type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n Challenges Remain to Balance\n Revenue Officer Staffing With\n Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n May 6, 2011\n\n Reference Number: 2011-30-039\n\n\n\n\n This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process\n and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.\n\n\n\n Phone Number | 202-622-6500\n Email Address | TIGTACommunications@tigta.treas.gov\n Web Site | http://www.tigta.gov\n\x0c HIGHLIGHTS\n\n\nCHALLENGES REMAIN TO BALANCE will barely cover attrition losses. Meanwhile, the\nREVENUE OFFICER STAFFING WITH percentage of delinquent accounts closed has\nATTRITION AND WORKLOAD DEMANDS steadily decreased because of increasing\n inventory.\n A key element of effective workforce planning is\nHighlights determining the size of the workforce needed to\n meet organizational goals and identifying gaps\nFinal Report issued on May 6, 2011 between current and future workforce needs.\n However, when estimating staffing levels of\nHighlights of Reference Number: 2011-30-039 ROs, the IRS does not determine the number\nto the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner needed to address the available workload.\nfor the Small Business/Self-Employed Division. Instead, the RO staffing level is estimated based\n primarily on a budget figure. The IRS believes\nIMPACT ON TAXPAYERS there is more than enough inventory to justify\nRevenue officers (RO) comprise one of the core staffing increases. However, the IRS does not\ncompetencies of the Internal Revenue Service know when hiring additional ROs will no longer\n(IRS) and have a direct impact on its ability to be effective.\nmeet its mission by collecting the correct amount The IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Fiscal Year 2009 budget justification\nof tax due. The Small Business/Self-Employed projected the RO hiring initiative would allow\n(SB/SE) Division added 1,515 new ROs during a 88,000 additional delinquent account closures,\nnine-month period, but still faces challenges to resulting in $333.6 million additional revenue in\nkeep pace with attrition and workload. If the IRS Fiscal Year 2011. However, the IRS does not\ndoes not have a sufficient number of qualified compare actual results to the original\nROs to collect delinquent taxes, it could create projections, as would be consistent with\nan unfair burden on the majority of taxpayers guidance from the Office of Management and\nwho fully pay their taxes on time. Budget. As a result, it is unknown if the IRS\nWHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT realized all or part of the additional revenue, and\n the IRS lost an opportunity to collect information\nThis audit was initiated to determine whether the that could help improve future budgets.\nSB/SE Division effectively implemented the RO\nhiring initiative. The audit was included in our WHAT TIGTA RECOMMENDED\nFiscal Year 2010 Annual Audit Plan and TIGTA recommended that the Director,\naddresses the major management challenge of Enterprise Collection Strategy, SB/SE Division,\nHuman Capital. establish rules for optimizing staffing levels for\nWHAT TIGTA FOUND ROs to address Collection\xe2\x80\x99s potentially\n collectible inventory and the Director,\nThe SB/SE Division RO hiring initiative added Collection, SB/SE Division, develop methods to\n1,515 new ROs throughout the country between track actual results with projected benefits in\nJune 2009 and February 2010. The future budget justifications.\nmethodology to assign the new ROs effectively\nplaced them in the Collection areas with the The IRS agreed with our recommendations and\ngreatest need. In addition, the ROs were plans to review Collection workload and\nassigned adequate work, and the field offices resource levels to improve future resource\nwere prepared with office space and equipment. allocation and staffing decisions. IRS officials\n also stated they initiated efforts last year to\nHowever, the IRS faces challenges to maintain determine actual revenue collected from\nthe number of ROs due to attrition and an specific enforcement initiatives proposed in\nincreasing inventory. Although 1,515 ROs were Fiscal Year 2009. However, this information\nhired over a nine-month period, the net increase was not shared with TIGTA during the review.\nwas only 580 ROs. Also, the IRS estimates As a result, TIGTA did not assess whether\nplanned hiring in Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012 these efforts address the recommendation.\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 May 6, 2011\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED\n DIVISION\n\n FROM: Michael R. Phillips\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands (Audit # 201030015)\n\n This report presents the results of our review to determine whether the Collection function, Small\n Business/Self-Employed Division, effectively implemented the Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010\n revenue officer1 hiring initiative. The review was conducted as part of our Fiscal Year 2010\n Annual Audit Plan and addresses the major management challenge of Human Capital.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix VI.\n Copies of this report are also being sent to the Internal Revenue Service managers affected by the\n report recommendations.