text:
Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus / paragrahv 115
 Paragrahv 115
 Iga aasta kohta võtab Riigikogu seadusena vastu riigi kõigi tulude ja kulude eelarve.
 Kopeeri link 1.
 Riigieelarve vastuvõtmine on üks olulisemaid parlamendi suveräänsuse elemente. Riigieelarve võetakse vastu seadusena. Riigieelarve ei ole seadus, kuid seda menetletakse nagu seadust, mitte nagu avaldust või otsust (vt § 65 komm-d 2.2 ja 2.3). Riigieelarve kuulutab välja Vabariigi President ning see tuleb avaldada Riigi Teatajas. Presidendil on õigus jätta eelarve välja kuulutamata ning saata Riigikogule uueks arutamiseks. Riigieelarve allub põhiseaduslikkuse järelevalve menetlusele, Riigikohus saab tunnistada riigieelarve tervikuna PS-ga vastuolus olevaks.
 Riigieelarve võetakse Riigikogus vastu lihthäälteenamusega. Konkreetse aasta riigieelarvet ei tohi segamini ajada PS § 104 lg 2 p-s 11 nimetatud RES-ga. RES on PS §-s 117 nimetatud “riigieelarve koostamise ja vastuvõtmise korda puudutav seadus”. Lisaks riigieelarve vastuvõtmisele peab Riigikogu kinnitama ka eelarve täitmise aruande (PS § 65 p 6) (selle kohta vt § 117 komm 5).
 Riigieelarvet menetletakse Riigikogus küll nagu tavalist seadust, kuid PS-st ja RES-st tulenevalt on riigieelarve menetlemiseks ette nähtud üsna palju erisusi. Riigieelarve eelnõu saab algatada ainult valitsus. Muudatusettepanekute algataja peab esitama rahalised arvestused (PS § 116). Riigieelarvet võib jõustada tagasiulatuvalt (PS § 118). Eelarve küsimusi ei saa panna rahvahääletusele (PS § 106). Eelarve küsimused hõlmavad nii eelarve vastuvõtmise korda reguleerivaid seadusi (RES, KOFS) kui ka riigieelarvet ennast. Riigieelarvet ei saa kehtestada, muuta ega tühistada presidendi seadlusega (PS § 110).
 Eesti 1920. a PS § 85 sätestas, et “iga aasta kohta seatakse riigi sissetulekute ja väljaminekute üleüldine eelarve kokku”. 1937. a PS-s oli riigieelarvele pühendatud terve 9. peatükk (§-d 103–107), mis reguleeris põhjalikult riigieelarve menetlemist.
 Riigieelarve on formaalne seadus, oma sisult on ta üksikakt. Riigieelarve ei sisalda õigusnorme, vaid volitusi riigieelarves nimetatud kulude tegemiseks kindlaksmääratud asutuste poolt konkreetsel perioodil. Riigieelarve vastuvõtmise teel annab seadusandlik võim täidesaatvale võimule loa riigi raha kulutamiseks, kontrollides sellega valitsuse tegevust ning seades sellele piirid. Riigieelarvet võib käsitada riigi majandusplaanina eelolevaks aastaks, samuti parlamendi iga-aastase usaldusavaldusena valitsusele ja tema kavatsetavale poliitikale. Riigieelarve ei muuda ühtegi seadust. Kõik muudatused riigi tulusid ja kulusid mõjutavates seadustes tuleb teha enne riigieelarve vastuvõtmist. Mõnes riigis on kujunenud tava, et koos riigieelarvega võtab parlament vastu seaduse, millesse on koondatud kõik vajalikud seadusemuudatused (aeg-ajalt on seda ka Eestis praktiseeritud, nt 2009. a lisaeelarvete või 2012. a riigieelarve menetlemisel).
