text:
Nepeněžní příjem poskytnutý zaměstnanci - jeho osvobození a zdanění | FKSP - příklady
 1.11.2018, Ing. Ivan Macháček, Zdroj: Verlag Dashöfer
 Nepeněžní příjem poskytnutý zaměstnanci – jeho osvobození a zdanění
 V příspěvku se zaměříme na nepeněžní plnění poskytnuté zaměstnanci zaměstnavatelem (zaměstnanecké benefity v nepeněžní formě). To znamená, že zaměstnavatel neposkytuje tento benefit předáním peněžních prostředků zaměstnanci, ale formou věcného plnění. Budeme se věnovat podmínkám pro osvobození tohoto nepeněžního plnění u zaměstnance od daně z příjmů ze závislé činnosti dle § 6 odst. 9 ZDP, přičemž v některých ustanoveních § 6 odst. 9 ZDP se váže osvobození od daně z příjmů na poskytování plnění z fondu kulturních a sociálních potřeb, a u zaměstnavatelů, kteří tento fond netvoří, ze sociálního fondu, ze zisku (příjmu) po jeho zdanění anebo z výdajů (nákladů), které nejsou u zaměstnavatele výdaji (náklady) na dosažení, zajištění a udržení příjmů. Pokud výše uvedené nepeněžní plnění zaměstnavatele nesplní podmínku pro osvobození od daně z příjmů ze závislé činnosti u zaměstnance a dojde ke zdanění plnění zaměstnavatele u zaměstnance, bude nepeněžní příjem zaměstnance rovněž zahrnut do vyměřovacího základu pro odvod pojistného na sociální a zdravotní pojištění. Stanovení měsíční zálohy na daň u zaměstnance pak proběhne ze superhrubé mzdy.
 NahoruOdborný rozvoj zaměstnanců
 Podle znění § 6 odst. 9 písm. a) ZDP jsou od daně z příjmů osvobozena nepeněžní plnění vynaložená zaměstnavatelem na úhradu výdajů spojených s odborným rozvojem zaměstnanců (prohloubení a zvýšení kvalifikace) související s předmětem činnosti zaměstnavatele anebo vynaložená na rekvalifikaci zaměstnanců podle zákona o zaměstnanosti. Toto osvobození se nevztahuje na příjmy plynoucí zaměstnancům v této souvislosti jako mzda, plat, odměna nebo jako náhrada za ušlý příjem.
 Pokud poskytne zaměstnavatel zaměstnanci nepeněžní plnění na jeho prohloubení nebo zvýšení kvalifikace, které nesouvisí s předmětem činnosti zaměstnavatele, nemůže zaměstnanec využít znění § 6 odst. 9 písm. a) ZDP, ale může využít znění § 6 odst. 9 písm. d) ZDP.
 Zaměstnavatel se dohodne se zaměstnancem, že si zvýší kvalifikaci formou dálkového magisterského studia na soukromé vysoké škole managementu a zaměstnavatel uhradí poplatky za studium. Zvýšení kvalifikace zaměstnance souvisí s předmětem činnosti zaměstnavatele. Ve smyslu zákoníku práce je sjednána kvalifikační dohoda včetně vymezení práv a hmotného zabezpečení zaměstnance.
 Varianta A – nepeněžní plnění zaměstnavatele
 Zaměstnavatel zaplatí příslušné poplatky za studium přímo vysoké škole. Čas věnovaný zvyšování kvalifikace je považován za překážku v práci na straně zaměstnance. Zaměstnanci přísluší od zaměstnavatele při zvyšování kvalifikace pracovní volno s náhradou mzdy nebo platu ve výši průměrného výdělku specifikované v § 232 ZP. U zaměstnance půjde o nepeněžní příjem, který je podle § 6 odst. 9 písm. a) ZDP osvobozen od daně z příjmů. Náhrada mzdy však bude podléhat zdanění ze superhrubé mzdy i odvodu pojistného na sociální a zdravotní pojištění. Výdaje vynaložené zaměstnavatelem na zvýšení kvalifikace zaměstnance jsou daňovým výdajem podle znění § 24 odst. 2 písm. j) ZDP bod 3.
 Varianta B – peněžní plnění zaměstnavatele
 Zaměstnavatel proplácí zaměstnanci z pokladny zaplacené školné, které zaměstnanec zaplatí vždy na příslušný semestr. U zaměstnance půjde o zdanitelný peněžní příjem, jehož zdanění proběhne ze superhrubé mzdy. Tento peněžní příjem se zahrnuje do vyměřovacího základu pro odvod pojistného na sociální a zdravotní pojištění. Výdaje vynaložené zaměstnavatelem na zvýšení kvalifikace zaměstnance jsou daňovými výdaji zaměstnavatele podle znění § 24 odst. 2 písm. j) ZDP bod 3. Povinné pojistné na sociální a zdravotní pojištění hrazené zaměstnavatelem za sebe sama ze zdanitelné částky zaměstnance lze uplatnit podle § 24 odst. 2 písm. f) ZDP jako daňový náklad.
 Zaměstnanec, který je zaměstnán u firmy ve finančním oddělení, se rozhodl zvýšit svou kvalifikaci návštěvou kursů sportovního trenéra. Zaměstnavatel uhradí zaměstnanci kurs formou nepeněžního plnění zaplacením pořádající sportovní agentuře.
 U zaměstnance nelze uplatnit § 6 odst. 9 písm. a) ZDP, protože zvýšení kvalifikace nesouvisí s předmětem činnosti zaměstnavatele. Protože však jde o nepeněžní plnění zaměstnavatele, může se na zaměstnance vztahovat § 6 odst. 9 písm. d) ZDP a toto nepeněžní plnění bude osvobozeno u zaměstnance od daně z příjmů, pokud u zaměstnavatele půjde o nedaňový výdaj. Tato skutečnost je u zaměstnavatele splněna, protože na zaměstnavatele se vztahuje § 25 odst. 1 písm. h) ZDP bod 2 a zaměstnavatel nemůže nepeněžní plnění poskytnuté zaměstnanci na zvýšení kvalifikace, které nesouvisí s předmětem činnosti zaměstnavatele, uplatnit jako daňový výdaj.
 V případě, že by zaměstnavatel uhradil kurs formou peněžního plnění přímo zaměstnanci na základě předložení dokladu o zaplaceném kurzovném, bylo by daňové řešení jiné. U zaměstnance by nebylo možno uplatnit ani § 6 odst. 9 písm. a) ZDP ani § 6 odst. 9 písm. d) ZDP, protože jednak zvýšení kvalifikace nesouvisí s předmětem činnosti zaměstnavatele a jednak se jedná o peněžní plnění. U zaměstnance tak půjde o zdanitelný peněžní příjem. Výdaje vynaložené zaměstnavatelem na zvýšení kvalifikace zaměstnance by mohly být daňovými výdaji podle § 24 odst. 2 písm. j) ZDP bod 5, pokud se k peněžní úhradě zaměstnanci zavázal zaměstnavatel např. v pracovní smlouvě nebo jiné smlouvě uzavřené s pracovníkem. Povinné pojistné na sociální a zdravotní pojištění hrazené zaměstnavatelem za sebe sama ze zdanitelné částky zaměstnance lze uplatnit podle § 24 odst. 2 písm. f) ZDP jako daňový náklad.
 NahoruStravování zaměstnanců
 Podle znění § 6 odst. 9 písm. b) ZDP je od daně z příjmů osvobozena hodnota stravování poskytovaného jako nepeněžní plnění zaměstnavatelem zaměstnancům ke spotřebě na pracovišti nebo v rámci závodního stravování zajišťovaného prostřednictvím jiných subjektů, a to bez ohledu na výši poskytnutého příspěvku zaměstnavatelem na toto stravování; toto osvobození se však nevztahuje na peněžité plnění zaměstnavatele zaměstnancům.
 NahoruNealko nápoje
 Podle znění § 6 odst. 9 písm. c) ZDP je od daně z příjmů osvobozena hodnota nealkoholických nápojů poskytovaných jako nepeněžní plnění zaměstnavatelem zaměstnancům ke spotřebě na pracovišti, přičemž toto osvobození se váže na plnění zaměstnavatele ze sociálního fondu, ze zisku (příjmu) po jeho zdanění anebo na vrub nedaňových výdajů (nákladů).
 NahoruZdravotnictví, rekreace, sport, knihy
 Podle znění § 6 odst. 9 písm. d) ZDP je od daně z příjmů osvobozeno nepeněžní plnění poskytované zaměstnavatelem zaměstnanci nebo jeho rodinnému příslušníku z fondu kulturních a sociálních potřeb, ze sociálního fondu, ze zisku (příjmu) po jeho zdanění anebo na vrub výdajů (nákladů), které nejsou výdaji (náklady) na dosažení, zajištění a udržení příjmů:
 ve formě pořízení zboží nebo služeb zdravotního, léčebného, hygienického a obdobného charakteru od zdravotnických zařízení, pořízení zdravotnických prostředků na lékařský předpis a použití vzdělávacích nebo rekreačních zařízení,
 ve formě použití zařízení péče o děti předškolního věku včetně mateřské školy podle školského zákona, knihovny zaměstnavatele, tělovýchovných a sportovních zařízení,
 ve formě příspěvku na kulturní nebo sportovní akce,
 ve formě příspěvku na tištěné knihy, včetně obrázkových knih pro děti, mimo knih, ve kterých reklama přesahuje 50% plochy.
 Podle § 6 odst. 3 ZDP se příjmem zaměstnance rozumí i plnění podle § 6 odst. 9 písm. d) a písm. e) ZDP poskytnuté zaměstnavatelem pro rodinného příslušníka zaměstnance.
 V pokynu GFŘ č. D-22 k § 6 odst. 9 písm. d) a e) ZDP se uvádí, že plnění pro rodinné příslušníky pro daňové účely může zaměstnavatel založit nejen na principu příbuzenského vztahu nebo na manželském svazku, ale i např. na faktickém soužití, neposkytuje-li zaměstnavatel plnění pro rodinné příslušníky zaměstnance podle zvláštního právního předpisu (např. podle vyhlášky č. 114/2002 Sb., o fondu kulturních a sociálních potřeb, ve znění pozdějších předpisů).
 Mezi tato nepeněžní plnění zaměstnavatele poskytovaná jeho zaměstnancům patří např.:
 zakoupení vstupenek na kulturní pořady vč. vstupenek na různá vystoupení tuzemských a zahraničních kulturních osobností,
 zakoupení vstupenek resp. permanentek do sportovních zařízení (fitness centra, aquaparky, bowling, tenis, golf apod.),
 zakoupení masáží ve zdravotnickém, tělovýchovném nebo sportovním zařízení, popř. v rámci příspěvku na rekreaci,
 zakoupení vstupenek nebo permanentek do divadla,
 zakoupení vstupenek na sportovní akce,
 úhrada tuzemské a zahraniční rekreace cestovní kanceláři,
 poskytnutí poukázek na nákup zdravotnického zboží (vitaminy), nebo na poskytnutí služby ve zdravotnickém zařízení nehrazené zdravotní pojišťovnou, rehabilitace, zdravotní obuvi, dioptrických brýlí,
 zakoupení knih dle výběru zaměstnance anebo zaplacení vybraných knih zaměstnancem v knihkupectví včetně dětských knih apod.
 Zákon o daních z příjmů neomezuje výši tohoto příspěvku zaměstnavatele. Limitující pro osvobození od daně z příjmů ze závislé činnosti je pouze částka 20 000 Kč nepeněžního plnění zaměstnavatele v souvislosti s poskytnutím příspěvku na tuzemskou a zahraniční rekreaci či zájezd.