\n Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Margaret E. Begg, Assistant\n Inspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement Operations), at (202) 622-8510.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n See Appendix V for a glossary of terms.\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nBackground .......................................................................................................... Page 1\n\nResults of Review ............................................................................................... Page 2\n The Revenue Officer Hiring Initiative Was Effectively Implemented ......... Page 2\n Challenges Remain for Staffing to Keep Pace With Attrition\n and Workload ................................................................................................ Page 4\n Recommendation 1:.......................................................... Page 7\n\n Budget Justification Performance Goals Are Not Tracked\n to Actual Performance Results...................................................................... Page 7\n Recommendation 2:.......................................................... Page 9\n\n\nAppendices\n Appendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\xe2\x80\xa6..\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\xa6...Page 10\n Appendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ........................................ Page 12\n Appendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List ....................................................... Page 13\n Appendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 States Within Each Collection Area .................................... Page 14\n Appendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Glossary of Terms ................................................................. Page 15\n Appendix VI \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report ...................... Page 18\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n\n Abbreviations\n\nCFf Collection Field Function\nFY Fiscal Year\nGAO Government Accountability Office\nIRS Internal Revenue Service\nOJT On-the-Job Training\nRO Revenue Officer\nSB/SE Small Business/Self-Employed\nTDA Taxpayer Delinquent Account\nTDI Taxpayer Delinquency Investigation\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n\n Background\n\nThe revenue officer1 (RO) position represents a mission-critical occupation because it comprises\none of the unique core competencies of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and has a direct\nimpact on the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s ability to meet its mission by collecting\nthe appropriate amount of tax due. The Small\n The IRS hired over\nBusiness/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division RO hiring 1,500 new ROs between\ninitiative added over 1,500 new ROs in 3 waves between June 2009 and February 2010.\nJune 2009 and February 2010. This significant number of\nnew employees is equivalent to 38 percent of the 4,002 ROs\nwho were on staff before the first wave began. The addition of these new employees required\nthe IRS to provide them with office space and equipment2 and to assign experienced employees\nto assist with their training.\nAs part of the Department of the Treasury\xe2\x80\x99s budget request, the IRS submits a budget\njustification. The budget justification gives Congress and the Office of Management and Budget\ninformation about agency programs and budget activities, programs or projects within each\nbudget activity, and the requested dollar and staffing levels for each budget activity and program.\nFor Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, the IRS requested an approximate $45.1 million increase for\ncollection activity, including the RO hiring initiative.\nThis review was performed in the Headquarters Office, SB/SE Division, in New Carrollton,\nMaryland, and the Collection Field function (CFf or Collection) offices in Phoenix, Arizona;\nBaltimore, Maryland; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Richmond, Virginia, during the period June\nthrough December 2010. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally\naccepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the\naudit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\nconclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a\nreasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. Detailed\ninformation on our audit objective, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major\ncontributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.\n\n\n\n\n1\n See Appendix V for a glossary of terms.\n2\n Equipment includes laptop computers, wireless internet cards, camera cell phones, etc.\n Page 1\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n\n Results of Review\n\nThe Revenue Officer Hiring Initiative Was Effectively Implemented\nThe methodology to assign and place the new ROs in Collection areas with the greatest need was\neffective. Specifically, the assignment of the new ROs to each of the seven Collection areas was\nbased on the following criteria:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 High- and medium-risk Queue entities.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Potential attrition as of December 2009.