jurisdiction: US

text: b'TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance\n the Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program\n Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n March 12, 2008\n\n Reference Number: 2008-30-056\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 Phone Number | 202-927-7037\n Email Address | inquiries@tigta.treas.gov\n Web Site | http://www.tigta.gov\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 March 12, 2008\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER\n\n\n FROM: (for) Michael R. Phillips\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the\n Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n (Audit # 200630IE013)\n\n This report presents the results of our review of the Internal Revenue Service\xe2\x80\x99s (IRS) processing\n of workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims filed by employees. The overall objective of this review was to\n evaluate the effectiveness of the Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program administration in the IRS,\n with an emphasis on the progress made since 2003. The review was initiated at the request of\n the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.\n\n Impact on the Taxpayer\n IRS cash outlays for workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims continue to increase, driven by such factors\n as cost-of-living increases and higher costs for medical equipment, medications, and treatment.\n These outlays represent financial obligations to care for injured employees and can be considered\n a cost of business. However, if costs are not properly managed and increase significantly,\n obligations could ultimately affect the amount of money the IRS has available to spend on\n enhancing the delivery of service to the taxpaying public.\n\n Synopsis\n Overall, the IRS has made notable progress in managing its Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program.\n Since 2003, the IRS has fully or partially implemented our prior recommendations1 for\n enhancing case management techniques, increasing the accuracy of performance measures, and\n\n 1\n Improvements Are Needed in the Process and Information Used to Manage Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Claims\n (Reference Number 2003-10-213, dated September 2003).\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nholding IRS managers more accountable for reducing costs associated with workers\xe2\x80\x99\ncompensation claims. While program management has improved, we believe additional steps\nneed to be taken in the Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Center (WCC) and throughout the IRS to further\nstrengthen the Program.\nIn the WCC, control processes need to be established to ensure the IRS is not overpaying\nworkers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation benefits. In 1996, the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency\nissued a consolidated report on the Federal Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Act (FECA)2 that\nsummarized the results of 13 audits conducted by participating Offices of Inspectors General.\nThe audits found substantial overpayments and millions of dollars in projected questionable\npayments because agencies were not adequately reviewing their FECA chargeback cost reports.\nDuring our review of IRS records and its 2006 chargeback report, we identified issues similar to\nthose surfaced by the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency in 1996. Specifically, we\nquestioned more than $1 million in charges that included benefits paid subsequent to Social\nSecurity Administration records indicating claimants3 had died. In one instance, the\ncompensation payments continued for almost 2 years after the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s death.\nAgencywide, the IRS needs to ensure that required procedures are followed when claims are\ninitiated and to implement a more strategically oriented approach for returning employees to\nwork following an injury. Our review of case files associated with 40 claims found problems in\n31 of the claim cases reviewed. For example, injury investigations were not thoroughly\nconducted, and some questionable claims were not challenged while others were improperly\nchallenged.\nIncreasing from $1.4 billion in 1990 to nearly $2.4 billion in 2005, the cost of workers\xe2\x80\x99\ncompensation has caused concern throughout the Federal Government. We analyzed practices,\n(1) advocated and implemented by agencies we identified and, (2) recommended to us by\nofficials from the Department of Labor Office of Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Programs (OWCP) as\nparticularly effective at controlling costs, and found three common strategies in their\nreturn-to-work practices.4\nFirst, return-to-work programs were established with policies, procedures, and processes that\nstressed taking an organizational approach to finding productive activities for injured employees\nby collaborating cross-functionally both inside and outside the agency. Second, proactive steps\nwere taken to establish an environment in which injured employees are expected to return to\nwork. Besides creating a pool of available light-duty and modified jobs,5 these steps included\n\n2\n Ch. 458, 39 Stat. 742 (1916) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 1 U.S.C., 5 U.S.C., and 18 U.S.C.).\n3\n A person who files a claim for a benefit, such as a claim for workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation.\n4\n The specific agencies included the Department of Defense, the United States Postal Service, the Transportation\nSecurity Administration, and the State of Ohio.\n5\n Work in which the physical aspects of a job are adapted, altered, or removed to allow employees to perform the\nessential job functions of a position.\n 2\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\ntaking advantage of telecommuting opportunities and establishing early rehabilitation and\nintervention activities using contract nurses. Third, goals and performance measures were\ndeveloped and used to measure the effectiveness of return-to-work efforts.\nIn contrast, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 return-to-work efforts are more reactive, less strategically oriented, and\nheavily reliant on its first-line managers -who can have broad spans of control and many other\nadministrative demands on their time -to provide jobs commensurate with an employee\xe2\x80\x99s skills\nand medical limitations. Moreover, specific policies and procedures have yet to be implemented\nto coordinate and collaborate across functional lines to assist in transitioning more injured\nemployees back to the workplace. Considering that one injured employee can easily cost an\nagency more than $1 million if he or she does not return to work, even relatively small successes\nin returning individuals to work can significantly reduce outlays for workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation\nbenefits.\n\nRecommendations\nTo ensure that the IRS is not overpaying workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation benefits, the Chief Human\nCapital Officer should develop and implement control processes for reviewing the accuracy of\ncosts in chargeback reports, obtain evidence to ensure that benefits are paid only to current or\nformer IRS employees, and seek reimbursement for the compensation paid subsequent to\nclaimants\xe2\x80\x99 deaths and on denied claims. The Chief Human Capital Officer should also\ncoordinate with the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support to implement a control to\nprovide assurances that required procedures are completed in the claim process and establish a\nmore strategic approach to enhance return-to-work efforts.\n\nResponse\nThe Chief Human Capital Officer agreed with our recommendations and outlined the actions the\nIRS has taken or would take. These actions include implementing control processes for\nreviewing the accuracy of the costs in chargeback reports, seeking reimbursement from the\nOWCP for benefits paid subsequent to claimants\xe2\x80\x99 deaths, enhancing the mandatory annual safety\nbriefing, and developing an instructional training compact disc for employees. The IRS will also\ndevelop a policy with a goal of addressing cross-functional placement for injured workers and\nenhance the efforts made by first-line managers and case management specialists with\nreturn-to-work procedures. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the draft report is included as\nAppendix V.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n\nOffice of Audit Comment\nWe acknowledge the actions described above will provide assurance that workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation\nbenefits are paid to eligible IRS employees and their beneficiaries for claims made since the\ncentralization of the WCC. However, the IRS did not specifically agree or disagree to obtain\nevidence, such as the originally filed claim documents, to ensure that all workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation\nbenefits are paid only to eligible IRS employees and their beneficiaries. We believe that, without\nobtaining such evidence, the IRS will remain at risk of overpaying workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation\nbenefits for claims arising before the WCC centralization.\nCopies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report\nrecommendations. Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or\nMargaret E. Begg, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Small Business and Corporate\nPrograms), at (202) 622-8510.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nBackground ..........................................................................................................Page 1\n\nResults of Review ...............................................................................................Page 3\n The Internal Revenue Service Has Made Notable Progress in Managing\n Its Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program............................................................Page 3\n Control Processes Need to Be Developed and Implemented to Ensure\n the Internal Revenue Service Is Not Overpaying Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation\n Benefits .........................................................................................................Page 6\n Recommendations 1 and 2: ..............................................Page 7\n\n Recommendation 3:........................................................Page 8\n\n Additional Steps Should Be Taken to Ensure Required Procedures\n Are Followed When Initiating Claims..........................................................Page 8\n Recommendation 4:........................................................Page 10\n\n A More Strategic Approach for Returning Employees to Work\n Following an Injury Needs to Be Explored ..................................................Page 10\n Recommendation 5:........................................................Page 14\n\n\nAppendices\n Appendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology ........................Page 15\n Appendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ........................................Page 17\n Appendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List .......................................................Page 18\n Appendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Costs ............................................Page 19\n Appendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report .......................Page 21\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n\n Abbreviations\n\nFECA Federal Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Act\nIRS Internal Revenue Service\nOWCP Office of Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Programs\nSHARE Safety, Health, and Return-to-Employment\nSHIMS Safety and Health Information Management System\nWCC Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Center\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n\n Background\n\nThe Department of Labor Office of Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Programs (OWCP) is responsible\nfor administering the Federal Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Act (FECA).1 Enacted in 1916, with\nsubstantial modifications over the years, the FECA is designed to provide nontaxable payments\nto cover the lost wages, medical care, and survivors\xe2\x80\x99 benefits of Federal Government employees\nwho are injured on the job. The FECA is\na major benefit program that affects the The total Federal Government FECA benefit\nbudgets of all Federal Government costs increased from $1.4 billion in 1990 to\nagencies, and its rising costs are a nearly $2.4 billion in 2005.