 Zaměstnavatel poskytne zaměstnanci v rámci benefitu poukaz pro dvě osoby na týdenní zájezd do Španělska ve výši 25 000 Kč formou zakoupení zájezdu v cestovní kanceláři.
 Částka 20 000 Kč bude u zaměstnance osvobozena od daně z příjmů ze závislé činnosti podle § 6 odst. 9 písm. d) ZDP. Při stanovení superhrubé mzdy bude připočten v měsíci poskytnutí poukazu nepeněžní příjem 5 000 Kč k hrubé mzdě zaměstnance a rovněž bude připočtena částka pojistného hrazeného zaměstnavatelem ze zdanitelného příjmu 34 % z 5 000 Kč = 1 700 Kč.
 U zaměstnavatele půjde o daňově neuznatelný výdaj podle § 25 odst. 1 písm. h) ZDP bod 1. Daňovým nákladem zaměstnavatele však bude podle znění § 24 odst. 2 písm. f) ZDP povinné pojistné na sociální a zdravotní pojištění hrazené zaměstnavatelem za sebe sama ze zdanitelného nepeněžního příjmu zaměstnance (částka 1 700 Kč).
 Problematika nového příspěvku zaměstnavatele na tištěné knihy (zaveden zákonem č. 170/2017 Sb.) byla předmětem příspěvku projednávaného na KOOV pod číslem 616/24.01.18, který byl bez rozporu uzavřen ke dni 24. 1. 2018. Z toho příspěvku a stanoviska GFŘ k návrhům předkladatelů vyplývají možné varianty poskytnutí příspěvku zaměstnavatele, u kterých bude naplněna možnost daňového osvobození příspěvku zaměstnavatele dle § 6 odst. 9 písm. d) ZDP bod 4:
 Zaměstnavatel poskytne zaměstnanci poukázky (ať již v listinné či elektronické podobě), které bude možné v příslušných knihkupectvích vyměnit za tištěné knihy, přičemž taková forma nejvíce naplní podmínky daného ustanovení;
 Zaměstnavatel zajistí u prodejce knih pro zaměstnance možnost výběru knih s tím, že faktura za tyto knihy bude vystavena prodejcem knih přímo zaměstnavateli – v tomto případě je stále zachován nepeněžní charakter příspěvku;
 Zaměstnavatel poskytne zaměstnanci přímo tištěné knihy, které sám zakoupil.
 Prokázání splnění zákonných podmínek pro osvobození dle § 6 odst. 9 ZDP je plně na straně zaměstnavatele. Tyto závěry KOOV je možné aplikovat i v situaci, kdy zaměstnavatel nehradí celou hodnotu knihy a zaměstnanec se na její úhradě částečně podílí, a to za předpokladu, že se nebude jednat o hotovostní nákup knih přímo poplatníkem, tzn. nepůjde o následné proplacení (či poskytnutí příspěvku zaměstnavatele) na základě předloženého paragonu poplatníkem.
 NahoruDary
 Podle znění § 6 odst. 9 písm. g) ZDP je od daně z příjmů osvobozena hodnota nepeněžního bezúplatného plnění (daru) do úhrnné výše 2 000 Kč ročně u každého zaměstnance – podmínkou je, že plnění zaměstnavatele je poskytováno z FKSP, za obdobných podmínek ze sociálního fondu, ze zisku (příjmu) po jeho zdanění anebo na vrub nedaňových výdajů (nákladů).
 Zaměstnavatel poskytuje ze sociálního fondu podle vnitřního předpisu svým zaměstnancům následující nepeněžní dary:
 při narození dítěte částku 4 000 Kč formou novorozenecké výbavičky,
 dárkový balíček v hodnotě 3 000 Kč při dosažení 45, 50, 55 a 60 let věku zaměstnance.
 Zákon o daních z příjmů se v § 6 odst. 9 písm. g) ZDP odvolává na znění vyhlášky o FKSP, ve které se v § 14 uvádí, že z fondu lze poskytovat zaměstnancům věcné nebo peněžní dary:
 a) za mimořádnou aktivitu ve prospěch zaměstnavatele při poskytnutí osobní pomoci při požáru, živelní události a při jiných mimořádných případech a za aktivitu humanitárního a sociálního charakteru a péči o zaměstnance a jejich rodinné příslušníky;
 b) při pracovních výročích 20 a každých dalších 5 let trvání pracovního nebo služebního poměru u zaměstnavatele; do pracovního výročí lze započítat i dobu trvání pracovního poměru u jiných zaměstnavatelů. Do pracovních výročí nelze zahrnout dobu výkonu práce konané na základě dohody o práci konané mimo pracovní poměr;
 c) při životních výročích 50 let a každých dalších 5 let věku;
 d) při prvním odchodu do starobního nebo invalidního důchodu pro invaliditu třetího...


type: wikipedia

text:
Slovėnų kalba () – pietų slavų kalba, vartojama slovėnų.
 Paplitimas
 Pasaulyje šia kalba kaip gimtąja šneka apie 2,2 mln. žmonių, kurių dauguma gyvena Slovėnijoje; tautinių mažumų yra pietų Austrijoje ir Italijoje.
 Ypatybės
 Slovėnų kalba turi daug gramatinių archaizmų, kurių kitose slavų kalbose nėra, pvz., dviskaitą:
 en fant hoče, dva fanta hočeta, trije fantje hočejo = vienas berniukas nori, du berniukai/berniuku nori, trys berniukai nori
 ena glava, dve glavi, tri glave = viena galva, dvi galvos/galvi, trys galvos
 ir siekinį:
 Oni hočejo delati. = Jie nori dirbti.
 Oni so šli delat. = Jie išėjo dirbti/dirbtų.
 Slovėnų kalbos žodžiai turi šešis linksnius. Pirmasis yra vardininkas, antrasis – kilmininkas, trečiasis – naudininkas, ketvirtasis – galininkas, penktasis – vietininkas, paskutinis linksnis yra įnagininkas, kaip, pavyzdžiui, čekų kalboje. Reikia pasakyti, kad, skirtingai nuo, pavyzdžiui, rytų slavų kalbų ir lenkų kalbos, su įnagininku visada reikalingas prielinksnis. Taip pat šioje kalboje paprastai nebūna antrosios palatalizacijos: knjiga (knyga) – v knjigi (knygoje). O ukrainiečių kalboje: книжка – у книжці.
 Nuorodos
 Slavų kalbos
 Slovėnija


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' OFFICE OF\n THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\nSOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n NEW YORK STATE\n DISABILITY DETERMINATION PROGRAM\n INDIRECT COSTS\n\n May 2012 A-02-11-11135\n\n\n\n\nAUDIT REPORT\n\x0c Mission\nBy conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations and investigations,\nwe inspire public confidence in the integrity and security of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs and\noperations and protect them against fraud, waste and abuse. We provide timely,\nuseful and reliable information and advice to Administration officials, Congress\nand the public.\n\n Authority\nThe Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units,\ncalled the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled\nout in the Act, is to:\n\n \xef\x82\xa6 Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and\n investigations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and\n operations.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed\n legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of\n problems in agency programs and operations.\n\n To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:\n\n \xef\x82\xa6 Independence to determine what reviews to perform.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Access to all information necessary for the reviews.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.\n\n Vision\nWe strive for continual improvement in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs, operations and\nmanagement by proactively seeking new ways to prevent and deter fraud, waste\nand abuse. We commit to integrity and excellence by supporting an environment\nthat provides a valuable public service while encouraging employee development\nand retention and fostering diversity and innovation.\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\nMEMORANDUM\n\nDate: May 21, 2012 Refer To:\n\nTo: Beatrice M. Disman\n Regional Commissioner\n New York\n\nFrom: Inspector General\n\nSubject: New York State Disability Determination Program Indirect Costs (A-02-11-11135)\n\n\n OBJECTIVE\n Our objective was to determine whether indirect costs claimed by the New York State\n Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY)\n 2008 and 2009 were allowable and properly allocated.\n\n BACKGROUND\n The Disability Insurance (DI) program 1 provides benefits to wage earners and their\n families in the event the wage earner becomes disabled. The Supplemental Security\n Income (SSI) program 2 provides payments to financially needy individuals who are\n aged, blind, or disabled.\n\n Under the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) DI and SSI programs, disability\n determination services (DDS) in each State make disability determinations in\n accordance with Federal regulations. 3 Each DDS is responsible for determining\n claimants\xe2\x80\x99 disabilities and ensuring adequate evidence is available to support its\n determinations. In New York State, the Disability Determination Division (DDD)\n oversees four DDS processing centers.\n\n\n 1\n The DI program was established in 1954 under Title II of the Social Security Act. See Social Security\n Amendments of 1954, Pub.L. No. 83-761, Title I, \xc2\xa7 106, 68 Stat. 1052, 1079 (1954), codified at Social\n Security Act, \xc2\xa7 220 et seq., 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 420 et seq.\n 2\n In 1972, Congress enacted the SSI program under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. See Social\n Security Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-603, Title III, \xc2\xa7 301. 86 Stat. 1329, 1465 (1972), codified at\n Social Security Act \xc2\xa7 1601 et seq., 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 1381 et seq.\n 3\n Social Security Act \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 221 and 1614, 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 421 and 1382c; see also 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1601 et\n seq. and 416.1001 et seq.\n\x0cPage 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\nSSA reimburses DDSs for 100 percent of allowable expenditures up to their approved\nfunding authorization. At the end of each quarter of the fiscal year, each DDS submits a\nState Agency Report of Obligations for SSA Disability Programs (Form SSA-4513) to\naccount for program disbursements and unliquidated obligations.\n\nOTDA is DDD\xe2\x80\x99s parent agency. OTDA comprises program and support components.\nThe program components administer specific programs, such as the DDD. The support\ncomponents provide administrative services that support the program components,\nsuch as accounting, budgeting, and personnel. The costs of the support components\nare allocated to the indirect costs of the program components they support.\n\nOTDA\xe2\x80\x99s cost allocation plans (CAP) provide the allocation methodology for the\ndistribution of support components\xe2\x80\x99 costs to the program components. The Department\nof Health and Human Services (HHS), Division of Cost Allocation (DCA), is the\ncognizant Federal agency that reviews and approves OTDA\xe2\x80\x99s CAPs.\n\nNew York State\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) prepares quarterly\nCentral Office Cost Allocation Claims (COCAC). The COCAC costs are claimed on a\ncash basis of accounting, which means costs are recorded as they are paid. The\nCOCAC\xe2\x80\x99s report for the DDD shows quarterly direct costs as well as indirect costs\nallocated to the DDD from Mainframe Operations, Open Systems Operations,\nAdministrative Support Overhead, Program Support Overhead, and the DDD Support\nComponent.\n\nDDD claimed $16.9 million in FFY 2008 and $16.7 in FFY 2009 in indirect costs.\nIndirect costs are the total of three items:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 COCAC \xe2\x80\x93 total of four quarterly COCACs,\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Lump Sum Payments paid to DDD employees and related fringe benefit costs, and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Human Services Enterprise Network claims (HSEN).\n\nThe amounts of indirect costs attributable to the total COCAC amount, lump-sum\npayments, related fringe costs, and HSEN are shown on the State of the Federal\nBudget (SFB) form. Appendix C summarizes the amount of indirect costs OTDA\nclaimed for each category on the SFB for each FFY. The SFB report supports the DDD\nclaims on Form SSA-4513.\n\nWe reviewed each category of indirect costs New York State claimed. Specifically, we\nreviewed payroll records and a sample of 140 expenditures, totaling over $55 million,\nfrom the COCAC not related to personnel expenses to determine whether they were\nallowable and properly allocated. We reviewed the cost allocation basis and\nmethodology established in the CAPs for OTDA programs and support components to\ndetermine whether the allocation basis had a rational correlation to the amount of\nbenefit each program component received. We also determined whether costs were\nallocated in the method described in the CAPs. Additional details of our scope and\nmethodology are in Appendix B.\n\x0cPage 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\nRESULTS OF REVIEW\nSome expenditures claimed as indirect costs were unallowable, improperly allocated, or\ninaccurate. OTDA claimed $101,070 in unallowable, improperly allocated, or inaccurate\nindirect costs in FFY 2008 and $100,321 in FFY 2009, for a total of $201,391. These\ncosts included expenditures allocated to the incorrect support component, unallowable\ncharges for depreciable assets, duplicate charges for lump-sum payments and related\nfringe-benefit costs, and salary and related fringe-benefit costs for a non-DDD employee\nthat were charged to the DDD.