 Riigieelarve õigusliku iseloomu kohta on avaldatud mitmeid seisukohti. Näiteks on väidetud, et riigieelarve on normatiivakt selliste kulude osas, mille tegemise kohustust ei tulene ühestki seadusest. Kui lugeda riigieelarvet õigustloovaks aktiks, siis allub riigieelarve õiguskantsleri järelevalvele (vt PS § 139). Põhiseaduslikkuse järelevalve kohtumenetluses ei oma tähtsust, kas tegemist on formaalse või materiaalse seadusega. Riigikohtu üldkogu on asunud seisukohale, et seadust, mis sisaldab nii õigusnorme kui ka üksikregulatsioone, käsitatakse õigustloova aktina (RKÜKo 17.03.2000, 3-4-1-1-00). Sellest lähtuvalt leidis üldkogu, et õiguskantsler võib kontrollida ka riigieelarve kulusid. Riigikohtunik Jüri Põld märkis sama otsuse eriarvamuses, et õiguse teoorias valitseva seisukoha järgi on riigieelarve kulude kirjed üksikjuhtumite regulatsioonid. Kulude kirjed ei sisalda õigusnorme.
 Eesti praktika kohaselt võetakse ühe seadusena vastu nii konkreetse aasta riigieelarve kui ka eelarve rakendamiseks vajalikud õigusnormid (nt kohalikesse eelarvetesse makstava toetuse arvutamise valem, rahvapensioni ja lastetoetuse määr, riigiteenistujate palgaastmestiku kõrgeim määr jne). Need normid peaksid olema eraldi seaduses, mitte riigieelarves. Riigikohtunik J. Põld on oma eriarvamises märkinud, et PS § 115 lg 1 märgibki aastaeelarve seaduse sisuna vaid riigi tulude ja kulude eelarvet. Loomulikult ei ole seadusandjal keelatud võtta koos eelarvega samas õigusaktis vastu ka õigusnorme, kuid see asjaolu ei anna alust väita, et riigieelarve tervikuna muutub normatiivaktiks. Põhiseaduse tähenduses kujutab riigieelarve endast vaid tulude, kulude ja finantseerimistehingute kirjeid.
 Riigieelarve on internne akt, sest seal sisalduvad käitumisjuhised on adresseeritud täidesaatvale võimule. Riigieelarve on impersonaalne ja kompleksne akt, mis hõlmab kogu riigihaldust tervikuna ja teatud perioodi kõiki majandustehinguid. Tihti võidakse pärast riigieelarve vastuvõtmist anda täidesaatva võimu poolt eelarvet konkretiseerivaid korraldusi. See aga ei muuda veel eelarvet üldaktiks.
 Riigieelarve kirjetest ei teki haldusvälistele isikutele õigusi ega kohustusi. Riigieelarve kulukirje ei anna õigust nõuda konkreetse summa väljamaksmist konkreetsele isikule. Isiku nõudeõigus ja riigi kulukohustus saab tekkida kas seaduse (ametnike palgad, pensionid, toetused) või lepingu (kaupade ja teenuste ostmine, laenu tagasimaksed) alusel. Ka siis, kui subjektiivset õigust tekitav haldusakt või leping pärineb riigieelarve vastuvõtmisele järgnevast perioodist, ei saa väita, et riigieelarve oleks subjektiivset õigust loov akt. Kulutuse planeerimine riigieelarves ei anna vastavale asutusele õigust seda summat oma äranägemisel tervikuna kulutada – kui puudub materiaalõiguslik alus väljamakse tegemiseks, siis riigieelarve ei saa seda asendada. Asjaolu, et riigieelarves ei ole kuluobjekti ette nähtud, ei vabasta riiki ühegi seadusest, haldusaktist või lepingust tuleneva kohustuse täitmisest. Samuti ei anna riigieelarve tulukirjed (maksud, lõivud, trahvid) riigile nõudeõigust ühegi subjekti suhtes, nõudeõiguse aluseks on siiski vastavad maksu- jm seadused.
 Kopeeri link 4.
 Riigieelarvega seoses on kirjanduses välja toodud järgmised üldpõhimõtted.