\nconcern throughout the Government. The\ntotal Federal Government FECA benefit\ncosts increased from $1.4 billion in 1990 to nearly $2.4 billion in 2005.\nThe OWCP, which administers the Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program from 12 district offices\nlocated throughout the country, is responsible for claim adjudication and payment of benefits.\nHowever, the OWCP bills Federal Government agencies for the amount of benefits paid on\nbehalf of the agencies\xe2\x80\x99 injured employees.2 These \xe2\x80\x9cchargeback billings\xe2\x80\x9d cover the 12-month\nexpense period of July 1 to June 30 each year, and agencies pay the expenses from their\nappropriations or operating revenues.\nBesides reimbursing the OWCP, Federal Government agencies have other responsibilities to\nensure that their employees are properly covered under the FECA. These other responsibilities\ninclude ensuring that personnel understand the FECA, informing injured employees of their\nrights and obligations, initiating the claim process with the OWCP, authorizing medical care, and\ncoordinating with the OWCP in monitoring the medical status of injured employees to help\ndetermine if and when they can resume working.\nOrganizationally, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program is\nlocated and managed from its Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Center (WCC) in Richmond, Virginia.\nThe WCC serves as the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 liaison with the OWCP and is responsible for controlling and\nreviewing employee claims, coordinating with the OWCP in monitoring the status of injured\nemployees to help determine when they can return to work, and verifying the accuracy of\nchargeback billings.\n\n1\n Ch. 458, 39 Stat. 742 (1916) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 1 U.S.C., 5 U.S.C., and 18 U.S.C.).\n2\n Agency bills can include the costs of compensation, rehabilitation, medical services, and/or death payments paid to\ninjured employees and their survivors.\n\n\n\n Page 1\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nThe WCC uses the Department of the Treasury Safety and Health Information Management\nSystem (SHIMS) to process and control workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims. The SHIMS was\nimplemented on October 1, 2001, and was designed to replace the paper accident claim reporting\nprocess with an electronic system that would allow claims to be submitted to the WCC and\nOWCP quickly. In addition, the SHIMS is designed to enable the IRS to track its lost production\ndays and costs.\nThis review was performed at the IRS WCC in Richmond, Virginia, during the period June 2006\nthrough July 2007. We conducted the review in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions\nbased on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis\nfor our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. Detailed information on our\nobjective, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major contributors to the report\nare listed in Appendix II.\n\n\n\n\n Page 2\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n\n Results of Review\n\nThe Internal Revenue Service Has Made Notable Progress in\nManaging Its Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program\nThe IRS has improved the process and information used to manage its workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation\nclaims. Since 2003, the IRS has fully or partially implemented all eight of our prior\nrecommendations for enhancing case management techniques, increasing the accuracy of\nperformance measures, and holding IRS managers more accountable for reducing costs\nassociated with workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims.\nTo improve the case management of long-term disability cases, the IRS implemented our\nrecommendation to establish guidelines for reviewing older cases. In September 2003, the WCC\nissued detailed instructions for its personnel on what and when steps should be taken in\nmanaging claims in process for more than 1 year. The instructions included steps that should be\ntaken and documented in case files when assessing a claimant\xe2\x80\x99s3 ability to return to work. The\ninstructions were subsequently incorporated into the WCC procedural guidelines that supplement\nand expand on the instructions in the Internal Revenue Manual.\nTo increase the accuracy of performance measures, the IRS implemented our two\nrecommendations for increasing the reliability of its cost avoidance accomplishments. In\nOctober 2003, the WCC revised how it calculated the accomplishments by properly accounting\nfor injured employees who returned to work and ensuring that the amounts claimed were the\nresult of specific actions taken by the WCC. Although we did not verify the accuracy of the\naccomplishments claimed since our last review, we did find they are lower and the methodology\nfor calculating them is generally in line with those used by the other agencies we benchmarked.\nTo enhance case management techniques, the IRS implemented our four recommendations\nrelated to using the SHIMS more effectively for managing key aspects of the claim process. For\nexample, we reported in 2003 that the WCC was not consistently populating data fields in the\nSHIMS with information that would assist in monitoring the status and timeliness of key actions\nin the claims process. Instead, the WCC relied on more cumbersome and error-prone manual\nprocesses for monitoring. As summarized in Figure 1, we found a marked improvement in the\namount of information input to the data fields since 2003. According to WCC officials, the\nadditional information is enhancing their ability to use the SHIMS as a major analytical tool for\nevaluating and controlling claim case activities.\n\n3\n A claimant is a person who files a claim for a benefit, such as a claim for workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation.\n\n\n Page 3\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nFigure 1: Comparison of Past and Current Use of Specific Fields in the SHIMS\n FIELDS IN THE SHIMS PAST USE4 CURRENT USE5\n Assessment Code: Rarely used: Found 22 (2%) Extensively used: Found\n Documents the specialist\xe2\x80\x99s uses out of 1,044 for cases tested. 2,827 (94%) uses out of 3,014 for\n initial assessment of the claim. cases tested.\n Management Code: Gives Rarely used: Found 16 (2%) Extensively used: Found\n the current status of the case. uses out of 1,044 for cases tested. 2,843 (94%) uses out of 3,014 for\n cases tested.\n Case File Number: Usually recorded: Found Almost always recorded: Found\n References to the paper file 2,951 (95%) uses out of 3,109 for 2,991 (99%) uses out of 3,014 for\n stored in the WCC facility. cases tested. cases tested.\nSource: Improvements Are Needed in the Process and Information Used to Manage Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation\nClaims (Reference Number 2003-10-213, dated September 2003) and a December 4, 2006, data extract from the\nSHIMS.\n\nTo begin holding managers more accountable for reducing costs associated with claims, the IRS\npartially implemented our recommendation to establish procedures for assigning workers\xe2\x80\x99\ncompensation costs to its various business units. For example, the WCC implemented a process\nthat provides IRS executives a quarterly report outlining the workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation costs\nassociated with injured employees in their respective business units. While the report may be\nincreasing organizational awareness of the costs associated with injured employees, it does little\nto hold the executives or managers in the various business units accountable for reducing them.\nBesides acting on our recommendations, the IRS is making progress in carrying out its\nresponsibilities under the Governmentwide Safety, Health, and Return-to-Employment (SHARE)\ninitiative. The SHARE initiative was introduced in 2004 as a response to escalating workers\xe2\x80\x99\ncompensation costs. Under the SHARE initiative, which is primarily aimed at newly filed\nclaims, Federal Government agencies are directed to (1) reduce claim rates, (2) increase the\ntimeliness of processing claims, (3) reduce the amount of time lost from work, and (4) reduce the\nnumber of lost days.\nWhile data are not available on the precise impact the initiative is having on reducing costs,\nstatistics from the Department of Labor, which are reproduced in Figure 2, show the IRS has\nsteadily improved in key areas under the SHARE initiative. Improvement in claims processing\ntime is particularly important because it is the initial step in a case management process designed\nto reduce workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation costs by getting workers healthy and back to work as quickly\nas possible. In Fiscal Year 2007, the Department of the Treasury, with significant contribution\nby the IRS, was recognized by the Department of Labor for its performance in decreasing the\n\n4\n As documented in our prior report Improvements Are Needed in the Process and Information Used to Manage\nWorkers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Claims (Reference Number 2003-10-213, dated September 2003).\n5\n We determined use for claims with costs in Chargeback Year 2006 based on data in the SHIMS as of\nDecember 2006.\n Page 4\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nnumber of injuries and illnesses by more than any other Federal Government agency since the\nPresidential SHARE initiative began in 2004.\n\n Figure 2: SHARE Initiative Statistics for the IRS\n (Fiscal Year 2003 Through March 2007)\n Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year\n 20036 2004 2005 2006 20077\n Number of employees 104,945 102,112 103,805 98,547 92,902\n Total cases 1,864 1,583 1,400 1,204 635\n Total case rates 1.78 1.55 1.35 1.22 .68\n Total lost time cases 1,269 1,137 942 781 437\n Total lost time case rate 1.21 1.11 .91 .79 .47\n Lost work days 36 41 34 34 25\n Percentage of timely filed\n claims 73% 79% 82% 83% 87%\nSource: Department of Labor OWCP statistics.\n\nWe also learned that in February 2005, the WCC independently initiated a quality review process\nto evaluate adherence to selected procedures. The process involves reviewing a random sample\nof claim cases and, according to WCC officials, has significantly improved claim management\npractices. In the beginning, the quality review scores were below expectations. However, the\nquality scores have increased and are currently around 90 percent or more.\nWhile the IRS has made notable progress in improving its Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program, we\nbelieve additional steps need to be taken within the WCC and throughout the IRS to further\nstrengthen the Program. Specifically, the WCC needs to develop control processes that ensure\nthat the IRS is not overpaying workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation benefits. Agencywide, the IRS needs to\nensure that required procedures are followed when claims are initiated and to implement a more\nstrategically oriented approach for returning employees to work following an injury.\n\nControl Processes Need to Be Developed and Implemented to Ensure\nthe Internal Revenue Service Is Not Overpaying Workers\xe2\x80\x99\nCompensation Benefits\nThe Government Accountability Office Standards for Internal Control in the Federal\nGovernment provides an overall framework for control processes that, in short, require\nestablishing policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms to ensure that actions are taken to\nminimize risks. During the course of our review, WCC management readily acknowledged they\nhad not developed or implemented control processes for thoroughly reviewing the accuracy of\n\n6\n Fiscal Year 2003 is the baseline year for the SHARE initiative measures.\n7\n Figures reported for Fiscal Year 2007 are only through March 2007.\n\n Page 5\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nthe costs in the OWCP chargeback reports. The WCC instead heavily relies upon the OWCP to\nensure that the millions of dollars in benefits it pays on behalf of the IRS are accurate. However,\nevidence from three sources clearly shows that, by not thoroughly reviewing the chargeback\nreports, the IRS incurs considerable risk that it may be paying more for workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation\nbenefits than is necessary.