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Number of Form 10403 filings from Tax Years 2003\xe2\x80\x932006.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Normalized productivity.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 National Quality Rating System quality score as of June 2009.\nThe hiring initiative also included a 6 percent over-hire authority to account for those individuals\nwho were offered a position but resigned4 before their reporting date. Figure 1 shows the total\ngeographical distribution of the three hiring waves.\n Figure 1: Distribution of the New ROs for Each Collection Area5\n\n\n\n\n Source: Our analysis of hiring initiative RO area allocation documents.\n\n\n3\n U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.\n4\n New ROs sometimes resign their position after accepting it or during the training before their report date.\n5\n See Appendix IV for a list of States within each Collection area.\n Page 2\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\nThe Area Directors had overall responsibility for assigning new ROs to specific Collection field\noffices. The Area Directors based assignments on such factors as work demands, span of\ncontrol, availability of On-the-Job Training (OJT) instructors, and work space.\nDuring Phase I of their OJT, new ROs are assigned their first collection inventories. The\nsuggested inventory of cases for a new RO ranges from 25 to 40 individual and business\ntaxpayers. We reviewed Collection target inventory reports (September 30, 2009; December 31,\n2009; and June 30, 2010) for the periods that coincided with OJT Phase I for each hiring wave.\nWe determined that 1,378 (over 90 percent) of the 1,515 new ROs had been assigned an\ninventory in the 25 to 40 taxpayer range. For the 137 ROs with an inventory below the target\nlevel, 49 (36 percent) had valid adjustments6 that lowered their inventory.\n\nThe Collection field offices were prepared to receive new ROs\nTo determine whether the gaining Collection field offices were prepared and provided support\nfor the hiring initiative, we judgmentally selected four field offices that were assigned new RO\nhires during the three hiring waves. We selected 2 field offices at the higher end (30 or more\nnew RO hires) and 2 in the middle range (8-10 new RO hires):\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Phoenix, Arizona (38 new ROs).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Las Vegas, Nevada (30 new ROs).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Baltimore, Maryland (8 new ROs).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Richmond, Virginia (8 new ROs).\nWe interviewed 4 Territory Managers in each field office and 11 Group Managers within those\nterritories. All of the interviewed Territory and Group Managers indicated that:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Adequate office space and equipment for the new RO hires was provided prior to their\n reporting date.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Available case work was sufficient to assist in the training of the new RO hires to\n complement their completion of the OJT phases.\nThe Territory Managers also stated that all of the OJT instructors were volunteers who were\nsubjected to an informal interview and selection process. The opportunity to apply for the OJT\ninstructor positions was provided in advance of the RO hiring, which allowed adequate lead time\nfor the OJT instructors to close out their inventories or return cases to the Queue.\n\n\n\n\n6\n Inventory levels for ROs may be adjusted for a variety of reasons such as temporary assignments, assignment of\ncollateral duties, etc.\n Page 3\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\nChallenges Remain for Staffing to Keep Pace With Attrition and\nWorkload\nPrior to the RO hiring initiative, the number of ROs who were assigned cases7 decreased from\n3,779 in FY 2004 to 3,613 in FY 2008 (4 percent). Although the hiring initiative helped the IRS\nincrease the number of ROs who were assigned delinquent cases to 4,068 in FY 2010 (13 percent\nincrease), maintaining RO staffing levels to adequately address available workload remains a\nchallenge because:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Hiring has not kept pace with attrition.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The number of ROs needed is not known.\n\nHiring has not kept pace with attrition\nThe Collection function expects to lose ROs as fast as it can replace them due to attrition.8\nAlthough the hiring initiative added 1,515 ROs, the net gain in ROs assigned delinquent tax\ncases as of the end of FY 2010 was only 580 ROs. Over 24 percent of the 4,002 ROs on staff9\nbefore the hiring initiative began were lost to attrition during this period. Also, according to\nCollection\xe2\x80\x99s most recent estimates, planned hiring in FYs 2011 and 2012 will barely cover\nestimated attrition losses. With expected attrition losses of 584 and 600 ROs in FYs 2011 and\n2012, respectively, a net gain of 127 ROs is forecasted for the end of FY 2012.