\n\nOTDA was unable to provide adequate evidence to support $43,269 of indirect costs\nallocated in FFY 2008 and $37,946 allocated in FFY 2009. Without adequate evidence,\nwe were unable to determine whether the indirect costs were allowable, properly\nallocated, or accurate.\n\n Table 1: Unallowable, Not Properly Allocated, Inaccurate, and\n Unsupported Indirect Costs\n FFY 2008 FFY 2009\n Unallowable, Unallowable,\n Improperly Improperly\n Allocated, or Allocated, or\n Inaccurate Unsupported Inaccurate Unsupported\n Indirect Costs\n Costs Costs Costs Costs\nCOCAC Expenditures $56,176 $32,011 $64,507 $37,946\nLump-sum Payments\nand Fringe Benefits of\n $32,316 $0 $23,854 $0\nDDD Support\nEmployees\nNon-DDD Employee\n $12,578 $0 $11,960 $0\n(12 payroll periods)\nHSEN $0 $11,258 $0 $0\nTotal $101,070 $43,269 $100,321 $37,946\n\nThe DDD Support Component provides administrative support services to the DDD but\ndoes not provide direct program assistance with disability reviews. Although expenses\nfor this component are considered an indirect cost to the DDD, 100 percent of the\ncomponent\xe2\x80\x99s costs are allocated to DDD.\n\nWe determined that OTDA did not have written procedures explaining the steps it took\nto calculate the indirect costs submitted to SSA to operate the DDD. As such, we asked\nOTDA staff to describe the methods it used. OTDA reported to us, in part, that it\nclaimed indirect costs on a funding year basis for expenditures incurred for the DDD\nSupport Component, which it stated SSA required that it do. This meant the OTDA\nshould have claimed indirect costs in the FFY in which they were obligated. While\n\x0cPage 4 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\nOTDA attempted to calculate costs on a funding-year basis, we determined it claimed\ncosts on a cash basis, which meant it claimed costs in the FFY they were paid,\nregardless of when they were obligated.\n\nEXPENDITURES IN THE COCAC\n\nNew York State\xe2\x80\x99s COCAC records all direct and indirect costs incurred by the OTDA\nand its different divisions. COCAC records costs on a cash basis of accounting, which\nmeans that it records costs as they are paid. COCAC\xe2\x80\x99s report for the DDD shows\nquarterly direct costs, as well as indirect costs allocated to the DDD from support\ncomponents, including Mainframe Operations, Open Systems Operations,\nAdministrative Support Overhead, Program Support Overhead, and the DDD Support\nComponent.\n\nWe reviewed a sample of COCAC costs that were included in the total indirect costs\nclaimed by OTDA to determine whether the costs were allowable and allocable to the\nDDD. We also reviewed the supporting vouchers of the COCAC\xe2\x80\x99s costs to determine\nwhether the costs charged were accurate and supported. We found that some of the\ncosts charged to DDD were unallowable, improperly allocated, inaccurate, or\nunsupported. Please see Table 2.\n\n Table 2: Unallowable, Improperly Allocated, Inaccurate, and Unsupported COCAC\n Expenditures\n FFY 2008 FFY 2009\n Unallowable, Unallowable,\nCOCAC Expenditures Improperly Improperly\n Unsupported Unsupported\n Allocated, or Allocated, or\n Costs Costs\n Inaccurate Inaccurate\n Costs Costs\nNon-personnel Services $14,926 $20,166 $62,918 $37,946\nDepreciation $41,250 $0 $1,589 $0\nTraining $0 $11,845 $0 $0\nTotal $56,176 $32,011 $64,507 $37,946\n\nNon-personnel Service Costs\n\nNon-personnel Service (NPS) costs include moving, supplies, materials, telephone\ncharges, and other costs that are not personnel costs. The COCAC captures NPS\nexpenditures incurred by OTDA components, and allocates a percentage to the DDD.\n\nWe reviewed 140 NPS costs and found that 97 (69 percent) were allowable and\n28 (20 percent) were unallowable, improperly allocated, or inaccurate. We were unable\nto determine whether the remaining 15 (11 percent) NPS costs were allowable because\nthere was not enough documentation to support them. Examples of the unallowable,\nimproperly allocated, inaccurate, and unsupported costs follow. See Appendix D for a\ncomplete list of these costs.\n\x0cPage 5 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\nUnallowable, Improperly Allocated, or Inaccurate NPS Costs\n\nOTDA charged the DDD $14,926 in unallowable, improperly allocated, or inaccurate\nNPS costs in FFY 2008 and $62,918 in FFY 2009. For these costs, OTDA billed the\nwrong amount, did not divide costs among its components correctly, or allocated\nexpenses to the wrong component.\n\nExamples of incorrect billing for expenses include the following.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Invoices from the State of New York, Office for Technology (OFT), which bills OTDA\n for information technology services including mainframe, server, back-up, and\n electronic mail services, contained incorrect calculations. The stated rate multiplied\n by the number of units did not equal the total amount on the invoice.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 OTDA paid a consultant for the incorrect amount of hours, resulting in an\n overpayment.\n\nExamples of OTDA dividing costs incorrectly among its components include the\nfollowing.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 OTDA incorrectly divided server usage costs among its components. Worksheets\n provided by OTDA to support the division of server usage costs among OTDA\n components displayed a different number of total server units and rate per unit than\n was shown on the invoice. As a result, OTDA allocated DDD more in indirect costs\n than it should have. OTDA staff stated the incorrect and inconsistent charges were\n the result of an error in the spreadsheet formula used to calculate costs for the\n voucher.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Itemized charges on an OFT invoice for electronic mail usage did not match the\n costs on the OTDA voucher. Electronic mail service costs are allocated between\n Administrative Support Overhead and another non-Federal OTDA support area.\n OTDA overcharged Administrative Support Overhead for electronic mail services,\n and as a result, over-allocated OFT\xe2\x80\x99s charges for electronic mail services to DDD.\n\nExamples of OTDA\xe2\x80\x99s allocating costs to the wrong component include the following.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 OFT charged some costs to Open Systems Operations when it should have charged\n them to Mainframe Operations. Based on the approved CAPs, Mainframe\n Operations allocated a lower percentage of its cost to the DDD than Open Systems\n Operations.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 An expenditure for brochures, posters, booklets, and other materials publicizing\n OTDA programs was allocated to Administrative Support Overhead. 4 In general,\n costs charged to Administrative Support Overhead support the administrative and\n personnel costs in the operation of OTDA programs. It would have been more\n\n4\n OTDA, Administrative Support Overhead, engages in activities that support the staff and administrative\noperations of all areas of OTDA. Such activities include accounting, payroll, and personnel services.\n\x0cPage 6 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\n appropriate to charge the cost to Program Support Overhead 5 since the promotional\n materials disseminated information about the assistance programs OTDA\n administers. In general, Program Support Overhead costs are program costs that\n support the mission and goals of the public services OTDA administers.\n\nUnsupported NPS Expenditures\n\nWe were unable to determine whether $20,166 of NPS costs in FFY 2008 and\n$37,946 in FFY 2009 were allowable and properly allocated because we did not receive\nany documentation, or received insufficient documentation, from OTDA to support them.\n\nExamples of insufficient documentation include the following.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 One cost for maintenance was allocated to more than one OTDA component, but\n documentation provided by OTDA did not explain why each component was\n allocated the percentage it was.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 We did not receive timesheets to support an invoice for consultant work we selected\n for our review. OTDA supported other expenditures for consultant work with\n timesheets.\n\nDEPRECIATION\n\nWe reviewed a list of nine assets OTDA acquired in FFYs 2008 and 2009, which\nincluded a photocopier and information and technology equipment, to determine\nwhether they were depreciated correctly. Per the Federal Financial Accounting\nStandard No. 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, 6 agencies must\nrecognize the cost of assets through depreciation. OTDA claimed both the original\npurchase price and the depreciation expense for four of the assets. Accordingly, SSA\nwas charged twice for the cost of these assets.\n\nOCFS reported to us that it planned to take corrective action and return $41,250 for\nFFY 2008 and $1,589 for FFY 2009 that was initially claimed as the purchase prices of\nthe assets. The cost of these assets will depreciate over a 5-year period from the date\nof acquisition.\n\nTRAINING\n\nDDD was allocated $11,845 for FFY 2008 training costs from Administrative Support\nOverhead. The documentation and explanations provided by State staff did not provide\n\n5\n OTDA, Program Support Overhead, engages in activities that support other OTDA organizations\nresponsible for the goals and direction of the assistance programs that OTDA administer.\n6\n Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, General\nProperty, Plant, and Equipment, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 6, Chapter 2:\nProperty, Plant, And Equipment, Expense Recognition, pages 16-17, Paragraphs 35 and 36. (Issued\nNovember 30, 1995, effective for periods beginning after September 30, 1997).\n\x0cPage 7 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\nsufficient evidence to ensure that OTDA staff received training equal to the amount\nallocated to OTDA\xe2\x80\x99s Administrative Support Overhead component. For example, the\nvouchers provided did not identify the specific training classes offered or the staff or unit\nthat benefitted from the training. Without this support, we could not verify that the\ntraining costs should be charged to Administrative Support Overhead.\n\nUNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS\n\nOTDA recorded $4.4 million on the FFY 2008 SSA-4513 as an unliquidated obligation.\nSimilarly, OTDA recorded $5.8 million on the FFY 2009 SSA-4513 as an unliquidated\nobligation. State agencies should provide documentation on the status of unliquidated\nobligations with the quarterly Form SSA-4513. 7 Documentation to support the\nunliquidated obligations was not attached to the Forms SSA-4513, and OTDA did not\nseparately provide SSA with documentation to support the amount of unliquidated\nobligations. In response, OTDA stated it will provide SSA support for unliquidated\nobligations on the SSA-4513.\n\nLUMP-SUM PAYMENTS AND FRINGE BENEFITS OF DDD SUPPORT COMPONENT\nEMPLOYEES\n\nLump-sum payments for accrued leave were paid to individuals who had separated\nfrom the DDD or DDD Support Component. These payments were 100-percent\nallocable to the DDD as an indirect cost. Fringe-benefit payments are computed as a\npercentage of the lump-sum payments.\n\nOTDA claimed the same lump-sum payments for the DDD Support Component on the\nSSA-4513 twice. OTDA claimed lump-sum payments for the DDD Support Component\nthrough the COCAC line of the SFB totaling $22,469 for FFY 2008 and $16,750 for\nFFY 2009. It also claimed these same amounts in the lump-sum payment line of the\nSFB. OTDA uses the SFB to support the SSA-4513, so any duplicate charges recorded\nin the SFB are included on the SSA-4513. OTDA also claimed the same fringe-benefit\ncosts of the lump-sum payments, totaling $16,951, twice.\n\nOTDA indicated that it planned to correct its method of claiming lump-sum payments\npaid to the DDD Support Component and adjust the SSA-4513s for FFY 2008 and\nFFY 2009 accordingly.