\nFirst, the OWCP recognizes that there can be errors in its chargeback billing process and has\nlong recommended that agency officials routinely review their chargeback reports to identify and\ncorrect erroneous payments for compensation and medical benefits. Additionally, the OWCP\nrecommends that, when officials suspect erroneous payments have been made, they should check\ncurrent personnel and payroll records, as well as the service record file, and/or send an inquiry to\nthe Federal Records Center. Second, in 1996, the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and\nEfficiency issued a consolidated report on the FECA that summarized the results of 13 audits\nconducted by participating Offices of Inspectors General. The report demonstrated that\nsubstantial overpayments and millions of dollars in projected questionable payments were\nidentified because agencies were not adequately reviewing their FECA chargeback reports.\nThird, issues similar to those surfaced by the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency in\n1996 were identified during our review of IRS records and its 2006 chargeback report.\nSpecifically, we questioned whether the IRS should have been charged for:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Compensation payments and survivor benefits totaling approximately $1.3 million that were\n paid to 7 claimants and 27 beneficiaries (34 cases). In 22 of the 34 cases, we found no case\n files or any other documentation to support that the recipients were and continue to be\n eligible for the benefits. While files were maintained for the other 12 cases, we found key\n documents to verify prior IRS employment and monitor continued eligibility for workers\xe2\x80\x99\n compensations benefits were missing. The information missing from the files included dates\n and description of employment with the IRS, dates and description of claimant\xe2\x80\x99s injuries, and\n contact information for those receiving the benefits. Moreover, we found only 4 of the\n 34 original claimants\xe2\x80\x99 identification numbers listed in current or historical IRS payroll\n records.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Compensation payments of more than $75,000 that continued to be paid subsequent to\n 3 claimants\xe2\x80\x99 deaths. In one instance, the compensation payments continued for almost 2\n years after Social Security Administration records indicated the claimant had died. In\n addition, another claimant\xe2\x80\x99s death payments were not adjusted to reflect the correct rate\n payable to a surviving spouse.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Medical expenses of approximately $12,700 that were paid for 3 employees after their claims\n had been denied by the OWCP.\nAs noted above, the majority of the questionable charges are attributable to missing or\ninsufficient documentation. According to WCC officials and our observations, this problem\nlargely stemmed from claims that originated before the IRS centralized its Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n\n Page 6\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nCompensation Program under the WCC in 1994. Prior to establishment of the WCC, claims\nwere handled by IRS personnel located in geographically dispersed offices that may have\noperated more informally and with less documentation because each office was responsible for\nmanaging significantly fewer cases. However, we believe that, even with significantly fewer\ncases to manage, the level of informality in operations that existed when the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\nCompensation Program was decentralized would still expose the IRS to risks that include\noverpaying workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation benefits.\n\nRecommendations\nTo ensure that the IRS is not overpaying workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation benefits, the Chief Human\nCapital Officer should:\nRecommendation 1: Develop and implement control processes for reviewing the accuracy of\ncosts in OWCP chargeback reports.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Chief Human Capital Officer agreed with this\n recommendation. Control processes will be implemented to assure that, (1) any\n compensation or medical payments made after a claim has been made inactive are\n identified and, (2) actions are taken to validate or report any questionable charge, using\n routine exception reports generated from the SHIMS and the OWCP databases.\nRecommendation 2: Obtain evidence, such as the originally filed claim documents, to ensure\nthat all workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation benefits are paid only to eligible current or former IRS employees\nand their beneficiaries.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Chief Human Capital Officer agreed with this\n recommendation and stated that corrective actions have been completed. Since the\n centralization of the WCC in 1994, each new claim received is verified to be from an IRS\n employee through the use of existing personnel databases, and this documentation is\n placed in case files.\n Office of Audit Comment: We acknowledge the actions described above provide\n assurance that workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation benefits are paid to eligible IRS employees and\n their beneficiaries for claims made since the centralization of the WCC. However, the\n IRS did not specifically agree or disagree to obtain evidence, such as the originally filed\n claim documents, to ensure that all workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation benefits are paid only to\n eligible IRS employees and their beneficiaries. We believe that, without obtaining such\n evidence, the IRS will remain at risk of overpaying workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation benefits for\n claims arising before the WCC centralization.\n\n\n\n\n Page 7\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nRecommendation 3: Seek reimbursement from the OWCP for the compensation paid\n(1) subsequent to claimants\xe2\x80\x99 deaths and, (2) to claimants whose claims were denied.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Chief Human Capital Officer agreed with this\n recommendation and stated that corrective actions have been completed. The IRS\n followed up with the OWCP regarding the three cases for which compensation benefits\n were paid after the claimant had died and determined that, in two instances, the OWCP\n had begun the recovery process for the overpayments by contacting the bank into which\n the funds had been directly deposited. In the other instance, the IRS determined a spouse\n was appropriately receiving survivor benefits. With regard to the medical payments, the\n IRS did not find any inappropriate payments made subsequent to the denial of the\n medical claims but noted that occasionally payments are made after a claim denial for\n bills with dates of services predating the date on which the claim was denied.\n\nAdditional Steps Should Be Taken to Ensure Required Procedures\nAre Followed When Initiating Claims\nOne of the objectives of the OWCP is to protect the interests of Federal Government employees\nby encouraging the timely and accurate submission of claims for consideration. First-line\nsupervisors both within and outside the IRS are responsible for ensuring that this Government-\nwide objective is achieved by initiating injury investigations immediately, authorizing medical\ntreatment promptly, informing injured employees of their rights and responsibilities, and\nsubmitting properly completed claim forms to the OWCP within 10 days of receipt from the\ninjured employees.\nTo assist managers throughout the IRS in meeting their responsibilities, the WCC has focused\nconsiderable efforts on developing and introducing products, such as a computer-based training\npackage and a standardized managerial checklist, intended to familiarize managers with and\nprovide details on the various procedures that should be completed to ensure that claims are\nsubmitted properly and on time. Beyond these WCC efforts, the IRS should take additional steps\nto better ensure that managers follow required procedures. We reviewed a judgmental sample of\ncase files associated with 40 claims and found 31 claim cases with 1 or more of the following\nproblems:\n 1. Injury investigations were not thoroughly conducted (20 cases).\n Thorough and well-documented injury investigations are essential for substantiating or\n raising doubts about the validity of claims. Although this generally involves obtaining\n third-party witness statements and providing a detailed description of the time, place, and\n cause of the injury, we found these elements were often missing from case files.\n 2. Injured employees were not advised of their rights and responsibilities (24 cases).\n By law, supervisors are required to promptly authorize an initial medical examination for\n an injured employee and ensure that he or she is aware of his or her rights and\n\n Page 8\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n responsibilities. These requirements are further emphasized in both the Internal Revenue\n Manual and the national agreement between the IRS and the National Treasury\n Employees Union. Except for a few instances, we saw little evidence in the case files\n that injured employees were both promptly authorized for medical treatment and fully\n advised of their rights and responsibilities.\n 3. Medical status reports were not used to request information from doctors (19 cases).\n Determining the extent of an employee\xe2\x80\x99s injury and ability to return to work is central for\n assessing the validity of a claim and for making reasonable accommodations in\n accordance with work restrictions found medically necessary. Despite the important role\n the medical status reports have in the claim process, we found they were not routinely\n issued when an injury was reported.\n 4. Questionable claims were not challenged or were improperly challenged (13 cases).\n Federal Government workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation regulations allow the IRS, as well as other\n agencies, to challenge a questionable claim and are an agency\xe2\x80\x99s only opportunity to\n notify the OWCP of its disagreement with the claim. Because agencies have no appeal\n rights and are at risk of paying for illegitimate claims that are not challenged, supervisors\n must be knowledgeable of how and when to challenge claims.\nAs shown in our case reviews, many of the problems stemmed from the lack of documentation\nindicating that required procedures were followed. Although we did not use statistically valid\nsampling techniques in selecting the claim cases for review, we believe our results indicate this is\na nationwide concern. The claims came from a variety of IRS operational areas and were filed\nover several years from different offices across the country.\nDuring our review, we used several items listed on a standardized managerial checklist\nintroduced by the WCC in Fiscal Year 2002 to guide our evaluation of how well selected\nprocedures were followed. Managers can access the checklist online to get specific, step-by-step\ninstructions for each of the workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation procedures. While the checklist also provides\nimportant references to answer procedural and process questions, we saw little evidence in the\ncases we reviewed that it was used by managers.\nAs we have previously reported,8 the IRS has successfully designed and implemented mandatory\nchecklists in other program areas as a control to hold personnel accountable for ensuring that\nrequired procedures and processes are completed. We believe that, if the WCC managerial\nchecklist is similarly mandated, it would provide a cost-effective control for resolving many of\nthe problems identified in our case reviews. Like other successfully mandated checklists in the\nIRS, it would need to solicit signatures and dates from managers and employees certifying that\nthe actions were completed, and be included as a permanent part of claim case files.\n\n8\n The Strategy to Reemphasize Penalties in Corporate Examinations Could Be Enhanced (Reference\nNumber 2005-30-123, dated August 2005).\n\n Page 9\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nAdditionally, the use of the checklist would need to be evaluated and the results of the\nevaluations shared agencywide, so that needed corrective actions, if any, could be identified and\naddressed. We believe this could be accomplished by taking relatively simple steps requiring\nminimal amounts of time and resources. As discussed earlier, the WCC already has in place a\nquality review process that could be modified to include evaluating the use of the checklist.