 Riigieelarve peab sisaldama riigi kõiki tulusid ja kulusid (kõikehaaravuse põhimõte). Kõik tulud, mida saavad riigi kui avalik-õigusliku juriidilise isiku asutused, peavad olema kajastatud riigieelarves. Kohalike omavalitsuste ning teiste avalik-õiguslike juriidiliste isikute tulusid ega kulusid riigieelarves ei kajastata, riigieelarves näidatakse ainult vastavatele subjektidele antavad toetused või nendelt laekuvad kasumieraldised (nt Eesti Pangalt). Riigi ja kohaliku omavalitsuse eelarved on lahutatud (vt ka § 157 komm).
 Sellest põhimõttest kinnipidamisega oli pikka aega probleeme. Alles 2000. a lülitati riigieelarvesse riigiasutuste majandustegevuse tulud (nn omatulud). Kuni käesoleva ajani kinnitatakse näiteks Riigimetsa Majandamise Keskuse eelarved Vabariigi Valitsuse määrusega, kuigi Riigikohus on märkinud, et selline olukord on vastuolus PS kommenteeritava paragrahviga (RKÜKo 17.03.2000, 3-4-1-1-00).
 Eristatakse neto- ja brutoeelarvet. Brutoeelarves on kõik tulud ja kulud toodud täismahus. Netoeelarves kajastatakse mõnel juhul tulude ja kulude vahe (nt riigi vara võõrandamise korral arvatakse saadud tulust maha võõrandamiseks tehtud kulutused ning eelarvesse kantakse netotulu). Eelarve kõikehaaravuse põhimõte ei samastu brutoeelarve nõudega. RES kohaselt tuleb Eestis eelarved koostada brutopõhimõttel, kuigi PS seda otseselt ei nõua.
 Ühe aruandeperioodi tulud ja kulud peavad olema kajastatud ühes eelarves (ühtsuse põhimõte). Riigikogus vastu võetud aastaeelarve peab andma tervikliku ülevaate riigi majandustegevusest eelarveaastal. Riigieelarve tulud, kulud ja finantseerimistehingud liigendatakse administratiivselt osadeks, jagudeks ja peatükkideks ning majandusliku sisu alusel artikligruppideks, artikliteks ja artiklite alajaotisteks. Kommenteeritav säte peab välistama mis tahes eelarvevälise, eri- või salafondi (n-ö musta kassa) olemasolu, millest tehtaks väljamakseid seadusandja teadmata. Riigieelarves peavad olema kajastatud ka need väljaminekud, mis kujutavad endast riigisaladust (nt relvastuse soetamiseks tehtavad kulud, julgeolekuasutuste ülalpidamiskulud). Need summad tuuakse eelarves välja liigendamata (RES § 4 lg 6).
 Riigieelarve üksikud tulu- ja kuluartiklid ei ole üksteisest sõltuvuses (universaalsuse põhimõte). Üldjuhul ei ole riigieelarve tulude puhul kindlaks määratud sihtotstarbelist kulutamist, st tulud tervikuna on mõeldud finantseerimaks kulusid tervikuna. Erandina on siiski teatud tululiikide osas ette nähtud sihtotstarbeline kasutamine. Näiteks on sotsiaalmaks sihtotstarbeline maks, millest finantseeritakse pensioni- ja ravikindlustust. Teoreetiliselt oleks õigem käsitada sotsiaalmaksu sundkindlustusena ning suunata vastav raha avalik-õiguslikesse fondidesse ilma riigieelarve vahenduseta. Maksulaekumiste sihtotstarbelise kasutamise näiteid võib tuua veel teisigi (nt 3, 5% alkoholi- ja tubakaaktsiisist laekub Eesti Kultuurkapitalile, hasartmängumaksu laekumine jagatakse mitmesuguste programmide toetuseks, suur osa keskkonnakasutusest laekuvast rahast eraldatakse sihtasutusele keskkonnaprojektide finantseerimiseks), kuid need erandid on riigieelarve mahtu arvestades ebaolulise tähtsusega.
