 % jauno kredītu: TKL V pielikumā ir izklāstīts sadalījums pa valstīm)
 600 421
 (1)
 Provizoriskā summa; galīgā summa jāapstiprina, kad būs zināma kopējā summa, kas pārnesta no 2020. gada.


text:
Loi du 23 décembre 1978 concernant les cartes de priorité et d'invalidité. - Legilux
 Loi du 23 décembre 1978 concernant les cartes de priorité et d'invalidité.
 Permalink ELI : http://data.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/1978/12/23/n8/jo
 D. Durée de validité et renouvellement
 E. Dispositions spéciales
 G. Dispositions abrogatoire et finale
 Vu la décision de la Chambre des Députés du 21 décembre 1978, et celle du Conseil d'Etat du 22 décembre 1978, portant qu'il n'y a pas lieu à second vote;
 Il est créé une carte de priorité et des cartes d'invalidité au profit des personnes qui sont à considérer comme invalides au sens des dispositions de la présente loi.
 La carte de priorité est délivrée aux personnes handicapées de la marche dont l'invalidité bien qu'inférieure à cinquante pour-cent leur cause cependant de sérieuses difficultés de déplacement ou de station debout.
 Les titulaires de la carte de priorité bénéficient d'un droit de priorité de passage ou de service, ainsi que d'une place assise en toutes circonstances.
 La carte de priorité peut être délivrée conjointement avec la carte d'invalidité de la première catégorie prévue à l'article 3 ci-après.
 Les cartes d'invalidité sont de trois catégories:
 a) celles de la première sont délivrées aux personnes dont le degré d'invalidité physique est égal ou supérieur à trente pour-cent sans atteindre cinquante pour-cent;
 b) celles de la seconde sont délivrées aux personnes dont le degré d'invalidité physique est égal ou supérieur à cinquante pour-cent;
 c) celles de la troisième sont délivrées aux personnes dont l'état physique ou mental est tel qu'elles ne peuvent se déplacer sans l'assistance d'une tierce personne.
 Les détenteurs d'une carte d'invalidité de la première catégorie bénéficient d'une réduction de cinquante pour-cent sur les tarifs des moyens de transports publics.
 Les détenteurs d'une carte d'invalidité de la deuxième catégorie bénéficient d'une réduction de soixante-quinze pour-cent sur les tarifs des moyens de transports publics. En outre ils bénéficient d'un droit de priorité de passage ou de service, ainsi que d'une place assise en toutes circonstances.
 Les détenteurs d'une carte d'invalidité de la troisième catégorie bénéficient des mêmes facilités que les détenteurs d'une carte de la deuxième catégorie et ce tant pour eux mêmes que pour une personne accompagnatrice.
 Les tarifs visés à l'article qui précède sont ceux d'un billet normal, sans préjudice de dispositions plus favorables que les administrations ou services intéressés pourront accorder en matière d'abonnements.
 Les cartes de priorité et d'invalidité sont délivrées par le ministre de l'Intérieur ou par son délégué.
 Les cartes peuvent être délivrées aux personnes qui résident dans le pays ou y travaillent régulièrement.
 La demande est présentée sur une formule spéciale accompagnée de deux photographies récentes du prétendant-droit.
 Elle est accompagnée en outre d'un certificat de résidence émanant de la commune de résidence habituelle de l'intéressé.
 Pour les personnes résidant à l'étranger mais travaillant régulièrement au Grand-Duché le certificat de résidence est remplacé par une attestation de l'employeur.
 La demande de carte de priorité ou d'invalidité est soumise à l'avis:
 a) du médecin-conseil de l'office des dommages de guerre s'il s'agit d'un invalide ou mutilé de guerre. Si l'intéressé touche une rente de ce chef l'attestation de l'office des dommages de guerre constatant ce fait et le degré d'invalidité suffit.
 b) du médecin-chef de l'office des assurances sociales s'il s'agit d'un accidenté de travail. Si l'intéressé touche une rente de ce chef l'attestation de l'office des assurances sociales constatant ce fait et le degré d'invalidité suffit.
 c) du médecin-directeur de la Santé Publique ou de son délégué dans tous les autres cas.
 La délivrance des cartes de priorité et d'invalidité ainsi que des certificats et attestations y relatifs est faite sans frais.
 Les cartes de priorité et d'invalidité délivrées en raison d'une invalidité permanente à des personnes résidant au Grand-Duché sont valables sans limitation de durée.
 Les détenteurs sont cependant tenus de faire renouveler leur carte dans les cas suivants:
 a) Si la photographie ne répond plus à l'apparence du détenteur.
 b) Si l'état de la carte est tel qu'elle est devenue difficilement lisible.
 c) Si les indications portées sur la carte ne répondent plus à la réalité.
 Le renouvellement se fait sans frais contre remise de l'ancienne carte et de deux photographies récentes du détenteur.