\nMeanwhile, available workload for Collection continues to increase. A study conducted by an\noutside vendor, SB/SE Collection Workforce Plan: Focus on Revenue Officers (June 2009),\nconcluded that the existing workforce will face significant pressures in the coming years from\nincreasing workload and the attrition of new hires. Collection managers agreed with the study\xe2\x80\x99s\nthree main RO staffing challenges:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Workload. Inventory appears to be outpacing the workforces\xe2\x80\x99 capacity to close cases.\n Despite closing delinquent tax accounts at higher rates since FY 2005, the percentage of\n the delinquent tax accounts closed has steadily decreased because of increases in new\n accounts.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 New-Hire Attrition. Since FY 2005, the average RO new-hire resignation rate has been\n 8.3 percent, which is higher than the rest of the RO workforce.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Retirement. Retirements accounted for almost two-thirds of RO attritions over the last\n 3 years. More than half of the Collection RO workforce and 79 percent of its supervisors\n\n\n7\n The number of Collection Field function ROs assigned delinquent cases at the end of each fiscal year. Some ROs\nare not assigned cases because they are involved in collateral duties such as training or other assignments.\n8\n Retirements, resignations, etc.\n9\n This includes ROs who were not assigned delinquent cases.\n Page 4\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n have 20 or more years of service with the IRS. Since FY 2006, the percentage of ROs\n who are retirement eligible has been steadily increasing, and more than 60 percent of\n ROs retired during their first year of eligibility.\nFurther, the volume of available workload depends, in part, on taxpayer behavior as well as\neconomic and societal issues not within the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s control. Accordingly, the study states that the\nnumber of balance-due accounts may continue to rise due to the current state of the economy and\nhistorical trends.\n\nThe number of ROs needed is not known\nAccording to the Office of Personnel Management,10 an effective workforce plan includes\nidentifying the human capital required to meet organizational goals, conducting analysis to\nidentify competency gaps, developing strategies to address human capital needs and close\ncompetency gaps, and ensuring the organization is appropriately structured. An agency should\napproach workforce planning strategically and in an explicit, documented manner. The\nworkforce plan should link directly to the agency\xe2\x80\x99s strategic and annual performance plans and\nbe used to make decisions about structuring and deploying the workforce. One key element of\nworkforce planning requires a workload analysis to determine the size of the workforce needed\nto meet organizational goals and to identify gaps between current and future workforce needs.\nHowever, when estimating staffing levels of ROs needed in future years, the IRS does not\ndetermine the number of ROs needed to address the available workload. Instead, the level is\nestimated based primarily on a budget figure provided by the IRS Chief Financial Officer.\nCollection believes that there is more than enough Taxpayer Delinquent Account (TDA)\ninventory in the Queue to justify any staffing increases. Figure 2 shows TDA receipts by the\nCFf and the number of TDAs assigned to ROs from FY 2005 to FY 2010.\n\n\n\n\n10\n The Office of Personnel Management Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework Resource\nCenter \xe2\x80\x93 Workforce Planning (Strategic Alignment System), September 2005.\n Page 5\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n Figure 2: Gap Between TDA Receipts and TDAs Assigned,\n Including TDAs Assigned as a Percentage of Receipts\n\n\n\n\n Source: Our analysis of Collection Report 5000-2.\n\nAlthough more TDAs are being closed each year, the number of unassigned TDAs at the end of\neach fiscal year has also increased. With the exception of FY 2006, only 54 to 63 percent TDA\nreceipts were assigned to ROs each year. This shows that there are cases that could be worked if\nthere were more ROs available. However, the priority and potential collectability of the\ninventory is not known.\nRO inventory is systemically prioritized using risk-based criteria prior to assignment by the\nGroup Manager. In general, because the IRS is investing resources to resolve cases assigned to\nROs, the highest priority cases are assigned first, and lower priority cases are assigned if\nresources are available. At some point, the productivity of these cases could be less than the\nadditional resources needed to resolve them because a greater number of lower priority cases will\nbe assigned. However, the IRS does not know when it would no longer be productive to hire\nadditional ROs to work the additional inventory that would be assigned.\nAn effective workforce plan is an essential tool to identify appropriate workload staffing levels\nand justify budget allocations so that organizations can meet their objectives. However, the\nFederal budget process does not require an agency to request staffing based on workload.\nInstead, the IRS provides budget requests to Congress in initiatives that show how they will use\ntheir resources and the estimated potential return on investment. Consequently, the\n\n\n Page 6\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\nSB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s staffing requirements are based on budgetary considerations, not workload\nsuch as RO inventory.