\n\nPERSONNEL SERVICES AND FRINGE BENEFITS OF DDD SUPPORT\nEMPLOYEES\n\nDDD support staff provides the DDD administrative support services. For example, the\nDDD had approximately 900 employees, which requires a dedicated human resource\nand personnel department to support its administrative needs. The DDD support staffs\xe2\x80\x99\n\n\n7\n SSA, POMS, DI 39506.203, Updating and Reconciling Unliquidated Obligations. (Effective\nMarch 12, 2002)\n\x0cPage 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\nsalaries and fringe benefits are considered an indirect cost, which SSA reimburses\n100 percent. DDD support staff has a unique charge code to distinguish it from other\nState employees.\n\nWe reviewed payroll data for the six payroll periods with the highest dollar amount in\neach FFYs 2008 and 2009, for a total of 12 payroll periods. We found the salary of one\nemployee should not have been claimed as a DDD-related cost. The employee\xe2\x80\x99s\ncharge code was incorrectly annotated as the DDD Support Component charge code.\nBecause of this error, the DDD claimed $8,747 in FFY 2008 and $8,441 in FFY 2009,\ntotaling $17,188, in unallowable personnel services costs for the 12 payroll periods we\nreviewed. The employee\xe2\x80\x99s fringe-benefit costs of $7,350 for the 12 payroll periods we\nreviewed were also inappropriately charged to the DDD.\n\nOTDA indicated that it planned to correct the charge code of the employee and adjust\npersonnel costs accordingly.\n\nCLAIMING DDD SUPPORT COMPONENT COSTS\n\nOTDA relies on COCAC as the source of indirect costs incurred by the DDD. COCAC\naccounts for almost 98 percent of indirect costs claimed, with lump-sum payments and\nfringe benefits on those payments, and HSEN accounting for the remaining indirect\ncosts. Expenditures from support components are recorded on a cash basis in the\nCOCAC. OTDA used COCAC information to calculate the cash-based costs for the\nDDD on the SFB.\n\nCOCAC includes the DDD Support Component\xe2\x80\x99s allocated costs to the DDD. The DDD\nSupport Component provides administrative support services to the DDD and does not\nprovide direct program assistance with disability reviews. Although expenses for this\ncomponent are considered an indirect cost to the DDD, 100 percent of the component\xe2\x80\x99s\ncosts is allocated to DDD. OTDA reported SSA requires that it draw reimbursement for\nexpenditures incurred by the DDD Support Component on a funding year basis.\n\nOTDA was unable to provide a written description of the methods it used to calculate\ntotal indirect costs. As OTDA described the process to us, it computes all FFY costs\nobligated by the DDD Support Component in a funding year and reports these\nseparately on the SFB. OTDA did not use COCAC, or the accounting records used to\ncreate the COCAC, to compute the total funding year expenditures for the DDD Support\nComponent. Instead, OTDA used other accounting records to compute the funding\nyear costs for the DDD Support Component. OTDA then subtracted the DDD Support\nComponent\xe2\x80\x99s total funding year expenditures from the total cash-based costs of the four\nquarterly COCAC reports. OTDA records the remaining indirect cost amount as a\nseparate line item on the SFB. Since OTDA includes both the funding year costs it\nsubtracted from the COCAC and the remaining cash-based costs in the COCAC on the\nSFB, it is in effect including all cash-based costs. Since the SFB is used to support the\nindirect costs claimed on the SSA-4513, OTDA claims the costs incurred by the DDD\nSupport Component on a cash basis.\n\x0cPage 9 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\nTo accurately claim costs for the DDD Support Component on a funding-year basis on\nthe SFB, OTDA would need to subtract all the cash-based costs incurred by the DDD\nSupport Component from the COCAC costs before they are recorded on the SFB, and\nthen include the component\xe2\x80\x99s funding year based costs on the SFB. Because costs\nwere claimed on a cash basis, the indirect costs reported on the SSA-4513 did not\naccurately reflect the relationship of the costs obligated to support the DDD\xe2\x80\x99s operations\nand the funds appropriated to fund the DDD in a given FFY. Additionally, we reviewed\nthe DDD Support Component\xe2\x80\x99s funding year expenditures for NPS for FFYs 2008 and\n2009. We found that OTDA did not always record obligations in the appropriate fiscal\nyear when recording funding year costs. OTDA acknowledged these errors and will\ntake actions to correct its records.\n\nHSEN\n\nThe HSEN project\xe2\x80\x99s objective was to modernize technologies and telecommunications\nthat provided New York\xe2\x80\x99s service agencies better access to State-wide information. The\nproject began in 2003 and was completed in 2008. According to the CAP, costs should\nbe allocated to OTDA based on the proportional relationship between the number of\nidentified HSEN users in each New York State benefiting service agency. HSEN costs\nshould further be allocated to program components within OTDA based on an\nestablished allocation basis.\n\nOn the March 31, 2011 SFB, the DDD claimed $11,258 in unliquidated obligations for\nHSEN charges in FFY 2008. OTDA did not provide us sufficient documentation to\nsupport the allocation basis used to allocate the HSEN costs to DDD. As such, the\nHSEN costs allocated to the DDD were unsupported.\n\nCONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nOTDA claimed $201,391 in unallowable, improperly allocated, or inaccurate costs in\nFFYs 2008 and 2009. OTDA may have claimed additional unallowable costs. We\nfound that OTDA claimed the salary of a non-DDD employee as part of the costs\nclaimed for the DDD Support Component in the 12 pay periods we reviewed. OTDA\nmay have also claimed this employee\xe2\x80\x99s salary in other pay periods in FFYs 2008 and\n2009. Additionally, OTDA was unable to provide adequate evidence to support\n$81,215 in indirect costs in FFYs 2008 and 2009. Without adequate evidence, we were\nunable to determine whether the indirect costs were allowable or properly allocated.\nWe also found that OTDA did not accurately calculate the funding year costs of the\nDDD Support Component.\n\nAdditionally, we were unsure why the Component\xe2\x80\x99s personnel and related costs were\nclaimed as an indirect cost since they only provided administrative services to the DDD\nand 100 percent of their salaries were claimed and reimbursed by SSA. All other DDD\nemployee salaries were claimed as direct costs.\n\x0cPage 10 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\nLastly, we did not always receive clear and consistent descriptions from OTDA staff on\nthe methods used to claim indirect costs. While the staff assisted us throughout our\naudit, staff sometimes had different understandings of how costs were calculated. The\nlack of written procedures added to the difficulty of gaining a clear understanding of the\nState\xe2\x80\x99s processes.\n\nWe recommend that SSA:\n\n1. Instruct OTDA to refund the $201,391 in unallowable, improperly allocated, or\n inaccurate costs we identified.\n\n2. Work with OTDA to determine whether it claimed additional unallowable costs\n related to the non-DDD employee salary included as part of the DDD Support\n Component\xe2\x80\x99s claimed costs.\n\n3. Instruct OTDA to refund the $81,215 in unsupported costs if it cannot provide\n evidence to support them.\n\n4. Determine whether the salaries of the DDD Support Component employees should\n be claimed as a direct cost and instruct OTDA accordingly.\n\n5. Work with OTDA to establish a written set of mutually agreed upon procedures for\n the accounting, reporting, and drawing down of attributable funds claimed on the\n SSA-4513s.\n\nAGENCY AND OTDA COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE\nSSA agreed with the recommendations. See Appendix E for the full text of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\ncomments to our report.\n\nOTDA agreed to make the appropriate adjustments to the funds it claimed in response\nto our first three recommendations. OTDA qualified its response to Recommendation 3\nby stating that it believed it provided supporting documentation, and where it agrees it\ndid not, it would make claiming adjustments. We found that the documentation provided\nto us did not sufficiently support the costs allocated to the DDD.\n\nIn response to Recommendation 4, OTDA commented that reporting the DDD Support\nComponent as an indirect cost dated back many years. Since DDD Support\nComponent staff work within the DDD and only support DDD employees, we concluded\nthat it would be appropriate to charge their costs as a direct cost.\n\nIn response to Recommendation 5, the State responded, in part, that OTDA has written\nprocedures for the accounting, reporting, and drawing down of funds claimed that are\navailable to SSA for review. We requested written documentation of OTDA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprocedures at the beginning of the audit engagement which OTDA did not provide.\nAbsent documentation, we had numerous discussions with OTDA staff about its\n\x0cPage 11 \xe2\x80\x93 Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\nprocedures. Throughout the discussions, OTDA staff did not indicate documentation\nexisted or offer to provide documentation on its procedures. To date, OTDA has not\nprovided documentation on its procedures. Accordingly, we continue to conclude that\nOTDA does not have documentation on the accounting, reporting, and drawing down of\nattributable funds claimed on the SSA-4513s.\n\nSee Appendix F for the full text of OTDA\xe2\x80\x99s comments to our report.\n\n\n\n\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n\x0c Appendices\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 State of the Federal Budget - Indirect Cost Sub-categories\nAPPENDIX D \xe2\x80\x93 Central Office Cost Allocation Claim: Non-personnel Services\n Expenditures\nAPPENDIX E \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Comments\nAPPENDIX F \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Comments\nAPPENDIX G \xe2\x80\x93 OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nAcronyms\nCAP Cost Allocation Plan\nC.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations\nCOCAC Central Office Cost Allocation Claim\nDCA Division of Cost Allocation\nDDD Division of Disability Determinations\nDDS Disability Determination Services\nDI Disability Insurance\nFFY Federal Fiscal Year\nHHS Department of Health and Human Services\nHSEN Human Service Enterprise Network\nNPS Non-Personnel Service\nOCFS Office of Children and Family Services\nOFT Office for Technology\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nOMB Office of Management and Budget\nOTDA Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance\nPOMS Program Operations Manual System\nPub. L. No. Public Law Number\nSFB State of the Federal Budget\nSSA Social Security Administration\nSSI Supplemental Security Income\nU.S.C. United States Code\n\x0c Appendix B\n\nScope and Methodology\nTo meet our objective, we:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the indirect costs claimed by Office of Temporary and Disability\n Assistance (OTDA) on its Form SSA-4513 and State of the Federal Budget (SFB) for\n Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2008 and 2009 as of March 31, 2011.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles\n for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments; the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s\n (SSA) Program Operations Manual System; and the Department of Health and\n Human Services\xe2\x80\x99 (HHS) approved Cost Allocation Plan (CAP).\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the CAPs for each support component that allocated costs to the\n New York Division of Disability Determinations (DDD) and determined whether the\n methodology was appropriate. If that support component had indirect costs from\n another support component, we reviewed the CAP for that area as well.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the New York State Single Audit Reports for the period April 1, 2008\n through March 1, 2010. 1\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Met with personnel at the New York State OTDA, the New York State Office of\n Children and Family Services (OCFS), SSA\xe2\x80\x99s New York Regional Office, and HHS\xe2\x80\x99\n Division of Cost Allocation.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Obtained an understanding of the accounting data and procedures used to prepare\n the quarterly Central Office Cost Allocation Claims (COCAC) and SFB. This\n involved an understanding of when revenues, expenditures, transfers, and the\n related assets and liabilities were recognized in the accounts and reported in the\n accounting documents.