 Les cartes de priorité et d'invalidité délivrées en raison d'une invalidité provisoire à des personnes résidant au Grand-Duché sont valables pour une durée de cinq ans au maximum.
 Les cartes de priorité et d'invalidité délivrées à des personnes résidant à l'étranger mais travaillant au pays sont valables pour une durée de cinq ans au maximum.
 Le renouvellement des cartes visées aux articles 9 et 10 ci-avant est soumis aux formalités prévues par l'article 6 ci-dessus pour la première délivrance d'une carte. Il en est de même pour le remplacement d'une carte par celle d'une autre catégorie.
 Toutefois le renouvellement des cartes visées à l'article 10 et délivrées en raison d'une invalidité permanente n'est pas sujet à l'avis des autorités visées aux trois derniers alinéas de l'article 6 ci-avant.
 En cas de perte d'une carte le détenteur peut se faire délivrer sans frais et contre remise d'une photographie récente un duplicata.
 Ce dernier est émis pour le restant de la validité de l'ancienne carte.
 Un règlement grand-ducal détermine les modèles détaillés des cartes de priorité et d'invalidité ainsi que des formules et certificats prévus par la présente loi.
 Le même règlement grand-ducal détermine également le signe distinctif spécial des cartes délivrées aux mutilés et invalides de guerre.
 Sont considérés comme mutilés et invalides de guerre au sens de la disposition qui précède les invalides et mutilés luxembourgeois dont l'invalidité est démontrée provenir:
 a) de l'emprisonnement, de l'internement dans un camp de concentration ou de la déportation pour des raisons politiques;
 b) de l'évasion ou de la vie en cachette devant les mesures de l'occupant en raison de leur activité patriotique active dans une organisation de résistance ou de faits de résistance individuelle caractérisée, si la disparition a été le seul moyen d'éviter un danger imminent pour la vie et la liberté;
 c) d'actes exécutés pour la défense ou la libération de la patrie notamment par:
 l'enrôlement dans les armées et formations paramilitaires alliées;
 la collaboration à un service de renseignement et d'action luxembourgeoise ou alliée pour des motifs patriotiques;
 la collaboration à une organisation de résistance;
 la tentative de rejoindre les armées alliées;
 la désertion de l'armée allemande par un non-volontaire;
 l'insoumission à l'armée allemande, à l'S.H.D. et à l'R.A.D.;
 des mutilations volontaires pour échapper au service militaire dans l'armée allemande;
 de l'enrôlement forcé dans l'armée allemande, l'S.H.D. et l'R.A.D.;
 d) d'un fait caractérisé de guerre.
 Les cartes de priorité et d'invalidité émises avant l'entrée en vigueur de la présente loi en exécution de la loi du 24 décembre 1948 concernant l'octroi de cartes spéciales à certains invalides de guerre, à certains accidentés de travail ainsi qu'aux pupilles de la nation et aux orphelins de guerre restent en vigueur jusqu'à l'expiration de leur validité.
 Les titulaires peuvent cependant en demander le remplacement sans frais par les cartes prévues par la présente loi, même avant la date limite de validité, en observant les formalités prévues par l'article 8, dernier alinéa de la présente loi.
 Les cartes pour pupilles de la nation et orphelins de guerre émises sous l'empire de la loi précitée du 24 décembre 1948 restent en vigueur et peuvent être prolongées ou renouvelées jusqu'à l'expiration des délais prévus par l'article 2 dernier alinéa de la prédite loi du 24 décembre 1948.
 Toutefois les cartes de cette espèce délivrées à titre permanent pour cause d'invalidité sont remplacées par des cartes d'invalidité de la troisième catégorie prévues par l'article 3 sub c) de la présente loi, ces cartes sont du modèle spécial visé à l'article 13, deuxième alinéa de la présente loi.
 Sans préjudice des dispositions prévues à l'article 13, deuxième alinéa, ainsi qu'aux articles 14 et 15 de la présente loi, la loi du 24 décembre 1948 concernant l'octroi de cartes spéciales à certains invalides de guerre, à certains accidentés de travail ainsi qu'aux pupilles de la nation et aux orphelins de guerre est abrogée.
 Doc. parl. N° 2022, sess. ord. 1975-1976, 1976-1977 et 1978-1979
 Règlement grand-ducal du 1er mars 1979 portant exécution de l'article 13 de la loi du 23 décembre 1978 concernant (...) (Mémorial A n° 44 de 1979)
 Règlement grand-ducal du 9 mars 2009 concernant l'octroi d'un remboursement partiel de la taxe sur les véhicules (...) (Mémorial A n° 45 de 2009)
 Loi du 24 décembre 1948 concernant l'octroi de cartes spéciales à certains invalides de guerre, à certains accidentés (...) (Mémorial A n° 71 de 1948)