\nDetermining the optimal level of RO staffing to work the potentially collectible inventory can\nprovide valuable information to the IRS. For example, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2009 budget submission\nstates that additional staffing would increase coverage of potentially collectible inventory, which\nis an obvious assumption. It would be more meaningful to compare the total number of ROs\nneeded with the actual number of ROs on staff when requesting additional resources. This\ninformation could also be useful for projecting future inventory levels that may not be worked\ndue to insufficient resources. Without effective workforce planning, IRS decisions regarding the\nsize and allocation of ROs could result in arbitrary and subjective resource actions, which may\nhave negative effects on IRS programs and services.\n\nRecommendation\nRecommendation 1: The Director, Enterprise Collection Strategy, SB/SE Division, should\nestablish rules for optimizing staffing levels for ROs to address Collection\xe2\x80\x99s potentially\ncollectible inventory.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. The\n Director, Enterprise Collection Strategy, SB/SE Division will engage key subject matter\n and technical experts from across the IRS to review Collection workload and resource\n levels to improve future resource allocation and staffing decisions across multiple\n Collection programs and mission-critical occupations.\n\nBudget Justification Performance Goals Are Not Tracked to Actual\nPerformance Results\nThe IRS\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2009 Budget represented an increase of $469.1 million (4.3 percent) over the\nFY 2008 enacted level. To justify the funding increase, the IRS estimated the SB/SE Division\nwould generate $2 billion in additional annual enforcement revenue once the new hires reached\nfull potential in FY 2011. In his budget testimony before the House Ways and Means\nCommittee, the IRS Commissioner stated, \xe2\x80\x9cThese new employees would give the IRS the\nflexibility to make assignments based on the areas of greatest need.\xe2\x80\x9d The budget included\napproximately $45.1 million for the IRS to increase collection efforts, including the RO hiring\ninitiative. Figure 3 shows the expected impact of the additional ROs on the TDA and Taxpayer\nDelinquency Investigation (TDI) closures, as well as revenue.\n\n\n\n\n Page 7\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n Figure 3: Predicted Impact That New ROs Would Have on Collection Inventory\n\n Taxpayer Delinquent Accounts Taxpayer Delinquent Investigations\n FY 2009 \xe2\x80\xa2 42,000 increase in closed cases \xe2\x80\xa2 1,900 increase in closed cases\n FY 2011 \xe2\x80\xa2 88,000 increase in closed cases \xe2\x80\xa2 3,000 increase in closed cases\n \xe2\x80\xa2 $333.6 million increase in revenue\n Source: IRS\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2009 Budget Justification\n\nHowever, the IRS does not track or provide Congress and other stakeholders with a comparison\nof actual results to the original projections in the years following the budget\xe2\x80\x99s implementation.\nSpecifically, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2010 budget justification did not provide Congress with information\ncomparing the FY 2009 projected TDA or TDI closures and revenue with actual closures and\nrevenue (performance results). Instead, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2010 budget justification again emphasizes\nareas where the IRS needed funding for new initiatives.\nUsing Collection Reports 5000-02, we compared TDAs closed by ROs during FY 2008 with\nthose closed during FY 2009. The FY 2009 budget justification projected an additional\n42,000 TDAs would be closed in FY 2009; however an additional 47,382 TDAs11 were actually\nclosed, representing 5,382 more TDAs closed than were projected. However, the information in\nthis report is not detailed enough to determine the specific impact of the new ROs on the\nFY 2009 TDA closures.\nComparing projected revenue, benefits, or savings to actual revenue, benefits, or savings is\nconsistent with the concept of internal control standards as well as guidance from the Office of\nManagement and Budget, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Government\nPerformance and Results Act of 1993.12 Specifically, Office of Management and Budget\nCircular A-9413 Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs\nsays:\n Retrospective studies to determine whether anticipated benefits and costs have\n been realized are potentially valuable. Such studies can be used to determine\n necessary corrections in existing programs, and to improve future estimates of\n benefits and costs in these programs or related ones. Agencies should have a\n plan for periodic, results-oriented evaluation of program effectiveness. They\n should also discuss the results of relevant evaluation studies when proposing\n reauthorizations or increased program funding.\n\n\n11\n The ROs closed 1,201,473 TDAs during FY 2008 compared with 1,248,855 TDAs during FY 2009.\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.).