\nMoreover, the IRS currently requires managers and employees to participate in an annual\nbriefing session on workplace safety and health issues. The annual briefing includes references\nfor reporting workplace injuries to the WCC and could be enhanced by sharing review results on\nthe use of the checklist and emphasizing the importance of following required procedures when\ninitiating claims.\n\nRecommendation\nRecommendation 4: The Chief Human Capital Officer should coordinate with the Deputy\nCommissioner for Operations Support to implement a control to provide greater assurances that\nrequired procedures are completed in the claim process by managers and employees throughout\nthe IRS.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Chief Human Capital Officer agreed with this\n recommendation. The IRS will enhance the mandatory annual safety briefing and will\n develop an instructional training compact disc for employees that will complement the\n one available for managers.\n\nA More Strategic Approach for Returning Employees to Work\nFollowing an Injury Needs to Be Explored\nReturning employees to work after an injury or occupational illness continues to present\nmanagement challenges for the IRS as well as other agencies. These challenges have, in part,\nbeen attributed to the FECA itself. As the Government Accountability Office and others have\nreported, the FECA provides injured employees with very generous benefits that critics believe\ncreate an incentive for workers to continue receiving FECA benefits even though they may be\nable to return to work. These benefits can include tax-free payments of up to 75 percent of\nearnings that provide some employees with more net income while receiving workers\xe2\x80\x99\ncompensation than when working. Moreover, there is no mandatory retirement age for\nemployees collecting FECA benefits. Consequently, those who, in effect, \xe2\x80\x9cretire on the FECA\xe2\x80\x9d\nwill generally receive greater amounts than career employees who retire normally.\nCritics also point to the role the OWCP has in the process. By law, the OWCP is an advocate for\ninjured employees because it alone determines the validity of claims and when injured\nemployees are healthy enough to return to work, even though it has little, if any, financial\nobligation if a claimant\xe2\x80\x99s case is mismanaged. Because legislative actions to remove these\nobstacles have been proposed but have not been acted on, agencies must establish effective\n\n Page 10\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nreturn-to-work practices for controlling workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation costs, considering that 1 injured\nemployee can easily cost an agency more than $1 million if he or she never returns to work.\nWe analyzed practices (1) advocated and implemented by agencies we identified and\n(2) recommended to us by the OWCP as particularly effective at controlling costs and found\nthree common strategies in their return-to-work practices.9 First, return-to-work programs were\nestablished with policies, procedures, and other processes that stressed taking an organizational\napproach to finding productive activities for injured employees by collaborating\ncross-functionally both within and outside the agency. In the Department of Defense, working\nrelationships were established with executives and managers in other agencies to identify,\nevaluate, and deliver transitional work10 for the injured. The transitional work helped reduce\ncosts by gradually returning injured workers to the workplace in less physically or mentally\ndemanding positions than their regular jobs. During Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007,\n491 recovering Department of Defense employees were reemployed, creating a projected\nlifetime cost reduction of approximately $422 million.\nSecond, proactive steps were taken to establish an environment in which injured employees are\nexpected to return to work. Besides creating a pool of available light-duty and modified jobs,11\nthese steps included taking advantage of telecommuting opportunities and establishing early\nrehabilitation and intervention activities using contract nurses. For example, the Transportation\nSecurity Administration adopted a private industry nurse intervention program, which resulted in\na 33 percent reduction of absenteeism per injury.\nThird, goals and performance measures, other than those required by the SHARE initiative, were\ndeveloped and used to measure the effectiveness of return-to-work efforts. As we have\npreviously reported, performance measures are critical for understanding what a program is\naccomplishing and whether goals are being achieved. In short, they focus on results and are a\ncentral aspect of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.12\nIn contrast, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 return-to-work efforts are more reactive, less strategically oriented, and\nheavily reliant on its first-line managers -who can have broad spans of control and multiple other\nadministrative demands on their time -to provide jobs commensurate with an employee\xe2\x80\x99s skills\nand medical limitations. Moreover, specific policies and procedures have yet to be implemented\nto coordinate and collaborate across functional lines to assist in transitioning more injured\n\n9\n The specific agencies included the Department of Defense, the United States Postal Service, the Transportation\nSecurity Administration, and the State of Ohio.\n10\n Transitional work uses real job duties for a specified, limited time to help injured employees progress to their\noriginal jobs, with the Department of Defense\xe2\x80\x99s requirement that the transitional positions be integrated into the base\nor installation workforce within a year.\n11\n Work in which the physical aspects of a job are adapted, altered, or removed to allow employees to perform the\nessential job functions of a position.\n12\n Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C., 31 U.S.C., and\n39 U.S.C.).\n\n Page 11\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nemployees back to the workplace. The heavy reliance on first-line managers and the absence of\npolices and procedures for working across organizational lines in the IRS diminishes\nreturn-to-work efforts and can have a detrimental effect on both the IRS and injured employees,\nas shown in the following excerpt from a 2006 letter from the OWCP to the WCC:\n This is to confirm the conversation with a manager in which he declined the opportunity\n to offer the above named employee modified employment. He was advised that all costs\n associated with rehabilitation effort as well as continued wage loss compensation at the\n total disability rate and medical costs will be billed back to your agency.\n The injured employees\xe2\x80\x99 potential entitlement for wage loss compensation is\n approximately $1.3 million of your future appropriation, not counting the thousands\n spent on vocational rehabilitation. That is over a million dollars on just one case.\n You are losing a trained and valuable employee, who will have to accept that a career\n with your agency is over. We will be challenged with retraining and attempting to secure\n employment for this employee in a difficult labor market.\n The Department of [the] Treasury has expressed its concern about the rising costs\n associated with workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation. Commitments have been made by your national\n office to make every effort to provide partially disabled employees with modified work. It\n is unfortunate that you are unable to comply in this case. Hopefully this case is an\n exception.\n\nSmall successes in returning employees to work can significantly reduce\nworkers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation program costs\nIRS cash outlays for workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims continue to increase, driven by such factors\nas cost-of-living increases and higher costs for medical equipment, medications, and treatment.\nThese outlays represent financial obligations to care for injured employees and can be considered\na cost of business. However, if the costs are not properly managed and they increase\nsignificantly, obligations could ultimately affect the amount of money the IRS has available to\nspend on enhancing the delivery of service to the taxpaying public.\nIn 2006, the IRS was charged almost $12 million for the compensation paid to 402 employees,\nage 65 or under, on the periodic roll.13 If these employees remain on the periodic roll and do not\nreturn to work, the IRS will incur approximately $59 million14 in charges over the next 5 years,\nwith the costs continuing to escalate in subsequent years. As illustrated in Figure 3, we estimate\n\n13\n We determined that the 402 individuals filed 404 workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims. We determined their age as of\nJune 30, 2006. Employees on the periodic roll have disabilities or injuries that have lasted or are expected to last for\nprolonged periods (more than 1 year).\n14\n We calculated $59 million by multiplying the compensation costs paid in Chargeback Year 2006 on 404 claims\nfiled by 402 employees age 65 or under on the periodic roll by five.\n\n\n Page 12\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nthe IRS will pay approximately $173 million15 in compensation for the 402 injured employees by\nthe time they reach age 70 and about $231 million16 in compensation by age 75.\n Figure 3: Chargeback Costs Continually Increase Over Time\n\n Compensation Costs Paid to 402 Employees Age 65 or Under on the Periodic Roll in\n Chargeback Year 2006 (Actual), 5 Years Forward, at Age 70, and at Age 75\n Millions\n $250\n $231\n $200\n $173\n $150\n\n $100\n $59\n $50\n $12\n $0\n 2006 5 Years Age 70 Age 75\n\n Source: IRS chargeback costs for 2006, with our estimated future costs.17\n\nMany workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation program managers and others in the field, such as those who\nprovide worker rehabilitation services, believe the longer an individual remains away from work\nthe more challenging it will be for him or her to return to work. Despite the challenges, effective\nreturn-to-work strategies, such as those discussed in this report, may provide the IRS with\nopportunities to return more individuals to productive activity in the workplace, while at the\nsame time reducing its workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation costs. According to cost avoidance formulas for\nperiodic roll cases used in some Federal Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Programs,18 we estimate that,\n\n15\n We calculated $173 million by multiplying the number of years until an employee reaches age 70 for the\n404 claims by the compensation paid on each claim in Chargeback Year 2006.\n16\n We calculated $231 million by multiplying the number of years until an employee reaches age 75 for the\n404 claims by the compensation paid on each claim in Chargeback Year 2006.\n17\n Actual and estimated future costs are rounded. The estimated future costs do not take into account inflation.\n18\n For example, the United States Postal Service calculates cost avoidance by multiplying an individual\xe2\x80\x99s annual\ncompensation while on the periodic roll by the difference in years when removed from workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation from\na life expectancy of age 70. The Department of Defense has a variation of this formula, using a life expectancy of\nage 75, and adds an inflation factor to the calculation.\n\n Page 13\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\neven if the IRS finds productive activity for only 10 percent of the 402 employees not over age\n65 who currently are on the Department of Labor\xe2\x80\x99s periodic roll, its lifetime benefit outlays\nwould be reduced by more than $23 million.19\n\nRecommendation\nRecommendation 5: The Chief Human Capital Officer should coordinate with the Deputy\nCommissioner for Operations Support to develop and establish a more strategic approach to\nenhance return-to-work efforts that includes specific policies and procedures for working across\nfunctional areas to transition injured employees into productive activities in the workplace.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Chief Human Capital Officer agreed with this\n recommendation, stating that the support and commitment by top leadership is essential.\n The WCC will develop a proposed policy with a goal of addressing cross-functional\n placement for injured workers and enhance the efforts made by first-line managers and\n case management specialists with return-to-work procedures.