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Determined the amount of fringe benefits on personnel costs. Fringe benefits were\n 45.53 percent of personnel costs that were paid for April 1, 2007 through\n March 31, 2008, 42.67 percent of personnel costs for April 1, 2008 through\n March 31, 2009, and 41.49 percent for April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the Statewide Cost Allocation Plan to ensure amounts charged to OTDA\n for New York State-wide indirect costs were correct.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Selected two training projects from OCFS and OTDA to determine whether costs\n claimed in a selected quarter were accurate, allowable, and allocable.\n\n\n1\n SSA OIG, Management Advisory Report: Single Audit of the State of New York for the Fiscal Year\nEnded March 31, 2009 (A-77-11-00011), May 10, 2011 reported indirect costs were charged to various\nFederal agencies, including SSA, based on CAP methodologies that were pending approval by HHS\xe2\x80\x99\nDCA. HHS issued an OIG Clearance Document in May 2011 in response to the finding in the New York\nState Singe Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2009.\n\n\n B-1\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 Selected four support components that charged indirect expenses to the DDD. We\n added salaries for individuals for three quarters in FFYs 2008 and 2009 to ensure\n the total salaries equaled COCACs salaries.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reconciled the accounting records to the Non-Personnel Services costs claimed by\n OTDA on its SFB for FFYs 2008 and 2009.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reconciled lump-sum payment amounts for the DDD indirect and direct personnel.\n Selected a sample of 12 lump-sum payments and ensured they were calculated\n correctly.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed timesheets for a sample of 13 personnel for 2 pay periods to ensure their\n salaries were computed correctly.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed a sample of 140 expenditures for FFYs 2008 and 2009 ranging from\n ($84,240) to $4,750,000, totaling over $55 million. We selected expenditures from a\n population cost of $97.1 million. We reviewed\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 60 expenditures for the DDD Support unit,\n \xef\x82\xa7 40 expenditures for the Administrative Support unit,\n \xef\x82\xa7 12 expenditures for the Mainframe Operations unit,\n \xef\x82\xa7 12 expenditures for the Open Systems Operations unit, and\n \xef\x82\xa7 16 expenditures for the Program Support unit.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed nine assets, totaling $3,450,238 that OTDA acquired during FFYs 2008\n and 2009 to determine whether proper accounting procedures were followed in\n recording depreciation.\n\nThe COCAC system operates through a step-down allocation process, which resulted in\nreallocation of costs to other support areas and finally to the DDD program account.\nOur determinations of questioned costs represented the final allocation to the DDD.\n\nWe performed our audit work at the OTDA and at DDD in Albany, New York, and the\nNew York Regional Office between January and November 2011. We determined the\ndata used in this report were sufficiently reliable given the review objective and intended\nuse. The entities audited were the OTDA and the DDD in the Office of the Deputy\nCommissioner for Center for Specialized Services. We conducted our audit in\naccordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards\nrequire that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to\nprovide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our\nfindings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\n B-2\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nState of the Federal Budget \xe2\x80\x93 Indirect Costs\nSub-categories\n\n Indirect Costs Claimed by\n New York State Office of Temporary Disability\n and Disability Assistance\n Federal Fiscal Year 2008\n $16,547,025\n Lump Sum Payments\n & Related Fringe\n Benefit Costs\n $399,776 (2.4%) Human Service\n Enterprise Network\n $11,258 (0.1%)\n\n\n\n\n Central Office Cost\n Allocation Claim\n $16,135,991 (97.5%)\n\n\n\n\nThe total indirect cost on the State of the Federal Budget (SFB) is $16,879,341. The\nCentral Office Cost Allocation Claim\xe2\x80\x99s (COCAC) amount shown in this pie graph\nmatches the claims from the four quarterly COCACs reports. The indirect cost of\n$16,547,025 shown on this pie graph does not include $300,000 of potential expenses\nthat Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) has yet to deobligate, and\n$32,316 of unallowable lump-sum payments and related fringe-benefit costs.\n\n C-1\n\x0c Indirect Costs Claimed by\n New York State Office of\n Temporary Disability and Assistance\n Federal Fiscal Year 2009\n $16,671,011\n\n\n Lump Sum Payments\n & Related Fringe\n Benefit Costs\n $365,649 (2.2%)\n\n\n\n\n Central Office Cost\n Allocation Claim\n $16,305,362 (97.8%)\n\n\n\n\n No Human Service Enterprise Network Costs in FFY 2009\n\n\n\nThe total indirect cost on the SFB is $16,693,922. The indirect cost of\n$16,671,011 shown on this pie graph does not include $22,906 of unallowable lump-\nsum payments and related fringe-benefit costs. The difference of additional $5 is due to\nrounding of individual line items on the SFB.\n\n\n\n\n C-2\n\x0c Appendix D\n\nCentral Office Cost Allocation Claim: Non-\npersonnel Services Expenditures\nNon-personnel Service (NPS) costs include moving costs, supplies, materials,\ntelephone charges, and other costs that were not personnel costs. We reviewed\n140 expenditure items that were recorded on 128 unique vouchers. 1 The tables below\nare the vouchers with examples of the unallowable, improperly allocated, inaccurate,\nand unsupported costs for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2008 and 2009.\n\n FFY 2008 NPS Expenditure Items Reviewed for\n Unallowable, Improperly Allocated, Inaccurate, or Unsupported Costs\n NPS Reason NPS Cost was Unallowable Cost, Unsupported\n Voucher Unallowable, Improperly Improperly Cost\n Allocated, Inaccurate or Allocated or\n Unsupported Inaccurate Cost\n 1 Did not receive support ($121.80)\n documentation\n 2 Did not receive support ($44.69)\n documentation\n 3 Did not receive support $6.35\n documentation\n 4 Did not receive support $984.87\n documentation\n 5 Did not receive support $6.06\n documentation\n 6 Did not receive support $110.37\n documentation\n 7 Allocated costs to an incorrect $11,707.80\n support component\n 8 Transfer of funds did not match $26.74\n itemized costs\n 9 Transfer of funds did not match $589.12\n itemized costs\n\n\n\n\n1\n We selected 140 NPS cost items and reviewed each one as a separate item. We reported percentages\nbased on 140 NPS costs reviewed. We reviewed 12 vouchers for which we selected multiple cost\nitems each as part of our sample. There were 128 unique vouchers. We found 35 of the 128 vouchers\nhad unallowable, inaccurate, and unsupported costs.\n\n D-1\n\x0c FFY 2008 NPS Expenditure Items Reviewed for\n Unallowable, Improperly Allocated, Inaccurate, or Unsupported Costs\n NPS Reason NPS Cost was Unallowable Cost, Unsupported\n Voucher Unallowable, Improperly Improperly Cost\n Allocated, Inaccurate or Allocated or\n Unsupported Inaccurate Cost\n 10 Insufficient documentation to $13,104.58\n support Office for Technology\n (OFT) Data Center charges\n 11 Insufficient documentation to $5,504.75\n support moving cost\n 12 OFT Data Center Billing \xe2\x80\x93 ($923.39)\n Incorrect division of information\n technology (IT) costs and\n incorrect email charges\n 13 OFT Data Center Billing \xe2\x80\x93 ($886.41)\n Incorrect rate used for billing and\n incorrect email charges\n 14 OFT Data Center Billing - ($1,047.57)\n Incorrect division of IT costs and\n incorrect email charges\n 15 OFT Data Center Billing - ($1,034.32)\n Incorrect division of IT costs and\n incorrect email charges\n 16 OFT Data Center Billing - ($1,010.80)\n Incorrect division of IT costs and\n incorrect email charges\n 17 OFT Data Center Billing - $16,636.55\n Incorrect rate used for billing and\n incorrect email charges\n 18 OFT Data Center Billing \xe2\x80\x93 ($8,515.96)\n Incorrect division of IT costs and\n incorrect email charges\n Total $14,925.90 $20,166.35\nNote: All dollar amounts shown is the allocated cost to the DDD. Amounts stated in the COCAC NPS\n Costs section of the report maybe $1 more or less because of rounding.\n\n FFY 2009 NPS Expenditure Items Reviewed for\n Unallowable, Improperly Allocated, Inaccurate, or Unsupported Costs\n NPS Reason NPS Cost was Unallowable Unsupported\nVoucher Unallowable, Improperly Cost, Cost\n Allocated, Inaccurate or Improperly\n Unsupported Allocated or\n Inaccurate Cost\n 1 Did not receive support $1,005.10\n documentation\n\n\n D-2\n\x0c FFY 2009 NPS Expenditure Items Reviewed for\n Unallowable, Improperly Allocated, Inaccurate, or Unsupported Costs\n NPS Reason NPS Cost was Unallowable Unsupported\nVoucher Unallowable, Improperly Cost, Cost\n Allocated, Inaccurate or Improperly\n Unsupported Allocated or\n Inaccurate Cost\n 2 Did not receive support $24.96\n documentation\n 3 Missing timesheet to support $7,200\n consultant charges\n 4 Incorrect consultant time charges ($75)\n resulting in an underpayment\n 5 Incorrect consultant time charges $540\n resulting in an overpayment\n 6 Insufficient documentation to $29,716.39\n support maintenance cost\n 7 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect $13,887.23\n rate used for billing and incorrect\n email charges\n 8 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect ($42.92)\n division of IT costs and incorrect\n email charges\n 9 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect $1,069.75\n division of IT costs and incorrect\n email charges\n 10 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect $1,603.26\n division of IT costs and incorrect\n email charges\n 11 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect $1,128.64\n division of IT costs and incorrect\n email charges\n 12 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect $1,145.78\n rate used for billing and incorrect\n email charges\n 13 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect ($344.24)\n rate used for billing\n 14 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect $12,915.91\n rate used for billing and incorrect\n email charges\n 15 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect $13,838.11\n rate used for billing and incorrect\n email charges\n 16 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect $15,442.45\n rate used for billing and incorrect\n email charges\n\n\n D-3\n\x0c FFY 2009 NPS Expenditure Items Reviewed for\n Unallowable, Improperly Allocated, Inaccurate, or Unsupported Costs\n NPS Reason NPS Cost was Unallowable Unsupported\nVoucher Unallowable, Improperly Cost, Cost\n Allocated, Inaccurate or Improperly\n Unsupported Allocated or\n Inaccurate Cost\n 17 OFT Data Center Billing - Incorrect $1,809.21\n division of IT costs and incorrect\n email charges\n Total $62,918.18 $37,946.45\nNote: All dollar amounts shown is the allocated cost to the DDD. Amounts stated in the COCAC NPS\n Costs section of the report maybe $1 more or less because of rounding.\n\n\n\n\n D-4\n\x0c Appendix E\n\nAgency Comments\n\n\n\n\n E-1\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\nMEMORANDUM Refer To:\n\nDate: April 20, 2012\n\nTo: Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n Inspector General\n\nFrom: Regional Commissioner\n New York\n\nSubject: New York State Disability Determination Program Indirect Cost Review\n (A-02-11-11135) - (Your Memorandum Dated March 22, 2012)\n\n\nThe New York Region appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft report to determine\nwhether indirect costs claimed by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability\nAssistance for Federal Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 were allowable and properly allocated.\n\nThe five (5) recommendations for SSA included in your draft audit of this review are:\n\n 1. SSA should instruct the New York State (NYS) Office of Temporary and Disability\n Assistance (OTDA) to refund the $201,391 in unallowable, not properly allocated, or\n inaccurate costs we identified.\n\n 2. SSA should work with NYS OTDA to determine whether it claimed additional\n unallowable costs related to the non-DDD employee salary included as part of the DDD\n Support Component\xe2\x80\x99s claimed costs.