\n13\n Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, Revised October 29, 1992.\n Page 8\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\nAlso, the Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government provides for reviews by\nmanagement at the functional or activity level. Specifically, managers need to compare actual\nperformance to planned or expected results throughout the organization and analyze significant\ndifferences. Without understanding the discrepancies between projected and actual revenue, the\nIRS has less information to improve the accuracy of future projections.\nIn addition, the SB/SE Division Strategy and Finance FY 2011 Program Letter reemphasizes\nincreased transparency related to budget formulation and initiative development. Budget\ntransparency would include providing Congress with information comparing projected revenue\nto actual revenue in the year following the budget\xe2\x80\x99s implementation.\nA comparison of actual results with projected results is not a condition for approval of the annual\nbudget. Accordingly, Collection does not collect the information used to compare the actual\nperformance of the newly hired ROs with the projected performance in the budget justification.\nAlthough it may not be needed in the budget process, information about achieving expected\ngoals is a valuable business tool. Without data on actual increased revenue collected, Congress\nand other stakeholders do not know whether the IRS realized all or part of the $333.6 million in\nadditional revenue projected in its FY 2009 budget justification. Further, Collection is not in a\nposition to provide the data necessary to ensure transparency in budget formulation and initiative\ndevelopment or to collect and analyze information that could help improve future budget\njustifications.\n\nRecommendation\nRecommendation 2: The Director, Collection, SB/SE Division, should develop methods to\ncompile the data necessary to track actual performance results with projected performance results\nto improve future budget justifications.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management stated that they are already working\n with the GAO to develop a methodology to determine actual revenue collected from\n specific enforcement initiatives recommended in FY 2009 as a result of their review of\n the FY 2010 Budget Request. The IRS will share its methodology with us as it\n progresses.\n Office of Audit Comment: In their response, IRS management stated that they\n initiated efforts last year to determine actual revenue collected from specific enforcement\n initiatives proposed in FY 2009. However, IRS officials did not share these plans with us\n during our review. As a result, we did not assess whether these efforts address the\n recommendation. However, we are concerned because the IRS\xe2\x80\x99s corrective action did\n not include either an implementation date or a corrective action plan.\n\n\n\n\n Page 9\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n Appendix I\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nOur overall objective was to determine whether the Collection function, SB/SE Division,\neffectively implemented the FYs 2009 and 2010 RO1 hiring initiative. Specifically, we:\nI. Assessed the planning and preparation by the Collection function for the hiring initiative.\n A. Reviewed documentation supporting the hiring initiative funding request.\n B. Assessed the method used to determine the hiring level of ROs as part of the hiring\n initiative.\n C. Assessed the method used to allocate the ROs hired and determined whether they\n were strategically assigned (i.e., to offices with the greatest needs).\nII. Analyzed selected Collection Target Inventory Reports from May 31, 2009, through\n September 30, 2010, and determined whether the target inventory levels were met for the\n new ROs.\nIII. Interviewed the Territory Managers and Group Managers for the four Collection field\n offices selected for review.\n A. Evaluated the adequacy of office space and equipment (computers, wireless cards,\n phone lines, cell phones, etc.) needs for new RO hires in the selected field offices.\n B. Evaluated the adequacy and availability of training and live case work provided to\n new RO hires.\nIV. Determined the impact of the hiring initiative on future staffing levels and resource costs\n by identifying the planned level of RO staffing for FY2010 to FY2012 and assessing\n Collection\xe2\x80\x99s plan to maintain these levels.\nInternal Controls Methodology\nInternal controls relate to management\xe2\x80\x99s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet their\nmission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and procedures for\nplanning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. They include the systems\nfor measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance. We determined that the\nfollowing internal controls were relevant to our audit objectives: SB/SE Division Collection\nfunction policies, procedures, and practices for maintaining appropriate inventory levels for ROs,\n\n\n1\n See Appendix V for a glossary of terms.\n Page 10\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\nassigning ROs to field offices, establishing training classes for new ROs, and assigning\nexperienced ROs as OJT instructors. We evaluated these controls by reviewing Collection target\ninventory reports, the methodology used to assign new ROs, RO training class schedules, and the\nmethodology used to assign OJT instructors.