\n\n\n\n\n19\n We multiplied the future compensation costs of $231 million that we estimate the IRS will pay when the\n402 employees reach age 75 by 10 percent.\n Page 14\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n Appendix I\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe overall objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\nCompensation Program administration in the IRS, with an emphasis on the progress made since\n2003. During the review, we relied on databases provided by the IRS. Although we did not\naudit to determine the accuracy and reliability of the information in any of the databases, we\nchecked the reasonableness of our results against source documents. Our checks are described\nbelow and did not identify any material errors in the information used from the databases. To\naccomplish our objective, we:\nI. Reviewed a significant amount of source material to gain an understanding of workers\xe2\x80\x99\n compensation claims and benefits. These sources included the FECA;1 publications and\n guidance issued by the Department of Labor OWCP; published research and reports on\n workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation; and the IRS Internal Revenue Manual, guidance documents, and\n training materials.\nII. Evaluated the progress made in implementing the agreed-upon recommendations from\n the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration\xe2\x80\x99s 2003 report.2\nIII. Identified key fields on the SHIMS3 that the IRS uses to monitor its WCC activities and\n compared the information to source documents to ensure the data we used from the\n system were reasonable and complete.\nIV. Reviewed a judgmental sample of 40 of the 20,782 workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims listed\n on the SHIMS through December 4, 2006, to determine whether required procedures\n were followed. We used judgmental sampling techniques to conserve time and resources.\n We validated the computer data by reconciling the supporting documentation for the\n 40 workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims to data on the SHIMS.\nV. Used the Government Accountability Office Standards for Internal Control in the\n Federal Government to assess the policies, mechanisms, procedures, and techniques\n (management controls) the IRS established for its Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Program.\n\n\n1\n Ch. 458, 39 Stat. 742 (1916) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 1 U.S.C., 5 U.S.C., and 18 U.S.C.).\n2\n Improvements Are Needed in the Process and Information Used to Manage Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Claims\n(Reference Number 2003-10-213, dated September 2003).\n3\n The IRS uses the Department of the Treasury SHIMS to process and control workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims. The\nSHIMS was implemented on October 1, 2001, and was designed to replace the paper accident claim reporting\nprocess with an electronic system that would allow claims to be submitted to the WCC and OWCP quickly. In\naddition, the SHIMS is designed to enable the IRS to track its lost production days and costs.\n Page 15\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nVI. Evaluated the successes the IRS had achieved in implementing the SHARE initiative.4\nVII. Reviewed the July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, Chargeback Report to verify the validity\n and accuracy of the costs charged to the IRS by the OWCP for compensation and medical\n expenses.\nVIII. Compared and contrasted IRS return-to-work practices to those used by the Department\n of Defense, the United States Postal Service, the Transportation Security Administration,\n and the State of Ohio.\n\n\n\n\n4\n The SHARE initiative was introduced in 2004 as a response to escalating workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation costs. Under the\nSHARE initiative, which is primarily aimed at newly filed claims, Federal Government agencies are directed to\n(1) reduce claim rates, (2) increase the timeliness of processing claims, (3) reduce the amount of time lost from\nwork, and (4) reduce the number of lost days.\n Page 16\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n Appendix II\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nMargaret E. Begg, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Small Business and Corporate\nPrograms)\nFrank Dunleavy, Director\nPhilip Shropshire, Director\nRobert Jenness, Acting Audit Manager\nGwendolyn Gilboy, Lead Auditor\nEarl Charles Burney, Senior Auditor\nWilliam Tran, Senior Auditor\nAli Vaezazizi, Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 17\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n Appendix III\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nActing Commissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Acting Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Operations Support OS\nDeputy Chief Human Capital Officer OS:HC\nDirector, Workforce Progression and Management OS:HC:WPM\nDeputy Director, Workforce Progression and Management OS:HC:WPM\nAssociate Director, Centralized Activities OS:HC:WPM:CA\nChief, Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Center OS:HC:WPM:CA:W\nChief Counsel CC\nNational Taxpayer Advocate TA\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nActing Director, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O\nOffice of Internal Control OS:CFO:CPIC:IC\nAudit Liaison: Chief Human Capital Officer OS:HC\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n Appendix IV\n\n Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Costs\n\nFor Chargeback Years 1994 through 2006, the IRS workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation costs totaled more\nthan $462 million. As shown in Figure 1, the yearly workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation costs rose from less\nthan $36 million in 1994 to more than $42 million in 2006.\n Figure 1: IRS Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Chargeback Costs for\n Chargeback Years 1994 \xe2\x80\x93 2006\n\n\n\n\n 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006\n Medical $10.1 $9.9 $8.8 $8.2 $8.1 $8.4 $8.9 $10.2 $9.9 $9.3 $9.9 $9.6\n Compensation $25.8 $27.3 $26.9 $27.1 $27.9 $28.5 $29.6 $30.7 $31.0 $31.8 $31.0 $33.1\n Total $35.9 $37.2 $35.7 $35.3 $36.0 $36.9 $38.5 $40.9 $40.9 $41.1 $40.9 $42.7\n\nSource: 1994 \xe2\x80\x93 20061 chargeback costs provided by the IRS WCC.2\n\n\n\n\n1\n Costs for Chargeback Year 1998 were not available.\n2\n Total represents the sum of medical and compensation costs.\n Page 19\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\nFigure 2 graphically illustrates the importance of implementing effective return-to-work\nstrategies and practices. The IRS paid cumulative benefits of about $374 million for the\n3,807 individuals3 it had on the workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation rolls through early December 2006.\nMedical expenses comprised almost one-fourth of the total costs in Chargeback Year 2006, with\ncompensation benefits accounting for the remainder. However, the cumulative compensation\npayments comprise an even larger percentage of the total costs, making up about 82 percent of\nthe $374 million the IRS has paid.\n Figure 2: Medical, Compensation, and Total4 Costs for 4,018 IRS Workers\xe2\x80\x99\nCompensation Claims in Chargeback Year 2006, and the Cumulative Costs for the\n Same Claims As of December 2006\n\n Millions\n $400\n $374\n $350\n $307\n $300\n\n $250\n\n $200\n\n $150\n\n $100\n $67\n $33 $43\n $50\n $10\n $0\n MEDICAL COMPENSATION TOTAL MEDICAL COMPENSATION TOTAL\n\n COSTS OF 4,018 CLAIMS IN CHARGEBACK YEAR 2006 CUMULATIVE COSTS OF SAME CLAIMS AS OF\n DECEMBER 2006\n\n\n\nSource: July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, IRS Chargeback Report and SHIMS data, as of December 4, 2006.\n\n\n\n\n3\n The 4,018 workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims on the 2006 Chargeback Report were attributable to 3,807 employees.\nThe 2006 Chargeback Report had 4,022 workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims. However, SHIMS data were available for\nonly 4,018 (over 99 percent) of the 4,022 claims.\n4\n Total represents the sum of medical and compensation costs.\n Page 20\n\x0c A More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n Appendix V\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\x0cA More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\x0cA More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n\n Page 23\n\x0cA More Strategic Approach Could Enhance the Workers\xe2\x80\x99\n Compensation Program Return-to-Work Efforts\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Tähtis õiguslik teade
 |
 21998A0113(03)
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja L 007 , 13/01/1998 Lk 0038 - 0045
 Euroopa Ühenduse ja Kanada vaheline tollikoostöö ja tolliküsimustes vastastikuse abistamiseLepingEUROOPA ÜHENDUS ja KANADA VALITSUS,edaspidi "lepinguosalised",TOETUDES 6. juulil 1976. aastal Ottawas Euroopa ühenduste ja Kanada vahel alla kirjutatud Euroopa ühenduste ja Kanada vahelise kaubandus- ja majanduskoostöö raamkokkuleppega loodud erisuhetele,VÕTTES ARVESSE 22. novembril 1990. aastal vastuvõetud Euroopa ühenduste ja Kanada suhteid käsitlevat deklaratsiooni,TUNNUSTADES 17. detsembril 1996. aastal vastuvõetud Euroopa Liidu ja Kanada suhteid käsitlevat ühisdeklaratsiooni,ARVESSE VÕTTES, et tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumised võivad kahjustada lepinguosaliste majanduslikke, fiskaalseid, sotsiaalseid, kultuurilisi ja kaubanduslikke huve,USKUDES, et tuleks võtta kohustus arendada kõige laiahaardelisemat koostööd tolliküsimustes, mis hõlmab ka tolliprotseduuride lihtsustamist ja kooskõlastamist, ent ei piirdu üksnes sellega,ARVESSE VÕTTES, et oluline on tagada impordi ja ekspordiga seoses võetavate tollimaksude täpne määramine ning keeldude, piirangute ja kontrolliga seotud meetmete nõuetekohane rakendamine;TÕDEDES rahvusvahelise koostöö vajadust tollialaste õigusaktide kohaldamisel ja jõustamisel,OLLES VEENDUNUD, et tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumiste vastu suunatud meetmeid saab tõhustada tolliasutuste vahelise tiheda koostöö abil,VÕTTES ARVESSE KA Tollikoostöö Nõukogu asjaomaseid dokumente, eelkõige 5. detsembri 1953. aasta soovitust vastastikuse haldusabi kohta,VÕTTES ARVESSE ka rahvusvahelisi konventsioone, mis sisaldavad teatava kauba puhul rakendatavaid keelde, piiranguid ja kontrolli erimeetmeid,ON KOKKU LEPPINUD JÄRGMISES:I JAOTISÜLDSÄTTEDArtikkel 1MõistedKäesolevas lepingus kasutatakse järgmisi mõisteid:1) tolliasutus- Euroopa Ühenduses: Euroopa Ühenduste Komisjoni pädevad talitused ja Euroopa Ühenduse liikmesriikide tolliasutused,- Kanadas: Department of National Revenue' pädevad asutused;2) tollialased õigusaktid- Euroopa Ühenduses: Euroopa Ühenduse poolt vastuvõetud sätted, mis käsitlevad kaupade importi, eksporti, transiiti ja mis tahes tolliprotseduurile suunamist, k.a keelud, piirangud ja kontrollimeetmed,- Kanadas: seadused ja rakendusaktid kaupade impordi, ekspordi, transiidi ning tolliprotseduuridele suunamise kohta, k.a keelud, piirangud ja kontrollimeetmed, mille täitmise tagab või mida kohaldab toll, ning kõik tolliasutuse seadusjärgsete volituste alusel kehtestatud määrused;3) tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumine – tollialaste õigusaktide igasugune rikkumine või rikkumiskatse;4) informatsioon – kõik andmed, dokumendid, ettekanded, nende tõestatud koopiad või muu teave, sealhulgas töödeldud ja analüüsitud andmed, mis osutavad tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumisele;5) isik – füüsiline või juriidiline isik;6) isikuandmed – igasugune identifitseeritud või identifitseeritava isikuga seotud info;7) asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse – pädev tolliasutus, kellelt abi taotletakse;8) abitaotlev asutus – pädev tolliasutus, kes abi taotleb.II JAOTISTOLLIKOOSTÖÖArtikkel 2Koostöö ulatus1. Lepinguosalised kohustuvad arendama tollikoostööd võimalikult laias ulatuses.2. Käesoleva lepingu kohane tollikoostöö hõlmab kõiki tollialaste õigusaktide kohaldamisega seotud küsimusi.Artikkel 3Kolmandatele riikidele antav tehniline abiLepinguosalised informeerivad vajaduse korral üksteist koostöös kolmandate riikidega võetud või võetavatest tollialase tehnilise abi meetmetest, et parandada kõnealuseid meetmeid.Artikkel 4Lihtsustamine ja ühtlustamineLepinguosalised nõustuvad tegema jõupingutusi oma tolliprotseduuride lihtsustamiseks ja ühtlustamiseks, arvesse võttes rahvusvaheliste organisatsioonide tehtud tööd selles valdkonnas. Nad lepivad ühtlasi kokku otsida viise ja vahendeid, et lahendada tollialased raskused, mis nende vahel võivad tekkida.Artikkel 5Töötajate