\n 3. SSA should instruct NYS OTDA to refund the $81,215 in unsupported costs if it cannot\n provide evidence to support them.\n 4. SSA should determine whether the salaries of the DDD Support Component employees\n should be claimed as a direct cost and instruct NYS OTDA accordingly.\n 5. SSA should work with NYS OTDA to establish a written set of mutually agreed upon\n procedures for the accounting, reporting, and drawing down of attributable funds claimed\n on the SSA-4513s.\nThe recommendations cited appear to be reasonable and justifiable. They will assist us in further\nimproving the NYS OTDA adherence to SSA policies and regulations.\n\n\n E-2\n\x0cIf you have any questions, they may be directed to Joseph Cafaro, Director, at (212) 264-7250, or\nDinah Laurich, Disability Program Administrator in the Center for Disability Programs at\n212-264-7251.\n\n\n /s/\n Beatrice M. Disman\n\n\n\n\n E-3\n\x0c Appendix F\n\nOffice of Temporary and Disability Assistance\nComments\n\n\n\n\n F-1\n\x0c NEW YORK STATE\n OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE\n 40 NORTH PEARL STREET\n ALBANY, NEW YORK 12243-0001\n\n Andrew M. Cuomo\n Governor\n\n May 3, 2012\n\nMr. Timothy Nee\nDirector, New York Audit Division\nSocial Security Administration\nOffice of the Inspector General\n26 Federal Plaza, Room 3737\nNew York, NY 10278\n\nDear Mr. Nee:\n\nThe New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) has reviewed the\ndraft report, New York State Disability Determination Program Indirect Costs (A-02-11-11135),\nprepared by your office as a result of your review of indirect costs claimed during Federal Fiscal\nYears 2008 and 2009.\n\nEnclosed are our official comments on the findings, recommendations, and conclusion of the\ndraft report. OTDA follows stringent procedures for accounting, reporting and claiming indirect\ncosts. We do not fully agree with the $282,606 in unallowable and unsupported costs identified\nby this report. Having said that, we are pleased with the fact that the $282,606 amount\ncomprises less than one percent of the approximately $33.5 million in indirect costs claimed\nduring the period under review. We believe that is an indication of the strong internal controls\nwe have in place.\n\nIf you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me or Valerie Boyd at\n(518) 402-6855.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n Kevin Kehmna, Director\n Bureau of Audit and Quality Improvement\nAttachment\n\ncc: Elizabeth Berlin, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance\n Nancy Maney, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance\n Wilma Brown Phillips, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance\n Linda Glassman, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance\n Gloria Toal, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance\n Maria Vidal, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance\n Susan Costello, Office of Children and Family Services\n\n \'\'providing temporary assistance for permanent change"\n\n\n\n F-2\n\x0cResponse to SSA OIG Audit\n\nUnallowable, Not Properly Allocated or Inaccurate NPS Costs:\n\nSSA Result - OTDA charged the DDD $14,926 in unallowable, not properly allocated, or\ninaccurate NPS costs in FFY 2008 and $62,918 in FFY 2009. For these costs, OTDA billed the\nwrong amount, did not divide costs among its components correctly, or allocated expenses to\nthe wrong component.\n\nOTDA Response - OTDA agrees with this finding. We will work with the Office of Children and\nFamily Services (OCFS) to adjust Central Office Cost Allocation Claims for FFY 2008 and FFY\n2009, shifting these costs to the appropriate allocation methodology.\n\nUnsupported NPS Expenditures:\n\nSSA Result - We were unable to determine whether $20,166 of NPS costs in FFY 2008 and\n$37,946 in FFY 2009 were allowable and properly allocated because we did not receive any\ndocumentation, or received insufficient documentation, from OTDA to support them.\n\nOTDA Response - OTDA agrees with this finding. We will work with the Office of Children and\nFamily Services (OCFS) to adjust Central Office Cost Allocation Claims for FFY 2008 and FFY\n2009, shifting these costs to the appropriate allocation methodology.\n\nDepreciation:\n\nSSA Result - We reviewed a list of nine assets OTDA acquired in FFYs 2008 and 2009, which\nincluded a photocopier and information and technology equipment, to determine whether they\nwere depreciated correctly. Per the Federal Financial Accounting Standard No. 6, Accounting\nfor Property, Plant, and Equipment, agencies must recognize the cost of assets through\ndepreciation. OTDA claimed both the original purchase price and the depreciation expense for\nfour of the assets. Accordingly, SSA was charged twice for the cost of these assets. OCFS\nreported to us that it planned to take corrective action and return $41,250 for FFY 2008 and\n$1,589 for FFY 2009 that was initially claimed as the purchase prices of the assets. The cost of\nthese assets will depreciate over a 5-year period from the date of acquisition.\n\nOCFS Response - The adjustments requested by the SSA-OIG auditors were made in COCAC\nadjustments numbers 11 -T7 for the October-December 2008 period in the amount of $1,618\n(amount referenced by auditors of $1,589 requires clarification) related to the Disability\nDeterminations Program and 11-T6 for the October to December 2007 period in the amount of\n$41,792 (amount referenced by auditors of $41,250 requires clarification) related to the\nDisability Determinations program. These adjustments were given to SSA-OIG auditors at a\nmeeting we attended at OTDA on August 25, 2011.\n\nTraining:\n\nSSA Result - DDD was allocated $11,845 for FFY 2008 training costs from Administrative\nSupport Overhead. The documentation and explanations provided by State staff did not provide\nsufficient evidence to ensure that OTDA staff received training equal to the amount allocated to\nOTDA\'s Administrative Support Overhead component. For example, the vouchers provided did\nnot identify the specific training classes offered or the staff or unit that benefitted from the\n\n\n\n F-3\n\x0ctraining. Without this support, we could not verify that the training costs should be charged to\nAdministrative Support Overhead.\n\nOCFS Response - In our opinion, the documentation provided to the auditors does identify the\nspecific training classes offered and the staff or unit that benefitted from the training. In addition\nto the vouchers provided, OCFS also provided copies of the signed work-plan (shows the type\nof training/classes) and the training roster listing the trainees and their organization. Please\nnote that the vouchers OCFS receives relating to training contracts do not list the attendees\nand/or the specific training classes. That information is contained in the other documentation\nthat was previously provided.\n\nUnliquidated Obligations:\n\nSSA Result - OTDA recorded $44 million on the FFY 2008 SSA-4513 as an unliquidated\nobligation. Similarly, OTDA recorded $5.8 million on the FFY 2009 SSA-4513 as an\nunliquidated obligation. State agencies should provide documentation on the status of\nunliquidated obligations with the quarterly Form SSA-4513. Documentation to support the\nunliquidated obligations was not attached to the Forms SSA-4513, and OTDA did not separately\nprovide SSA with documentation to support the amount of unliquidated obligations. In\nresponse, OTDA stated it will provide SSA support for unliquidated obligations on the SSA-\n4513.\n\nOTDA Response - Unliquidated obligations are fully supported by the Central Office Cost\nAllocation Claim. We have previously never submitted the addendum to the SSA-4513 and to\ndate have not been notified by SSA that this was required. We are uncertain that the addendum\nis necessary. OTDA will submit the addendum in the future as requested by SSA.\n\nLump-Sum Payments and Fringe Benefits of DDD Support Component Employees:\n\nSSA Result - OTDA claimed the same lump-sum payments for the DDD Support Component on\nthe SSA-4513 twice. OTDA claimed lump-sum payments for the DDD Support Component\nthrough the COCAC line of the SFB totaling $22,469 for FFY 2008 and $16,750 for FFY 2009.\nIt also claimed these same amounts in the lump sum payment line of the SFB. OTDA uses the\nSFB to support the SSA-4513, so any duplicate charges recorded in the SFB are included on\nthe SSA-4513. OTDA also claimed the same fringe benefit costs of the lump-sum payments,\ntotaling $16,951, twice. OTDA indicated that it planned to correct its method of claiming lump-\nsum payments paid to the DDD Support Component and adjust the SSA-4513s for FFY 2008\nand FFY 2009 accordingly.\n\nOTDA Response - OTDA agrees with this finding. We will adjust the SSA-4513\'s for FFY 2008\nand FFY 2009, and subsequent years. OTDA will update our written procedures to ensure we\ndo not claim duplicate charges for the lump-sum payments and related fringe benefits.\n\nPersonnel Services and Fringe Benefits of DDD Support Employees:\n\nSSA Result - We reviewed payroll data for the six payroll periods with the highest dollar amount\nin each FFYs 2008 and 2009, for a total of 12 payroll periods. We found the salary of one\nemployee should not have been claimed as a DDD-related cost. The employee\'s charge code\nwas incorrectly annotated as the DDD Support Component charge code. Because of this error,\nthe DDD claimed $8,747 in FFY 2008 and $8,441 in FFY 2009, totaling $17,188, in unallowable\npersonnel services costs for the 12 payroll periods we reviewed. The employee\'s fringe-benefit\n\n\n F-4\n\x0ccosts of $7,350 for the 12 payroll periods we reviewed were also inappropriately charged to the\nDDD. OTDA indicated that it planned to correct the charge code of the employee and adjust\npersonnel costs accordingly.\n\nOTDA Response - OTDA agrees with this finding. The employee has been adjusted to the\ncorrect charge code and Central Office Cost Allocation Claims for FFY 2008 and FFY 2009 will\nbe adjusted so these charges will not be claimed as a DDD related cost.\n\nClaiming DDD Support Component Costs\n\nSSA Result - OTDA was unable to provide a written description of the methods it used to\ncalculate total indirect costs. As OTDA described the process to us, it computes all FFY costs\nobligated by the DDD Support Component in a funding year and reports these separately on the\nSFB. OTDA did not use COCAC, or the accounting records used to create the COCAC, to\ncompute the total funding year expenditures for the DDD Support Component. Instead, OTDA\nused other accounting records to compute the funding year costs for the DDD Support\nComponent. OTDA then subtracted the DDD Support Component\'s total funding year\nexpenditures from the total cash-based costs of the four quarterly COCAC reports. OTDA\nrecords the remaining indirect cost amount as a separate line item on the SFB. Since OTDA\nincludes both the funding year costs it subtracted from the COCAC and the remaining cash-\nbased costs in the COCAC on the SFB, it is in effect including all cash-based costs. Since the\nSFB is used to support the indirect costs claimed on the SSA-4513, OTDA claims the costs\nincurred by the DDD Support Component on a cash basis.\n\nTo accurately claim costs for the DDD Support Component on a funding-year basis on the SFB,\nOTDA would need to subtract all the cash-based costs incurred by the DDD Support\nComponent from the COCAC costs before they are recorded on the SFB, and then include the\ncomponent\'s funding year based costs on the SFB. Because costs were claimed on a cash\nbasis, the indirect costs reported on the SSA-4513 did not accurately reflect the relationship of\nthe costs obligated to support the DDD\'s operations and the funds appropriated to fund the DDD\nin a given FFY. Additionally, we reviewed the DDD Support Component\'s funding year\nexpenditures for NPS for FFYs 2008 and 2009. We found that OTDA did not always record\nobligations in the appropriate fiscal year when recording funding year costs. OTDA\nacknowledged these errors and will take actions to correct its records.\n\nOTDA Response - OTDA maintains process documentation as well as step-by-step written\ninstructions for reporting indirect costs which is available to SSA for review and validation; to our\nknowledge, OTDA provided all documentation requested in the course of the audit related to\nthis process. OTDA claims indirect costs through our Central Office Cost Allocation Claim\n(COCAC) which is on a cash basis. The cash basis COCAC is also used to claim indirect costs\nfor several other programs. To claim DDD indirect costs using a different accounting basis\nwould be inconsistent with the treatment for other Federal awards and would not be in\naccordance with OBM Circular A-87.