\n\n\n\n\n Page 11\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n Appendix II\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nMargaret E. Begg, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement\nOperations)\nCarl L. Aley, Director\nTimothy F. Greiner, Audit Manager\nMichael J. Della Ripa, Lead Auditor\nDoris Cervantes, Senior Auditor\nFrank Maletta, Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n Appendix III\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nCommissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Operations Support OS\nDeputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE\nIRS Human Capital Officer OS:HC\nDeputy Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S\nDirector, Collection, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S:C\nDirector, Enterprise Collection Strategy, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S:ECS\nDirector, Talent, Hiring, and Recruitment OS:HC:THR\nChief Counsel CC\nNational Taxpayer Advocate TA\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nDirector, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O\nOffice of Internal Control OS:CFO:CPIC:IC\nAudit Liaisons:\n Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S\n IRS Human Capital Officer OS:HC\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n Appendix IV\n\n States Within Each Collection Area\n\n Collection\n States Covered\n Area\n Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,\nNorth Atlantic\n New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and International\n\n Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and\nCentral\n West Virginia\n\n Delaware, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,\nSouth Atlantic\n and Virginia\n\n Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,\nMidwest\n North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin\n\n Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma,\nGulf States\n Tennessee, and Texas\n\n Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,\nWestern\n New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming\n\nCalifornia California\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n Appendix V\n\n Glossary of Terms\n\nArea Director \xe2\x80\x93 The senior-level manager in the CFf chain of command (i.e., the Group\nManager reports to Territory Manager, who reports to the Area Director).\nArea Office \xe2\x80\x93 A geographic organizational level used by IRS business units and offices to help\nits specific types of taxpayers understand and comply with tax laws and issues.\nBalance-Due Account \xe2\x80\x93 A balance-due account occurs when the taxpayer has an outstanding\nliability for taxes, penalties, and/or interest.\nBudget Justification \xe2\x80\x93 For any given fiscal year, the budget request is submitted to the IRS\nOversight Board, the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, and\nCongress, which is referred to as the Congressional Justification. Revisions are made to the\nbudget request throughout this process based on approved funding levels from these external\nentities prior to the final Congressional Justification.\nCase \xe2\x80\x93 A Collection case refers to one taxpayer, but can include multiple tax modules (specific\ntax return filed by the taxpayer for one specific tax period, year, or quarter and type of tax) for\nthat taxpayer.\nChief Financial Officer \xe2\x80\x93 Serves as the principal advisor to the IRS Commissioner and Deputy\nCommissioners on financial and performance management, financial systems, strategic planning,\nand internal controls.\nCollection Area \xe2\x80\x93 Seven geographic regions across the country (California, Central, Gulf States,\nMidwest, North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Western). Each is headed by an Area Director who\nis the responsible official for all collection operations within the designated areas.\nCollection Field Function \xe2\x80\x93 The unit in the Area Offices consisting of ROs who handle personal\ncontacts with taxpayers to collect delinquent accounts or secure unfiled returns.\nCollection Field Offices \xe2\x80\x93 Local offices where ROs are assigned.\nCollection Report 5000-2 \xe2\x80\x93 Collection Activity Report, NO-5000 \xe2\x80\x93 Taxpayer Delinquent Account\nCumulative Report. This report provides Collection activity information from the beginning of\nthe fiscal year through the end of the current reporting month.\nCollection Target Inventory Reports \xe2\x80\x93 Target inventory levels were implemented to establish\nconsistent inventory levels for ROs nationwide. Group managers are responsible for monitoring\ninventory levels to ensure each RO has an appropriate number of cases within the established\nranges. These levels are reflected on target inventory reports (by group).\n\n Page 15\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\nCore Competencies \xe2\x80\x93 The fundamental knowledge, ability, or expertise in a specific area or skill\nset that allows that an organization or individual to compete with its competitors.\nEnforcement Revenue \xe2\x80\x93 Any tax, penalty, or interest received from a taxpayer as a result of an\nIRS enforcement action (usually an examination or a collection action).