vahetamineTolliasutused võivad töötajaid vahetada, kui see on vastastikku kasulik, selleks et edendada üksteise tollitehnika ja -protseduuride ning arvutisüsteemide tundmist.Artikkel 6ArvutistamineLepinguosalised teevad koostööd tolliprotseduuride ja -formaalsuste arvutistamisel, et hõlbustada omavahelist kaubavahetust.III JAOTISVASTASTIKUNE ABIArtikkel 7Abi ulatus1. Tolliasutused abistavad üksteist kas taotluse korral või omal algatusel vajaliku infoga, mis aitab tagada tollialaste õigusaktide nõuetekohase kohaldamise ning tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumiste tõkestamise, uurimise ja nende vastu võitlemise.2. Kogu abi, mis lepinguosalised käesoleva jaotise alusel osutavad, antakse nende asjaomaste seaduste, eeskirjade ja muude õigusaktide kohaselt ning tolliasutuste pädevuse ja kättesaadavate vahendite piires.3. Käesolev jaotis kehtib üksnes lepinguosaliste vastastikuse haldusabi kohta; käesoleva jaotise sätted ei anna ühelegi üksikisikule õigust hankida andmeid, saada, varjata või kõrvale jätta tõendeid või takistada taotluse täideviimist.4. Käesolev jaotis ei piira kriminaalasjades vastastikuse abi osutamise eeskirjade kohaldamist. Käesolevat jaotist ei kohaldata andmete suhtes, mis on saadud kohtuorgani taotlusel kasutatud volituste alusel, v.a juhul, kui kõnealune kohtuorgan on selle info edastamiseks igal üksikjuhtumil andnud eelneva loa.Artikkel 8Info meetodite, arengusuundade ja toimingute kohta1. Tolliasutused edastavad taotluse korral või omal algatusel igasuguse nende kasutuses oleva info, mis on seotud:a) tollialaste õigusaktide täitmise uute, tõhusaks osutunud järelevalvemeetoditega;b) tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumiste uute suundumuste, vahendite ja meetoditega.2. Tolliasutused annavad taotluse korral või omal algatusel üksteisele teavet tehtud või kavandatavate toimingute kohta, millega teise lepinguosalise territooriumil rikutakse või võidakse rikkuda tollialaseid õigusakte.Artikkel 9Taotletav abi1. Asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse annab taotluse korral abitaotlevale asutusele teavet kõnealuse lepinguosalise poolt kohaldatavate tollialaste õigusaktide ja tolliprotseduuride kohta, mis on asjakohased tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumise kindlakstegemisel.2. Asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse annab taotluse korral abitaotlevale asutusele eelkõige järgmist teavet:a) kas abitaotleva lepinguosalise territooriumile imporditud kaup on abitaotluse saanud lepinguosalise territooriumilt seaduslikult eksporditud, ning selgitab vajaduse korral välja kaupade suhtes rakendatud tolliprotseduuri;b) kas abitaotleva lepinguosalise territooriumilt eksporditud kaup on abitaotluse saanud lepinguosalise territooriumile seaduslikult imporditud, ning selgitab vajaduse korral välja kaupade suhtes rakendatud tolliprotseduuri.3. Asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse annab taotluse korral ja artiklis 13 ette nähtud erisätete kohaselt teavet ja teostab erakorralist järelevalvet:a) isikute üle, kes abitaotleva asutuse andmetel on rikkunud tollialaseid õigusakte või keda kahtlustatakse tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumises;b) transporditavate või ladustatavate kaupade üle, mille suhtes on abitaotleva asutuse teate kohaselt tekkinud salakaubaveo kahtlus;c) transpordivahendite üle, mida abitaotleva asutuse arvates on kasutatud tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumistel;d) tööruumide üle, mida abitaotleva asutuse arvates on kasutatud tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumistel.Artikkel 10Omaalgatuslik abiTõsistel juhtudel, mis võivad tekitada olulist kahju ühe lepinguosalise majandusele, tervishoiule, julgeolekule või kahjustada tema muid elulisi huve, annab teise lepinguosalise tolliasutus võimalikult suurel määral teavet omal algatusel.Artikkel 11Teabe edastamise viis1. Asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse, annab asjakohase teabe abitaotlevale asutusele edasi dokumentide, dokumentide tõestatud koopiate või ettekannetena või nende elektrooniliste versioonidena. Kogu kõnealuse teabe tõlgendamise või kasutamisega seotud info esitatakse samal ajal.2. Originaaldokumente ja muud materjali nõutakse ainult juhul, kui koopiatest ei piisa. Konkreetse taotluse korral tõestatakse nende dokumentide ja muu materjali koopiad asjakohaselt.3. Kasutamiseks saadetud originaaldokumendid ja muu materjal tagastatakse nii võimalikult kiiresti; asutuse, kellelt abi taotletakse, ja kolmandate isikute õigused jäävad dokumentide suhtes endiseks.Artikkel 12Eksperdid ja tunnistajad1. Ühe lepinguosalise tolliasutus võib teise lepinguosalise tolliasutuse taotlusel anda oma töötajatele loa osaleda tunnistajate või ekspertidena kohtu- või haldusmenetluses teise lepinguosalise territooriumil ning esitada menetluse seisukohast oluliseks peetavad dokumendid ja muu materjali või nende tõestatud koopiad.2. Lõike 1 kohase kohtu- või haldusmenetluses osalemise korral tagatakse tunnistajatele ja ekspertidele abitaotleva lepinguosalise seadusega ettenähtud täielik kaitse ütluse osas, mida kõnealuse seaduse alusel saab avalikustamise eest kaitsta.3. Lõike 1 kohastes taotlustes tuleb konkreetselt näidata, mis küsimustes ja millise ametikoha või kvalifikatsiooni tõttu ametnikku hakatakse küsitlema.Artikkel 13Taotluste edastamine1. Käesoleva jaotise kohased taotlused koostatakse kirjalikult ning nendega kaasnevad kõik vajalikuks peetavad dokumendid. Kui asjaolud nõuavad, võib taotlused esitada ka suuliselt. Suulised taotlused kinnitatakse kiiresti kirjalikult. Kirjalikud taotlused võib teha elektrooniliselt ning trükkida seejärel paberile.2. Lõike 1 kohased taotlused sisaldavad järgmist teavet:a) abitaotlev asutus;b) taotletav meede;c) taotluse objekt ja põhjus;d) asjakohased seadused, eeskirjad ja muud õiguslikud asjaolud;e) võimalikult täpsed ja täielikud andmed uurimise all olevate isikute kohta ningf) asjassepuutuvate faktide ja juba tehtud uurimiste kokkuvõte koos andmetega taotluse esitamise ajal kaasatud tolliasutuste kohta.3. Asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse, nõustub täitma teatavat taotlusele vastamise korda, kui kõnealune kord ei ole selle lepinguosalise õigusaktidega vastuolus.4. Käesolevas jaotises nimetatud teave antakse edasi ainult iga tolliasutuse poolt konkreetselt selleks määratud ametnikele. Määratud ametnike nimekirjade vahetamine toimub artikli 19 lõikes 3 ettenähtud korras.5. Taotlused esitatakse selle asutuse ametlikus keeles, kellelt abi taotletakse, või kõnesolevale asutusele sobivas keeles.6. Kui taotlus ei vasta vorminõuetele, võib asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse, paluda selle parandamist või täiendamist. Asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse, võib võtta ajutisi meetmeid.Artikkel 14Taotluste täitmine1. Kui asutusel, kellelt abi taotletakse, ei ole vajalikku teavet, siis see asutus oma õigusaktide kohaselt:a) alustab teabe saamiseks uurimist,b) edastab taotluse viivitamata asjaomasele asutusele võic) osutab asjaomastele asutustele.2. Iga lõike 1 punkti a kohase uurimisega seoses võib võtta ütlusi tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumisega seotud isikutelt ning tunnistajatelt ja ekspertidelt.Artikkel 15Ametnike kohustused1. Abitaotleva asutuse konkreetselt määratud ametnikud võivad kirjaliku taotluse korral tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumise uurimiseks viibida selle asutuse loal, kellelt abi taotletakse, ning kõnealuse asutuse poolt kehtestatud tingimustel uurimise juures, mille asutus, kellelt abi taotleti, teeb abitaotluse saanud lepinguosalise territooriumil, juhul kui kõnealune uurimine on abitaotluse esitanud asutuse seisukohast oluline.2. Abitaotleva asutuse ametnikud, kes viibivad teise lepinguosalise territooriumil lõikes 1 sätestatud asjaoludel, peavad igal ajal suutma tõendada, et nad täidavad oma ametiülesandeid.3. Ühe lepinguosalise nõuetekohaselt volitatud ametnikud võivad kokkuleppel teise lepinguosalisega ning viimase kehtestatud tingimustel saada selle asutuse ametitelt, kellelt abi taotletakse või asutuselt, kelle tegevuse eest abitaotluse saanud asutus vastutab, tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumisega seotud andmeid, mida abitaotlev asutus käesoleva jaotise sätete kohaldamisel vajab.Artikkel 16Andmete konfidentsiaalsus1. Käesoleva jaotise kohaselt saadud teavet käsitatakse konfidentsiaalsena ning selle suhtes kohaldatakse vähemalt samasugust kaitset ja konfidentsiaalsusnõuet, nagu sama laadi teabe suhtes kohaldatakse teabe saanud lepinguosalise seaduste alusel.2. Saadud teavet kasutatakse ainult käesoleva jaotise kohaldamisel. Kui üks lepinguosalistest taotleb selle teabe kasutamist muul otstarbel, tuleb tal selleks saada teavet andnud tolliasutuse eelnev kirjalik nõusolek. Teabe kasutamisel tuleb arvesse võtta kõnealuse asutuse ettenähtud piirangud.3. Lõige 2 ei takista teabe kasutamist tollialaste õigusaktide täitmatajätmise suhtes hiljem algatatud kohtu- või haldusmenetluste raames. Lepinguosalised võivad oma tõendusmaterjalis, ettekannetes ja ütlustes ning kohtusse antud hagides ja süüdistusasjades kasutada käesoleva jaotise kohaselt saadud tõendeid. Tõendite kasutamisest teatatakse ette asutusele, kes kõnealused tõendid esitas.4. Isikuandmeid võib vahetada ainult juhul, kui andmed saav lepinguosaline kohustub neid kaitsma viisil, mis on vähemalt samaväärne andmeid esitava lepinguosalise konkreetsel juhul pakutava kaitsega.5. Teabe levitamine iga lepinguosalise tolliasutuste vahel toimub ainult juhul, kui andmete saamine on vajalik. Teabe jagamise korral käesoleva lõike kohaselt teatatakse sellest teabe andnud lepinguosalisele ette.Artikkel 17Erandid abistamiskohustusest1. Kui käesoleva jaotise alusel toimuv abistamine piirab Euroopa ühenduse liikmesriigi või Kanada suveräänsust või riivab lepinguosalise julgeolekut, riigi poliitikat või muid olulisi huve (nagu on nimetatud artikli 16 lõikes 4), rikub tootmis-, äri- või ametisaladust või ei ole kooskõlas lepinguosalise õigusaktidega, võib ta keelduda abi osutamast või teha abi osutamine olenevaks teatavatest tingimustest või nõuetest.2. Kui abitaotlev asutus ei suuda täita abitaotluse saanud asutuse poolt esitatud samalaadset taotlust, siis juhib ta oma taotluses sellele tähelepanu. Taotluse rahuldamise üle otsustab asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse.3. Asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse, võib abi osutamise edasi lükata põhjendusel, et see takistab käimasolevat uurimist, kriminaalvastutusele võtmist või menetlust. Sel juhul konsulteerib asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse, abitaotleva asutusega, et kindlaks teha, kas abi on võimalik osutada tähtajaga ja tingimustel, mida peab vajalikuks asutus, kellelt abi taotletakse.4. Abist keeldumise või selle edasilükkamise korral tuleb keeldumise või edasilükkamise põhjustest viivitamata teatada.Artikkel 18Kulud1. Tolliasutused ei nõua käesoleva jaotise rakendamisel tekkinud kulude tasumist.2. Kui taotluse täitmisega kaasnevad kohe või edaspidi täiendavad või erakorralised kulutused, määravad lepinguosalised konsultatsioonide käigus kindlaks taotluse täitmise tähtajad ja tingimused, samuti kulude kandmise korra.IV JAOTISLÕPPSÄTTEDArtikkel 19Lepingu rakendamine1. Käesoleva lepingu haldamine tehakse ülesandeks Euroopa Ühenduste Komisjoni pädevatele talitustele ning vajaduse korral liikmesriikide tolliasutustele ja Kanada tolliasutusele.2. Tolliasutused võtavad meetmeid, et tollialaste õigusaktide rikkumiste uurimise või rikkumiste vastu võitlemisega tegelevad ametnikud suhtleksid üksteisega otse ja isiklikult.3. Tolliasutused võtavad vastu üksikasjaliku korra, et hõlbustada käesoleva lepingu rakendamist.4. Tolliasutused püüavad lahendada kõik käesoleva lepingu tõlgendamisel või kohaldamisel tekkivad probleemid ja kahtlused.Artikkel 20Ühine tollikoostöö komitee1. Käesolevaga asutatakse ühine tollikoostöö komitee, mis koosneb lepinguosaliste tolliasutuste esindajatest. Ühise tollikoostöö komitee koosolekute koht, aeg ja tegevuskava määratakse kindlaks ühisel kokkuleppel.2. Ühine tollikoostöö komitee hoolitseb käesoleva lepingu tõrgeteta toimimise eest ning käsitleb kõiki lepingu kohaldamisega seotud küsimusi. Kõnealuse ülesande täitmisel on komitee põhikohustused järgmised:a) võtta käesoleva lepingu eesmärkide kohaselt meetmed, mida on vaja tollikoostööks ning käesoleva lepingu laiendamiseks, et tõsta tollikoostöö taset ning süvendada seda teatavates sektorites või küsimustes;b) vahetada arvamusi kõigis tollikoostööga seotud ühist huvi pakkuvates küsimustes, kaasa arvatud edasised meetmed ning nende rakendamiseks vajalikud vahendid;c) anda üldisi soovitusi lahenduste leidmisel, mille eesmärk on käesoleva lepingu kohaste eesmärkide