\n\nWe agree that there were isolated incidents where obligations were not recorded in the correct\nfunding year. The expenditures for these obligations will be transferred to the correct funding\nyears.\n\n\n\n\n F-5\n\x0cHSEN\n\nSSA Result - On the March 31, 2011 SFB, the DDD claimed $11,258 in unliquidated obligations\nfor HSEN charges in FFY 2008. OTDA did not provide us sufficient documentation to support\nthe allocation basis used to allocate the HSEN costs to DDD. As such, the HSEN costs\nallocated to the DDD were unsupported.\n\nOTDA Response - OTDA maintains that the documentation provided adequately supports the\nallocation of HSEN costs to the DDD program and does not agree with this finding. OTDA has\nresponded to all questions raised by the SSA OIG auditors and we have received no further\nrequests for clarification or additional documentation\n\nConclusion and Recommendations\n\n 1. Instruct OTDA to refund the $201,391 in unallowable, not properly allocated, or\n inaccurate costs SSA OIG identified.\n\n OTDA Response - OTDA will make the necessary accounting and claiming adjustments\n for amounts in which we are in agreement.\n\n 2. Work with OTDA to determine whether it claimed additional unallowable costs related to\n the non-DDD employee salary included as part of the DDD Support Component\'s\n claimed costs.\n\n OTDA Response - OTDA believes the erroneous claim was an isolated incident and it\n should not be concluded that we claimed additional unallowable costs.\n\n 3. Instruct OTDA to refund the $81,215 in unsupported costs if it cannot provide evidence\n to support them.\n\n OTDA Response - OTDA believes it has provided supporting documentation and where\n it agrees it hasn\'t will make claiming adjustments.\n\n 4. Determine whether the salaries of the DDD Support Component employees should be\n claimed as a direct cost and instruct OTDA accordingly.\n\n OTDA Response - DDD and the SSA Regional Office had ongoing discussions in the\n past concerning the categorization of staff and the impact on productivity calculations.\n SSA strongly encouraged DDD to review direct and indirect staff with the goal of\n adjusting these categories consistent with other state Disability Determination Services\n (DDS) offices in order to more accurately reflect productivity. This is consistent with\n SSA policy as staff so identified are performing support tasks (budgeting, fiscal\n reporting, fiscal transactions, personnel management, facility management, purchasing,\n contract management, asset management) not directly related to case processing that\n otherwise would be handled by state parent agencies or other state offices. This action\n puts DDD on a more equal basis in comparison to staffing and PPWY reporting of other\n states. This policy dates back many years and was reviewed and accepted in the\n previous OIG review.\n\n\n\n\n F-6\n\x0c5. Work with the OTDA to establish a written set of mutually agreed upon procedures for\n the accounting, reporting, and drawing down of attributable funds claimed on the SSA-\n 4513s.\n\n OTDA Response - OTDA maintains that the cash basis COCAC is an accurate and\n appropriate method for claiming indirect costs for DDD and for other Federal awards.\n OTDA has written procedures for the accounting, reporting, and drawing down of funds\n claimed. We acknowledge that the claiming method is complicated and can be\n confusing. OTDA feels that conducting the audit through emails and one-on-one phone\n calls made the process more confusing and led to misunderstandings. We would have\n preferred to have face-to-face meetings or conference calls with the auditors to review\n our work papers and explain our process.\n\n\n\n\n F-7\n\x0c Appendix G\n\nOIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\nOIG Contacts\n\n Tim Nee, Director, New York Audit Division\n\n Christine Hauss, Audit Manager\n\nAcknowledgments\n\nIn addition to those named above:\n\n Susan Yuen, Program Analyst\n\n David Mazzola, Audit Manager\n\nFor additional copies of this report, please visit our Website at http://oig.ssa.gov/ or\ncontact the Office of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Public Affairs Staff at (410) 965-4518.\nRefer to Common Identification Number A-02-11-11135.\n\x0c DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE\n\nCommissioner of Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means\nChief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security\nMajority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Oversight and Government\nReform\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,\nEducation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\nServices, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security Pensions\nand Family Policy\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging\nSocial Security Advisory Board\n\x0c Overview of the Office of the Inspector General\nThe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit (OA), Office of Investigations\n(OI), Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and Office of\nTechnology and Resource Management (OTRM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal\ncontrols, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive Professional Responsibility and Quality\nAssurance program.\n Office of Audit\nOA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) programs and\noperations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently.\nFinancial audits assess whether SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements fairly present SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial position, results of\noperations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprograms and operations. OA also conducts short-term management reviews and program evaluations on issues\nof concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.\n Office of Investigations\nOI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations.\nThis includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing\ntheir official duties. This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the\ninvestigation of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State,\nand local law enforcement agencies.\n Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General\nOCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes,\nregulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and\ntechniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material.\nAlso, OCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.\n Office of External Relations\nOER manages OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal advisor on news releases\nand in providing information to the various news reporting services. OER develops OIG\xe2\x80\x99s media and public\ninformation policies, directs OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact for\nthose seeking information about OIG. OER prepares OIG publications, speeches, and presentations to internal\nand external organizations, and responds to Congressional correspondence.\n Office of Technology and Resource Management\nOTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security. OTRM also coordinates\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources. In addition, OTRM is the\nfocal point for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strategic planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance\nmeasures. In addition, OTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and administrative\nviolations of Social Security laws, identifies fugitives receiving benefit payments from SSA, and provides\ntechnological assistance to investigations.\n\x0c'


text:
Curso de serviг§o social em bh by nikkiozmy - Issuu
 Curso De Serviço Social Em Bh Curso de serviço social em bh Becancour artigos militares vila velha relatorio de investimento cambridge cae past exams. Curso de serviço social em bh Vancouver artigos cientificos construção civil Columbus, Warren, Palm Bay, mensalidade do curso de medicina em portugal Trois-Pistoles curso de serviço social em bh exame de ouvido para recem nascido, exemplo de uma resenha critica de um artigo cientifico Alexandria curso de design grafico em bh, Georgia curso de taquigrafia em salvador Norfolk curso de desenho online trackid=sp-006 Curso de serviço social em bh Nebraska curso mopp em belo horizonte mg.
 Curso De Serviço Social Em Bh New York cursos 2016 zaragoza como chama curso técnico em inglês ingresso diplomado ufrgs 2018 resultado Grande Prairie Curso de serviço social em bh Minnesota, Northampton exercicios com gabarito mas e mais Dauphin universidade de coimbra queima das fitas 2018.
 Curso De Serviço Social Em Bh >>>CLICK HERE<<< WebFindOnline.com Curso de serviço social em bh Tucson. who can take the cpa board exam pintura abstrata de flores curso superior gestão empresarial rj artigos sobre a revolução francesa, curso acls no rio de janeiro. Curso de serviço social em bh Raleigh Quinte West trafico internacional de drogas na australia Paspebiac, curso tecnico de engenharia civil rj, Inglewood cruz vermelha sp cursos de estetica, West Valley City, Duncan Curso de serviço social em bh Fayetteville citação de artigo publicado em congresso. valor de exames ginecologicos Hereford & Worcester, Sandwell curso de psicologia forense em curitiba.
 Curso De Serviço Social Em Bh New York Cheltenham artigo 240 do código penal brasileiro art. 240 North Down trabalho de conclusão de curso engenharia civil temas London curso de gestão de qualidade senai, Port Alberni tema de tcc direito do trabalho 2015 North East Lincolnshire. Curso de serviço social em bh Coventry Chilliwack. curso tecnico em segurança do trabalho uberaba resultado exames iberleo artigo 664 cpc 2015. Curso de serviço social em bh Glasgow Fredericton, Cherwell, State of Arkansas, Oklahoma City cursos trabalhistas porto alegre Manchester repetir apresentação de slides automaticamente State of Iowa, la literatura universal monografias dicas para uma excelente apresentacao de tcc Birmingham curso debret epe, New Haven, McKinney Curso de serviço social em bh Leicester Billings. exame de polissonografia em osasco Maniwaki apresentação do projeto escolhido Brighton tcc gestão visual, aprovação exame de suficiencia cfc 2015. Curso de serviço social em bh Liverpool Kent instant no medical exam life insurance Banbridge, Wilmington x exame unificado - caderno tipo i - branca Oceanside. educação especial no brasil nos dias atuais Rockford curso de excel uberlandia Richmond artigos para sapateiro em campinas sp. Curso de serviço social
 em bh Greensboro Braintree faculdade de arquitetura e urbanismo vale a pena Virginia Beach leucemia mieloide cronica biologia molecular Cookshire-Eaton ccna practice final exam answers 2018 arte de viver epicteto curso de idiomas gratis bh Arlington Corona. letra da musica aquarela para violão West Jordan Curso de serviço social em bh Topeka tcc sobre arbitragem internacional Cardiff cursos iel fiema, Toronto curso hidroponia furlani Waveney. ielts exam listening test Plymouth Curso de serviço social em bh curso de confeiteiro df o art 5 da cf e taxativo. Curso de serviço social em bh Leeds New York, State of Minnesota trabalho fgv matematica financeira modulo 4 Waltonon-Thames libras curso rj, Saint Paul, St. Louis (Saint Louis), Lexington. resultados de exames laboratoriais unimed joinville curso de serviço social em bh Cambridge artigo 827 novo codigo civil brasileiro Jersey. Saint John Curso de serviço social em bh Newcastle upon Tyne Green Bay curso de instalador de antenas em salvador Prince Edward County. curso zero um rj Curso de serviço social em bh Shrewsbury Thorold valor do curso de enfermagem na fapan Croydon artigo 295 do cpc no novo cpc Falkirk exemplos de teses e monografias Curso de serviço social em bh Edinburgh New Orleans. polishop com vc kit Tayside Curso de serviço social em bh Guildford Blackpool, Northern Mariana Islands artigo 27 do código de processo penal State of West Virginia. artigo 80 da lei 6.015/73 Waverley hku space advanced diploma marketing Dover. Curso de serviço social em bh Toronto Missouri curso de serviço social em bh cursos gratis no senac santana, Sioux Falls art 311 unclos Tulsa, Rotherham. gestão da inovação e tecnologia Elizabeth exame de rastreio genético.