\nGroup Manager \xe2\x80\x93 A first-level manager in Collection, responsible for supervision of an RO\ngroup.\nHiring Wave \xe2\x80\x93 The IRS hired 568 ROs in June 2009, 568 ROs in August 2009, and 379 ROs in\nFebruary 2010.\nInitiative Hires \xe2\x80\x93 Those positions that are associated with the IRS initiative targeted to improve\nreporting, filing, or payment compliance.\nIRS Data Book \xe2\x80\x93 Provides information on activities conducted by the IRS, such as taxes\ncollected, enforcement, taxpayer assistance, budget, workforce, and other selected activities.\nOn-the-Job Training Instructor \xe2\x80\x93 A senior RO, selected to provide instruction and training to\nan assigned new-hire RO within a specific group.\nOn-the-Job Training \xe2\x80\x93 The initial 40-week training period for a new RO, divided into phases\none and two. During this OJT, an RO reports to, and works under, the guidance of an assigned\nOJT instructor.\nPotentially Collectible Inventory \xe2\x80\x93 The total inventory having the most potential for applying\nintervention techniques and collection resources, including reactivating those modules that\ncollection closed due to lack of resources.\nQueue \xe2\x80\x93 An automated holding file for unassigned inventory of delinquent cases for which the\nCollection function does not have enough resources to immediately assign for contact.\nReturn on Investment \xe2\x80\x93 The net profit or loss in an accounting period divided by the capital\ninvestment used during the period, usually expressed as an annual percentage return.\nRevenue Officer \xe2\x80\x93 Employees in the CFf who attempt to contact taxpayers and resolve\ncollection matters that have not been resolved through notices sent by the IRS campuses or the\nAutomated Collection System.\nTax Period \xe2\x80\x93 Refers to each tax return filed by the taxpayer for a specific period (year or\nquarter) during a calendar year for each type of tax.\nTaxpayer Delinquency Investigation \xe2\x80\x93 An unfiled tax return for a taxpayer. One TDI exists for\nall tax periods.\nTaxpayer Delinquent Account \xe2\x80\x93 A balance-due account of a taxpayer. A separate TDA exists for\neach tax period.\n\n\n Page 16\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\nTerritory Manager \xe2\x80\x93 A second-level manager in the Collection function, responsible for\nsupervision of Group Managers within a specific geographic territory.\n\n\n\n\n Page 17\n\x0c Challenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\n Staffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n Appendix VI\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\x0cChallenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\nStaffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\x0cChallenges Remain to Balance Revenue Officer\nStaffing With Attrition and Workload Demands\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\x0c'


text:
CSM Volei Alba Blaj calificare în stil de mare campioană în semifinalele Cupei CEV | AbSport.ro
 Acasă Volei CSM Volei Alba Blaj calificare în stil de mare campioană în semifinalele...
 CSM Volei Alba Blaj calificare în stil de mare campioană în semifinalele Cupei CEV
 CSM Volei Alba Blaj s-a calificat în semifinalele Cupei CEV la volei feminin după ce a învins cu 15-5 pe Galatasaray Istanbul în setul de aur în sferturile de finală ale competiţiei.
 Setul de aur a durat doar zece minute, iar meciul în ansamblu s-a întins pe durata a 79 de minute.
 CSM Volei Alba Blaj a câştigat cu 3-0 meciul retur de marţi după amiază de la Sibiu, trimiţând astfel dubla dispută în setul de aur. Asta după ce Galatasaray Istanbul se impusese de asemenea în minimum de seturi în manşa tur de pe teren propriu.
 Aproape 2.000 de spectatori şi-au încurajat favoritele, care s-au impus pe seturi la 20, la 23 şi la 16. În setul secund formaţia turcă a condus cu 23-21, dar vicecampioana Europei a avut puterea să remonteze.
 Ioana Baciu a fost cea mai bună jucătoare din echipa antrenată de Darko Zakoc, cu 18 puncte, Ana Lazarevic a contribuit cu 13, iar Sonja Newcombe cu 11.
 Echipa din Blaj a “recidivat”, după ce a trecut de Galatasaray Istanbul şi anul trecut, la Bucureşti, în semifinalele Ligii Campionilor.
 “Se poate spune că ne-am învăţat lecţia în Germania şi am luat acel meci (n.a. partida retur cu MTV Stuttgart, în care Blajul a ratat calificarea în grupele Ligii Campionilor în setul de aur) ca exemplu. Cred că presiunea a fost pe Galatasaray Istanbul. Sunt o echipă cu nume în Europa. Noi suntem un club mai mic, dar ne-am dorit foarte mult calificarea. Am crezut în şansele noastre, nu ne-am dat bătute şi am văzut că şi ele pot avea o zi mai slabă de care să profităm. Am jucat ca o echipă, am luptat şi am avut alături de noi un public minunat, ca de fiecare dată”, a declarat căpitanul Nneka Onyejekwe.
 CSM Volei Alba Blaj va juca în semifinale cu Ştiinţa Bacău, câştigătoarea duelului cu VK UP Olomouc (Cehia). Echipa din Bacău s-a impus cu 3-2 atât acasă cât şi în deplasare, marţi seară. Astfel una dintre semifinalele Cupei CEV va fi 100 % românească.
 Articolul precedentMulte competiții în calendarul pe 2019 al Clubului Sportiv Unirea Alba Iulia
 Articolul următorFOTO/VIDEO: O nouă seară memorabilă oferită de CSM Volei Alba Blaj