saavutamine.3. Ühine tollikoostöö komitee võtab vastu oma töökorra.Artikkel 21Muude lepingutega kehtestatud kohustused1. Võttes vastavalt arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse ja liikmesriikide pädevust:- ei mõjuta käesolev leping lepinguosaliste kohustusi, mis tulenevad muudest rahvusvahelistest lepingutest või konventsioonidest,- on käesoleva lepingu eesmärk täiendada tollikoostöö ja vastastikuse abi lepinguid, mis on sõlmitud või võidakse sõlmida mõne Euroopa Liidu liikmesriigi ja Kanada vahel, ja- ei mõjuta käesolev leping komisjoni pädevate talituste ja liikmesriikide tolliasutuste vahelist teabevahetust käsitlevate sätete kohaldamist olulise teabe osas, mis on saadud käesoleva lepingu alusel ning võib huvi pakkuda Euroopa Ühendusele.2. Olenemata lõike 1 sätetest on käesoleva lepingu sätted ülimuslikud tollikoostöö ja vastastikuse abi kahepoolsete lepingute suhtes, mis on sõlmitud või sõlmitakse mõne Euroopa Liidu liikmesriigi ja Kanada vahel, juhul kui nende sätted ei ole kooskõlas käesoleva lepingu sätetega.3. Käesoleva lepingu kohaldamisega seotud küsimused lahendatakse lepinguosaliste vaheliste konsultatsioonide käigus artikli 20 alusel moodustatud ühiskomitees.Artikkel 22Territoriaalne kohaldamineKäesolevat lepingut kohaldatakse ühelt poolt territooriumide suhtes, kus kohaldatakse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut selles sätestatud tingimustel, ja teiselt poolt Kanada territooriumi suhtes Kanada seadustes sätestatud tingimustel.Artikkel 23Edasine arengLepinguosalised võivad käesolevat lepingut tollikoostöö süvendamiseks konkreetseid sektoreid või küsimusi käsitlevate lepingutega ühisel nõusolekul laiendada ja täiendada, tehes seda kooskõlas oma tollialaste õigusaktidega.Artikkel 24Jõustumine ja lõpetamine1. Käesolev leping jõustub järgmise kuu esimesel päeval pärast seda, kui lepinguosalised on teatanud üksteisele lepingu jõustamiseks vajalike menetluste lõpuleviimisest.2. Käesoleva lepingu kehtivusaeg ei ole piiratud, kuid lepinguosalised võivad selle igal ajal ühepoolselt lõpetada, teatades sellest diplomaatiliste kanalite kaudu.3. Lõpetamine jõustub üks kuu pärast teisele lepinguosalisele denonsseerimisest teatamise kuupäeva. Lõpetamise ajal toimuvad menetlused viiakse sellest hoolimata lõpule käesoleva lepingu sätete alusel.EN FE DE LO CUAL, los abajo firmantes, debidamente autorizados, suscriben el presente Acuerdo.TIL BEKRÆFTELSE HERAF har undertegnede, der er behørigt beføjede hertil, undertegnet denne aftale.ZU URKUND DESSEN haben die hierzu gehörig befugten Unterzeichneten ihre Unterschrift unter dieses Abkommen gesetzt.ΣΕ ΠΙΣΤΩΣΗ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΩΤΕΡΩ, οι υπογεγραμμένοι πληρεξούσιοι έθεσαν την υπογραφή τους κάτω από την παρούσα συμφωνία.IN WITNESS whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Agreement.EN FOI DE QUOI les soussignés, dûment autorisés, ont signé le présent accord.IN FEDE di che i sottoscritti, debitamente autorizzati, hanno apposto le loro firme in calce al presente accordo.TEN BLIJKE WAARVAN de ondergetekenden, daartoe naar behoren gemachtigd, deze overeenkomst hebben ondertekend.EM FÉ DO QUE, os abaixo-assinados, devidamente autorizados para o efeito, apuseram a. s. suas assinaturas no presente acordo.TÄMÄN VAKUUDEKSI allekirjoittaneet asianmukaisesti valtuutetut edustajat ovat allekirjoittaneet tämän sopimuksen.TILL BEVIS HÄRPÅ har undertecknade undertecknat detta avtal.Hecho en Ottawa, el cuatro de diciembre de mil novecientos noventa y siete, en doble ejemplar en lenguas alemana, danesa, española, finesa, francesa, griega, inglesa, italiana, neerlandesa, portuguesa y sueca, siendo cada uno de estos textos igualmente auténtico.Udfærdiget i Ottawa den fjerde december nitten hundrede og syvoghalvfems i to eksemplarer på dansk, engelsk, finsk, fransk, græsk, italiensk, nederlandsk, portugisisk, spansk, svensk og tysk, idet hver af disse tekster har samme gyldighed.Geschehen zu Ottawa am vierten Dezember neunzehnhundertsiebenundneunzig in zwei Urschriften in dänischer, deutscher, englischer, finnischer, französischer, griechischer, italienischer, niederländischer, portugiesischer, schwedischer und spanischer Sprache, wobei jeder Wortlaut gleichermaßen verbindlich ist.Η παρούσα συμφωνία έγινε στην Οτάβα, στις τέσσερις Δεκεμβρίου χίλια εννιακόσια ενενήντα επτά, σε δύο αντίτυπα στην αγγλική, γαλλική, γερμανική, δανική, ελληνική, ισπανική, ιταλική, ολλανδική, πορτογαλική, σουηδική και φινλανδική γλώσσα όλα τα κείμενα είναι εξίσου αυθεντικά.Done at Ottawa on the fourth day of December in the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven, in two copies in the Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish languages, each text being equally authentic.Fait à Ottawa, le quatre décembre mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-sept, en double exemplaire en langues allemande, anglaise, danoise, espagnole, finlandaise, française, grecque, italienne, néerlandaise, portugaise et suédoise, chaque texte faisant également foi.Fatto a Ottawa, addì quattro dicembre millenovecentonovantasette. Il presente accordo è redatto in duplice esemplare in lingua danese, finnica, francese, greca, inglese, italiana, olandese, portoghese, spagnola, svedese e tedesca, tutti i testi facenti ugualmente fede.Gedaan te Ottawa, de vierde december negentienhonderd zevenennegentig in twee exemplaren in de Deense, de Duitse, de Engelse, de Finse, de Franse, de Griekse, de Italiaanse, de Nederlandse, de Portugese, de Spaanse en de Zweedse taal, zijnde alle teksten gelijkelijk authentiek.Feito em Otava, em quatro de Dezembro de mil novecentos e noventa e sete, em duplo exemplar, nas línguas alemã, dinamarquesa, espanhola, finlandesa, francesa, grega, inglesa, italiana, neerlandesa, portuguesa e sueca, fazendo igualmente fé todos os textos.Tehty Ottawassa neljäntenä päivänä joulukuuta vuonna tuhatyhdeksänsataayhdeksänkymmentäseitsemän kahtena kappaleena englannin, espanjan, hollannin, italian, kreikan, portugalin, ranskan, ruotsin, saksan, suomen ja tanskan kielillä kaikkien tekstien ollessa yhtä todistusvoimaiset.Som skedde i Ottawa den fjärde december nittonhundranittiosju i två exemplar på danska, engelska, finska, franska, grekiska, italienska, nederländska, portugisiska, spanska, svenska och tyska, vilka samtliga texter är lika giltiga.Por la Comunidad EuropeaFor Det Europæiske FællesskabFür die Europäische GemeinschaftΓια την Ευρωπαϊκή ΚοινότηταFor the European CommunityPour la Communauté européennePer la Comunità europeaVoor de Europese GemeenschapPela Comunidade EuropeiaEuroopan yhteisön puolestaPå Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar+++++ TIFF +++++For the Government of CanadaPour le gouvernement du Canada+++++ TIFF +++++--------------------------------------------------


text:
 Dôležité právne oznámenie
 |
 22000D0615(14)
 Úradný vestník L 141 , 15/06/2000 S. 0066 - 0066
 Rozhodnutie Spoločného výboru EHPč. 38/2000z 31. marca 2000,ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa protokol 31 k Dohode o EHP o spolupráci v rámci špecifických oblastí mimo štyroch slobôdSPOLOČNÝ VÝBOR EHP,so zreteľom na Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, upravenú Protokolom upravujúcim Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, ďalej len "dohoda" a najmä na jej článok 98,keďže:(1) protokol 31 k dohode bol zmenený a doplnený rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru č. 172/1999 z 26. novembra 1999 [1];(2) je vhodné rozšíriť spoluprácu zmluvných strán dohody, aby zahŕňala druhú fázu programu spoločenstva v oblasti vzdelávania "Sokrates" (rozhodnutie č. 253/2000/ES Európskeho parlamentu a Rady [2]);(3) protokol 31 k dohode by preto mal byť zmenený a doplnený, aby sa táto rozšírená spolupráca mohla začať uskutočňovať od 1. januára 2000,ROZHODOL TAKTO:Článok 1"— 32000 D 0253: rozhodnutie č. 253/2000/ES Európskeho parlamentu a Rady z 24. januára 2000 zavádzajúce druhú fázu programu spoločenstva v oblasti vzdelávania "Sokrates" (Ú. v. ES L 28, 3.2.2000, s. 1)."Článok 2Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť v prvý deň po predložení poslednej notifikácie Spoločnému výboru EHP podľa článku 103 ods. 1 dohody.Bude sa uplatňovať od 1. januára 2000.Článok 3Toto rozhodnutie bude uverejnené v oddiele EHP a v doplnku EHP Úradného vestníka Európskych spoločenstiev.V Bruseli 31. marca 2000Za Spoločný výbor EHPpredsedaF. Barbaso[1] Ešte neuverejnené v úradnom vestníku.[2] Ú. v. ES L 28, 3.2.2000, s. 1.--------------------------------------------------


type: caselaw

text:
 7.2.2009
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 32/22
 Rikors ippreżentat fit-2 ta' Diċembru 2008 — Il-Kummissjoni tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej vs L-Irlanda
 (Kawża C-532/08)
 (2009/C 32/37)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: L-Ingliż
 Partijiet
 Rikorrenti: Il-Kummissjoni tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej (rappreżentanti: P. Dejmek, A.A. Gilly, Aġenti)
 Konvenuta: L-Irlanda
 Talbiet tar-rikorrenti
 —
 tiddikjara illi, billi ma adottatx il-liġijiet, ir-regolamenti u d-dispożizzjonijiet amministrattivi neċessarji sabiex tikkonforma ruħha mad-Direttiva 2005/60/KE (1) tal-Parlament Ewropew u l-Kunsill tas-26 ta' Ottubru 2005, dwar il-prevenzjoni tal-użu tas-sistema finanzjarja għall-iskop tal-ħasil tal-flus u l-finanzjament tat-terroriżmu, jew f'kull każ, billi ma nnotifikathomx lill-Kummissjoni, l-Irlanda naqset milli twettaq l-obbligi tagħha taħt din id-direttiva;
 —
 tikkundanna lill-Irlanda għall-ispejjeż.
 Motivi u argumenti prinċipali
 It-terminu stabbilit għat-traspożizzjoni tad-direttiva skada fil-15 ta' Diċembru 2007.
 (1) ĠU L 309, p. 15.


type: other

text:
Skat.dk: Begrænset skattepligt - løn - arbejde udført i Danmark - udbytte - selskab i Gibraltar
 02 May 2007 10:54
 23 Apr 2007 10:22
 2. afdeling, 466/2005
 Begrænset, skattepligt, Gibraltar, udbytte, lønindkomst
 Direktør, der var fuld skattepligtig til Spanien, anset for begrænset skattepligtig af løn udbetalt af et selskab hjemmehørende i Danmark. Højesteret lagde vægt på, at hele selskabets omsætning hidrørte fra G1, Danmark, hvor selskabet også havde sit kontor. Det var appellantens arbejdsindsats i selskabet, der dannede grundlag for dets aktivitet og omsætning. Han havde en fritidsbolig i Sverige, som gjorde det muligt for ham dagligt at tage på arbejde på kontoret i Danmark, hvor han også kunne overnatte. Under de omstændigheder består der en formodning for, at appellanten har udført lønarbejde i Danmark og derfor skal betale skat i Danmark af hele lønnen.
 2. Udbytte
 Moderselskabet hjemmehørende i Gibraltar blev i relation til udbytteudbetaling ikke anset for et selvstændigt skattesubjekt adskilt fra appellantens formue, og appellanten blev anset som den reelle modtager af udlodningen.
 Højesteret lagde bl.a. vægt på, at der var tale om, at han var ulønnet, at han skulle have del i selskabets overskud, og at han fik sine penge fra moderselskabet. Udbyttet blev af det udbytteudloddende selskab indsat på en konto, som af det udbytteudbetalende selskab blev ført som mellemregningskonto med moderselskabet - en konto hvorpå der løbende blev trukket en lang række private udgifter afholdt af appellanten. Udlodningen fra selskabet var således umiddelbart anvendt til udligning af hans private udgifter. Højesteret tillagde det endvidere betydning, at der ikke var fremlagt regnskab eller bogføringsmateriale for moderselskabet eller fremkommet andre oplysninger, der kan vise, at moderselskabet indtægtsførte udlodningen eller i øvrigt førte en modsvarende mellemregning med det udloddende selskab.
 Kildeskatteloven § 2, stk. 1, litra f (dagældende)
 Ligningsvejledningen 2007-2 D.A.2.1
 Ligningsvejledningen 2007-2 D.A.2.6
 Torben Melchior, Børge Dahl, Niels Grubbe, Thomas Rørdam og Michael Rekling
 I tidligere instans er afsagt dom af Østre Landsrets 6. afdeling den 21. september 2005.
 Indstævnte, Skatteministeriet, har principalt påstået stadfæstelse, subsidiært hjemvisning til fornyet behandling hos skattemyndighederne.
 Skatteministeriet har anerkendt, at A i årene 1997-1999 har foretaget op til i alt 3 erhvervsmæssige rejser årligt til Canada, Norge, Tyskland og Sverige (Stockholm) og endvidere har deltaget i et kursus i Sverige.
 BM, G1 A/S, Danmark, har i en erklæring af 18. juni 2004 til brug for sagen udtalt bl.a.
 "På foranledning af direktør A, H1 A/S, skal undertegnede hermed bekræfte, at G1 A/S, Danmark i en lang årrække, herunder i perioden 1997-1999 har samarbejdet med direktør A og H1 A/S, og at medarbejdere fra G1 A/S, Danmark sammen med A har deltaget i møder med underleverandører i udlandet i forbindelse med konkrete projekter, som G1 A/S, Danmark har ønsket udført. Dette sker i øvrigt fortsat som led i vores samarbejde med A og H1 A/S.