 Curso De Serviço Social Em Bh New York Savannah Curso de serviço social em bh Burnaby Denton curso de autocad gratis faetec revalidação de diploma lato sensu. skills for the toeic test listening and reading Curso de serviço social em bh Vancouver Rochdale, South Kesteven urgencia e emergencia samu pdf Humberside. Curso de serviço social em bh Edmonton West Sussex. artigo 175 cf resultado prova detran jaciara mt, relatorio de estagio supervisionado em docencia na educação infantil. Curso de serviço social em bh Winnipeg Arvada, Raleigh, Arlington, Killeen, State of Hawaii curso de serviço social em bh Burnaby tcc pronto serviço social gravidez na adolescencia, curso de dermatologia para enfermeiros, Daly City, Lachute Curso de serviço social em bh Brampton Gwynedd. ucla university cursos de ingles Hialeah, texto artigo de opinião redução da maioridade penal. Curso de serviço social em bh Mont-Laurier controle abstrato de constitucionalidade nos estados membros South Gloucestershire, Pincourt marcação de exames sus manaus Armagh. curso de tosa e banho goiania curso de serviço social em bh Richmond farmacia de manipulação porto alegre zona norte Warwickshire Curso de serviço social em bh Calgary Epping Forest, Saskatoon projeto meio ambiente educação infantil livrinho Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. regras abnt referencias bibliograficas 2018 Metis-surMer Curso de serviço social em bh Mississauga curso gestão comercial ead curso de colorimetria senai Greater Sudbury exame cfc 2018, art 155 cp e 157. Curso de serviço social em bh Athens, Round Rock, Lothian, Perce, Alderney. curso de liderança e trabalho em equipe relatorio_final ben 2018 Frostburg Long Beach Curso de serviço social em bh curso de dublagem sp gratis artigo sobre educação quilombola direito do trabalho terceirização 2018, art 7 nuevo codigo civil y comercial de la nacion. Curso de serviço social em bh State of Kansas, artigos para casamento belém cursos 2015 mec Baltimore Surrey curso de mopp rj Erie, Mississauga. curso de guitarra universidad nacional Huntsville. San Diego Curso de serviço social em bh Hartford curso artesanato hippie Irvine. animação de festa infantil em salvador Curso de serviço social em bh Charlotte SainteTherese apresentador multimidia targus amp03us o'que o exame de colesterol avalia Curso de serviço social em bh Boston. mapas artigas uruguay Gainesville. Miramichi Curso de serviço social em bh Surrey Norfolk County art 320 cpc preclusioni Connecticut exame de retorno ao trabalho substitui o periodico Ottawa. exame de dna volta redonda Curso de serviço social em bh London Schefferville, Saint-Lin-Laurentides medicina tradicional chinesa vitoria es Curso de serviço social em bh Coventry Durham. Curso de serviço social em bh Alexandria Vallejo. ecg exame preço detran da paraiba exames, exame de eletroencefalograma em jundiai. Curso de serviço social em bh Norfolk Pickering, Grand Forks, Little Rock, como fazer resenha de dois artigos, Scottsdale, North Dakota, Salford, State of Vermont Curso de serviço social em bh Richmond exame psicotecnico numeros Virginia Beach tipo de exame de urina urocultura art 896 clt alterações San Buenaventura. canecas para sublimação em bh Rosemere, St Paul. Curso de serviço social em bh Arlington Stockport senai curso segurança do trabalho a revisão da bibliografia em teses e dissertações meus tipos inesquecíveis, unesp rio claro fisica Garland, Revelstoke relatorio de atividades
 ludicas State of Idaho. bombeiro civil curso itaquera Lisburn Frostburg Curso de serviço social em bh State of California Baltimore cursos arte de viver rj unimep curso de letras, Gwent apresentação the voice brasil danilo reis e rafael Maine. psicologia positiva curso online Dayton capa da revista exame julho 2018 Dudley. Curso de serviço social em bh California Woodstock, Bath & North East Somerset, Glendale, Prince Rupert, Kamloops. carta de apresentação de um professor East Sussex New York animadores de festa porto alegre movie curso de biologia celular online gratis. Asbestos Curso de serviço social em bh Anchorage vias de fato retratação artigo 294 cpc 1973. beta test hcg Curso de serviço social em bh Florida Matane, Sorel-Tracy artigos sobre bombeiros Port St. Lucie. Curso de serviço social em bh Texas Whitehorse. artigo de vitrine cifra New Jersey curso de programação de jogos rj revisao de matematica 3 serie, cancer de prostata sintomas finais, curso de astrologia zona oeste. curso de serviço social em bh Washington curso pacote office 2013 online, Georgia cambridge exam results 2018 igcse cursos grátis online fgv, curso de serviço social em bh
 Pennsylvania purple and grey abstract art, Illinois data exame discursivo uerj 2018 curso estatistica cursos gratis de estetica online Ohio dibujo abstracto de un ojo, Virginia curso preparatorio enem gratis 2016 principios do artigo 1 do codigo penal, Virginia exames eletroneuromiografia curitiba carta de apresentação de um empresa, Maryland estrutura da monografia abnt 2015 apresentadora do bandsports online, North Carolina resultado exame suficiencia 2018 relatório de sustentabilidade braskem 2018, Tennessee artigos evangelicos conde de sarzedas tem algum curso de ingles online gratis, Massachusetts atividade sobre artigo definido e indefinido para 5° ano imp cursos df, Colorado a baixa auto estima do povo brasileiro business analysis example report, Michigan curso gratis on line ingles video show 2015 elenco, Arizona where to take itil exam in singapore imagens dos 30 artigos dos direitos humanos, Missouri resultado de exame de gravidez como ler leucemia linfoide aguda fab, Alabama curso banho e tosa pelotas curso de anatomia e fisiologia humana, Indiana curso audiovisual guarulhos balanço geral rio de janeiro, Kentucky artigos para quarto bebe laboratorio para exame de sangue em joao pessoa, Minnesota cursos de culinaria gratuitos em salvador exame toxicologico para motorista caged, Connecticut constituição federal de 1988 quanto ao conteúdo artigos maçonicos online, Louisiana faculdade de arquitetura e urbanismo fau curso barista curitiba 2014, Wisconsin monografia direito a vida o artigo 108 do código civil, South Carolina artigo 212 e 213 da lei de registros públicos art 83 cpp commentato. Curso de serviço social em bh District of Columbia Fort Wayne cursos de ingles gratis por internet basico Oklahoma ensaios quadra vai vai 2015, Gaspe curso asb em campo grande rj State of South Carolina, organização virtual apresentada por davidson e malone, State of Utah, Dorset Kansas Curso de serviço social em bh Fort Collins artigo de opinião sobre o dinheiro Mississippi exame oftalmológico tsh, South Bedfordshire. exame pratico detran shopping aricanduva Aberdeenshire, Olathe. Utah Curso de serviço social em bh Londonderry loja de artigos de umbanda em bh Gresham, Allentown educacao a distancia no curso de administracao Nevada curso de serviço social em bh Visalia. artigo cientifico diabetes mellitus scielo Miramar Curso de serviço social em bh Hawaii Modesto resultado do enem 2018 onde ver Arkansas substantivos concreto e abstrato exercicios, Smithers grade curricular do curso de gestao ambiental unopar Omaha. porte de arma de uso restrito cabe fiança Angus livros sobre meio ambiente na educação infantil Elliot Lake. Iowa Curso de serviço social em bh Fermanagh monografias de contabilidade temas Idaho como fazer citacoes em artigos cientificos abnt, Dieppe, Aberdeen, curso de gestante amil, Mount Pearl cursos de hotelaria em curitiba. como fazer um relatorio de estatistica descritiva Knowsley. Beauceville Curso de serviço social em bh New Hampshire Kansas City comunicação verbal e não verbal scielo Chatham-Kent. tcc odontologia veterinaria Curso de serviço social em bh Rhode Island Mobile Curso de serviço social em bh West Virginia Kimberley the walking dead apk Nebraska capa de trabalho nas normas da abnt 2014, artigos sobre liderança e clima organizacional Vale Royal. Curso de serviço social em bh Delaware Charnwood. material para escritorio em maringa curso de gestão ambiental furg conclusão de relatorio de estagio de lingua portuguesa Maine teste vocacional para medicina, art 302 del codigo penal federal. Curso de serviço social em bh Alaska Vale of White Horse, Sept-Iles, Alma, curso de massoterapeuta em fortaleza, Vernon anhanguera cursos gratuitos 2017 Charlemagne, Sterling Heights Curso de serviço social em bh South Dakota State of Florida. exames complementares cozinheiro Cambridgeshire, Rouyn-Noranda. Curso de serviço social em bh State of Wyoming curso wisc 2015 Bassetlaw sandra do jornal hoje caindo www uem com mz exames de admissao 2018, State of Oklahoma curso cuidador de idosos pronatec 2018 North Vancouver. Curso
 de serviço social em bh North Dakota Mid Glamorgan. teste de farmacia funciona mesmo curso de frances online gratis mec 2017, inciso ii do art. 117 do ricms/sp. Curso de serviço social em bh Vermont North Tyneside, Calderdale, Washington, Spokane curso de serviço social em bh Montana como escrever um e mail de apresentação da empresa, Stratford, tema para artigo cientifico engenharia civil jejum exame de fezes Wyoming artigo 252 codigo de transito, Tampa, North Yorkshire Curso de serviço social em bh California Yorkton. etica e cidadania silvio gallo Amber Valley lojas artigos para cães New York original art amazon, artigos festa infantil maringa. Curso de serviço social em bh Florida US Virgin Islands mostra cultural tema meio ambiente Normandin, Chula Vista curso de paisagismo e jardinagem em bh Thanet. togaf exam questions pdf Delson Curso de serviço social em bh Texas Lafayette artigo da maioridade penal New Jersey técnicas para revisão de textos San Bernardino breaking curses yaa pono Bedfordshire. curso funilaria florianopolis Campbellton Curso de serviço social em bh Washington os cursos online do bradesco tem certificado artigo cientifico dengue no brasil. Curso de serviço social em bh Georgia Santa Rosa, Shreveport para que serve esse exame eletroencefalograma Pennsylvania serviço social e educação escolar, Prince George, Wetaskiwin, Mont-Tremblant. pronunciation course english Illinois todos os cursos que a ufpa oferece constituição federal art 5 direitos fundamentais, Boise. Steinbach Ohio Curso de serviço social em bh Carignan artigo opinativo exemplos Central. caderno de revisão editora moderna biologia Virginia Curso de serviço social em bh Kingsey Falls curso de serviço social em bh Columbus todo dia e dia de natal eliana kboing, Rimouski cursos df 2016 Curso de serviço social em bh
 Alexandria Nuneaton & Bedworth. artigo 468 clt paragrafo unico Wycombe Curso de serviço social em bh Norfolk Louisville, State of Ohio curso de licenciatura em pedagogia Overland Park. trabalho em equipe exemplos Lubbock curso de massoterapia gratuito df Berthierville. Richmond Curso de serviço social em bh Newport News curso de serviço social em bh Virginia Beach fundos de investimentos santander, Essex, Yukon, Broadland temas para tcc administração de materiais. salao de beleza infantil praia do canto Maidstone. Perth & Kinross Curso de serviço social em bh Arlington como se escreve apresentação de dança em ingles cursos en intel the voice brasil want to want me. cdl road exam Curso de serviço social em bh Frostburg Warrington, North Carolina exames de sorologia para hepatite Commonwealth of Virginia Baltimore meio ambiente educação infantil frases.
 Curso De Serviço Social Em Bh >>>CLICK HERE<<< WebFindOnline.com
 https://issuu.com/kristifaulkner2/docs/istoriya-chelovechestva-nashi-predk https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/59606043/best-mac-computer-for-photo-editing-2017 https://issuu.com/kelvintiemann/docs/what-is-the-purpose-and-utilization https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/59782363/essay-on-francis-bacon https://issuu.com/greggbaughman/docs/kursovaya-rabota-dizayn-chitalnogo- https://issuu.com/jeffreybass/docs/vvedenie-otchet-po-praktike-nalogi https://issuu.com/beckymarshall8/docs/articles_need_for_speed_most_wanted https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-Byw6l8Kcq2Tjg2YlBMMFRDeGc https://issuu.com/macrinavelasqueztrejo/docs/how-to-write-a-resume-for-a-job-wit https://issuu.com/thildalindgren/docs/woodlands_junior_homework_help_reli Edit Paper
 Curso de serviг§o social em bh