 I perioden 1997-1999 har der været afholdt en række møder for tekniske drøftelser med den svenske underleverandør G2 Group på selskabets kontor i Sverige, ligesom der har været møder med A og andre af de underleverandører, som H1 A/S har engageret til løsning af projekter for G1 A/S, Danmark, herunder med G3 i Spanien, G4, Canada, G2 i Sverige. I enkelte tilfælde har medarbejdere endvidere sammen med direktør A og enkelte andre medarbejdere fra H1 A/S deltaget i kurser i udlandet i perioden 1997-1999, herunder ASP kurser hos G2 i Sverige.
 Herudover har der været afholdt møder med A på G1 A/S, Danmarks kontorer og hos H1 A/S. Det skal imidlertid for fuldstændighedens skyld oplyses, at i den indledende projektfase, der ofte vil strække sig over flere måneder, har de tekniske drøftelser i langt overvejende grad foregået hos G2 i Sverige."
 Lønindtægten
 En person, der ikke har bopæl i Danmark, skal betale skat i Danmark af løn for virksomhed udført her i landet, jf. kildeskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra a.
 A, der ikke havde bopæl i Danmark, var direktør i H1 A/S med hjemsted i Danmark, og det er ubestridt, at de beløb, der er nævnt i hans påstande, må anses som løn fra selskabet.
 Hele H1s omsætning i 1997, 1998 og 1999 hidrørte fra G1, Danmark, hvor H1 også havde sit kontor. Det var As arbejdsindsats i H1, der dannede grundlag for selskabets aktiviteter og omsætning. Han havde en fritidsbolig i Sverige, som gjorde det muligt for ham dagligt at tage på arbejde på kontoret i Danmark, hvor han også kunne overnatte.
 Under disse omstændigheder består der en formodning for, at A har udført lønarbejdet i Danmark og derfor skal betale skat i Danmark af hele lønnen.
 Højesteret lægger til grund, at A, udover de forretningsrejser mv., som Skatteministeriet har anerkendt, har deltaget i møder med G2 Group i Sverige. Højesteret finder imidlertid, at han - i betragtning af hans stillings karakter - ikke herved har godtgjort, at det arbejde, han har udført uden for Danmark, er af en art og et omfang, som kan medføre, at han ikke skal beskattes i Danmark af hele lønnen.
 Højesteret tiltræder herefter, at A er beskattet af hele lønnen.
 Aktieudbyttet
 Det er oplyst, at de udstedte anparter i H2 Ltd. var ejet af F1-Bank (Gibraltar), men A har forklaret, at han reelt ejede selskabet. Han har endvidere forklaret, at det ikke var meningen, at han skulle have løn for sit arbejde i H1, men del i dette selskabs overskud, og at han fik sine penge fra H2. Udbyttet på 400.000 kr. blev af H1 indsat på en konto, som af H1 blev ført som en mellemregningskonto med H2 - en konto, hvorpå der løbende blev trukket en lang række privatudgifter afholdt af A. Udlodningen fra H1 er således umiddelbart anvendt til udligning af hans private udgifter.
 Der er ikke fremlagt regnskaber eller bogføringsmateriale for H2 eller fremkommet andre oplysninger, der kan vise, at H2 indtægtsførte udlodningen eller i øvrigt førte en modsvarende mellemregning med H1.
 På denne baggrund tiltræder Højesteret, at H2 i relation til udbyttebetalingen ikke er et selvstændigt skattesubjekt adskilt fra As formue, og at A er den reelle modtager af udlodningen på de 400.000 kr.


type: wikipedia

text:
Rīsera-Larsena jūra () ir Dienvidu okeānam piederīga malas jūra Antarktīdas piekrastē. Izvietojusies starp Lazareva jūru rietumos un Kosmonautu jūru austrumos.
 Ģeogrāfija
 Lielākajā daļā dziļums pārsniedz 3000 m. Praktiski visu gadu klāj dreifējošs ledus. Daudz aisbergu.
 Rīsera-Larsena jūra dienvidu-ziemeļu virzienā plešas no Antarktīdas krastiem (Princeses Ranhillas krasts) līdz 65° dienvidu platumam. Rietumu—austrumu virzienā plešas no 14° austrumu garuma grāda (robeža ar Lazareva jūru pa Astridas grēdu) līdz aptuveni 33° austrumu garuma grādam (Gunnerusa grēdai), kur robežojas ar Kosmonautu jūru.
 Izpētes vēsture
 Pirmās ziņas par jūru saņemtas no Belinshauzena ekspedīcijas (1819-1820). Kā atsevišķu jūru izdalīja padomju antarktiskā ekspedīcija 1962. gadā. Nosaukta norvēģu pētnieka un ceļotāja Jalmara Rīsera-Larsena vārdā.
 Atsauces
 Jūras


text:
Μείωση της ανεργίας κατά 3,3% τον Σεπτέμβριο 2017 - Εργασία - cretadrive.gr
 Αρχική » Business » Εργασία » Μείωση της ανεργίας κατά 3,3% τον Σεπτέμβριο 2017
 Μείωση της ανεργίας κατά 3,3% τον Σεπτέμβριο 2017, τι δείχνουν τα επίσημα στοιχεία του ΟΑΕΔ;
 Οι εγγεγραμμένοι άνεργοι (που δεν αναζητούν εργασία) για το μήνα Σεπτέμβριο είναι λιγότεροι κατά 8,76% σε σχέση με τον Αύγουστο και τέλος οι επιδοτούμενοι άνεργοι είναι για το Σεπτέμβρη περισσότεροι κατά 25,86% συνολικά 135.174
 Previous PostΠαράταση για αιτήσεις φοιτητικού στεγαστικού επιδόματος
 Next PostΈξτρα κοινοτικά κονδύλια 79 εκατ. ευρώ για την ανεργία
 ανεργία, αύξηση της απασχόλησης, εγγεγραμμένοι άνεργοι, ειδήσεις Ελλάδα, επιδοτούμενοι άνεργοι του ΟΑΕΔ, επίσημα στοιχεία του ΟΑΕΔ, εργασία, εργασιακά θέματα, μείωση της ανεργίας, μη επιδοτούμενοι άνεργοι, νέα μείωση της ανεργίας, νούμερα ανεργίας, ΟΑΕΔ, ποσοστά εγγεγραμμένων ανέργων, στατιστικά για ανεργία, στατιστικά για αριθμό ανέργων, στατιστικά ΟΑΕΔ, στατιστικά ΟΑΕΔ για ανεργία, στατιστικά στοιχεία ανεργίας, στατιστικά στοιχεία ΟΑΕΔ, στατιστικά στοιχεία του ΟΑΕΔ, στοιχεία για ανεργία, στοιχεία του ΟΑΕΔ, στοιχεία του ΟΑΕΔ για ανεργία, στοιχεία του ΟΑΕΔ για απασχόληση, στοιχεία του ΟΑΕΔ για αύξηση της απασχόλησης, στοιχεία του ΟΑΕΔ για εργασία, στοιχεία του ΟΑΕΔ για μείωση της ανεργίας, σύνολο των επιδοτούμενων ανέργων


type: legislation

text:
 25.6.2004
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 224/20
 UREDBA KOMISIJE (ES) št. 1167/2004
 z dne 24. junija 2004
 o določitvi stopenj nadomestil za nekatere proizvode iz sektorja sladkorja, izvožene kot blago, ki ni zajeto v Prilogi I k Pogodbi
 KOMISIJA EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1260/2001 z dne 19. junija 2001 o skupni tržni ureditvi za sladkor (1), in zlasti člena 27(5)(a) in (15) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Člen 27(1) in (2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1260/2001 določa, da se razlike med cenami v mednarodni trgovini za proizvode, naštete v členu 1(1)(a), (c), (d), (f), (g) in (h) navedene Uredbe, in cenami v Skupnosti lahko pokrijejo z izvoznim nadomestilom, kadar se ti proizvodi izvažajo kot blago, navedeno v Prilogi V k navedeni uredbi. Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1520/2000 z dne 13. julija 2000 o določitvi skupnih izvedbenih pravil za dodeljevanje izvoznih nadomestil za nekatere kmetijske proizvode, izvožene kot blago, ki ni zajeto v Prilogi I k Pogodbi, in o merilih za določevanje višine takšnih nadomestil (2), podrobno določa proizvode, za katere je treba določiti stopnjo nadomestila, ki jo je treba uporabiti, kadar se ti proizvodi izvažajo kot blago, našteto v Prilogi I k Uredbi (ES) št. 1260/2001.
 (2)
 V skladu s členom 4(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1520/2000 je treba stopnjo nadomestila na 100 kilogramov za vsak zadevni osnovni proizvod določiti vsak mesec.
 (3)
 Člen 27(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1260/2001 in člen 11 Sporazuma o kmetijstvu, sklenjenega v okviru urugvajskega kroga, določata, da izvozno nadomestilo za proizvod, vsebovan v blagu, ne sme presegati nadomestila, ki se uporablja za navedeni proizvod, kadar se izvozi brez nadaljnje predelave.
 (4)
 Nadomestila, določena po tej uredbi, se lahko določijo vnaprej, ker v tem trenutku ni mogoče določiti razmer na trgu v naslednjih nekaj mesecih.
 (5)
 Obveznosti, prevzete glede nadomestil, ki se lahko dodelijo za izvoz kmetijskih proizvodov, vsebovanih v blagu, ki ni zajeto v Prilogi I k Pogodbi, so lahko ogrožene z vnaprejšnjo določitvijo visokih stopenj nadomestil. Zato je treba v takih razmerah sprejeti previdnostne ukrepe, vendar se pri tem ne sme preprečiti sklepanje dolgoročnih pogodb. Določitev posebne stopnje nadomestila za vnaprejšnje določanje nadomestil je ukrep, ki omogoča, da so ti različni cilji izpolnjeni.
 (6)
 Treba je zagotoviti kontinuiteto doslednega upravljanja, upoštevajoč napovedi izdatkov in sredstva, ki so na razpolago v proračunu.
 (7)
 Ukrepi, predvideni s to uredbo, so v skladu z mnenjem Upravljalnega odbora za sladkor –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Stopnje nadomestil za osnovne proizvode, naštete v Prilogi A k Uredbi (ES) št. 1520/2000 in v členu 1(1) in (2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1260/2001, in izvožene kot blago, navedeno v Prilogi V k Uredbi (ES) št. 1260/2001, so določene v Prilogi k tej uredbi.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati 25. junija 2004.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 24. junija 2004
 Za Komisijo
 Erkki LIIKANEN
 Član Komisije
 (1) UL L 178, 30.6.2001, str. 1. Uredba, nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 2196/2003 (UL L 328, 17.12.2003, str. 17).
 (2) UL L 177, 15.7.2000, str. 1. Uredba, nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 740/2003 (UL L 106, 29.4.2003, str. 12).
 PRILOGA
 Stopnje nadomestil, ki se od 25 junij 2004 uporabljajo za nekatere proizvode iz sektorja sladkorja, izvožene kot blago, ki ni zajeto v Prilogi I k Pogodbi
 Oznaka KN
 Opis
 Stopnja nadomestila v EUR/100 kg
 V primeru vnaprejšnje določitve nadomestil
 Drugo
 1701 99 10
 Beli sladkor
 45,32
 45,32