 Riigieelarve võetakse vastu iga aasta kohta (aastase kehtivuse põhimõte). Eelarve on tähtajaline seadus, mis kaotab automaatselt kehtivuse tähtaja möödumisel (eelarveaasta lõppedes). PS ei määra eelarveaasta algust ja lõppu, see on jäetud seaduse reguleerida. Eestis on nii riigi kui ka omavalitsuste eelarveaastaks kalendriaasta (RES § 27 lg 2, KOFS § 4 lg 1), kuid vajaduse korral võib eelarveaastaks olla mis tahes muu 12-kuuline periood. Senise praktika kohaselt koostatakse riigieelarvet kassapõhise arvestuspõhimõtte kohaselt, mis tähendab, et tulud ja kulud võetakse arvesse tegeliku laekumise või tasumise järgi. Ei PS ega RES kohaselt oleks mõeldav ka tekkepõhise eelarve koostamine ning Eestis on ka kavandamisel üleminek tekkepõhisele eelarvestamisele nii riigi kui kohalikul tasandil (vt KOFS §-d 13–19 ja § 59 lg 10). Riigi raamatupidamist ja avaliku sektori finantsstatistikat koostatakse juba praegu tekkepõhiselt.
 Hoolimata sellest, et eelarveperiood on vaid üks aasta, peab täidesaatev võim korraldama tulude ja kulude, laenude ja investeeringute planeerimise ja prognoosimise pikemaks perioodiks. Pikaajalist finantsplaneerimist reguleeritakse mitmetes RES sätetes (nt RES § 15 viitab rahandusprognoosile, mis on riigi eelarvestrateegia ja riigieelarve eelnõu aluseks, samuti sisaldab RES sätteid strateegilise planeerimise kohta, vt § 19).
 Kopeeri link 4.5.
 Riigieelarve tuleb vastu võtta enne arvestusaasta algust (eelnevuse põhimõte). Eelarve on oma olemuselt tulevikku suunatud prognoos, mis ei pruugi alati planeeritud kujul täituda. Riigieelarve puudumine ei tohi aga takistada riigi funktsioneerimist. Juhul kui Riigikogu ei ole eelarveaasta alguseks riigieelarvet vastu võtnud, võib valitsus teha kulutusi kuni 1/12 ulatuses eelmise aasta eelarvest. Selline olukord ei ole ajaliselt piiratud ning kestab kuni eelarve vastuvõtmiseni (lähemalt vt § 118 komm).
 Kopeeri link 4.6.
 Riigieelarves planeeritavad tulud ja kulud peavad võimalikult täpselt vastama tegelikkusele (tõepärasuse põhimõte). Vastasel juhul tekiks valitsusel eelarve täitmisega tõsiseid raskusi ning ta oleks sunnitud pidevalt algatama Riigikogus lisaeelarveid või eelarve muutmise seadusi. Eelarve tõepärasuse tagamiseks on ette nähtud tavalisest seadusest erinev menetluskord. Riigieelarve eelnõu saab algatada ainult valitsus, sest valitsus peab vastutama eelarve täitmise eest. Kõige olulisemad tõepärasuse tagatised sisalduvad PS § 116 nõuetes, kuid RES näeb ette veel täiendavaid abinõusid.
 Kopeeri link 4.7.
 Riigieelarve tulude summa peab võrduma kulude summaga (tasakaalustatuse põhimõte). Tuleb vahet teha formaalse ja sisulise tasakaalustatuse vahel. Juhul kui eelarve kulud ületavad tulusid ning puudujäägi katteks võetakse laenu või kasutatakse reserve, kajastatakse laen või reservieraldis eelarve tuluna ning riigieelarve on formaalselt tasakaalus. Kui eelarve tulud ületavad kulusid, suunatakse ülejääk reservi või kantakse edasi järgmisesse eelarveaastasse ning ka sel juhul on eelarve tasakaalus. Selliselt koostati Eestis eelarveid kuni 2003. aastani. Kehtiva RES kohaselt tuuakse eelarvetes eraldi jaotusena välja finantseerimistehingud (nt tehingud hoiustega, aktsiatega, võlakirjadega, laenude andmine ja võtmine). See võimaldab eelarves välja tuua sisulise tasakaalu, ülejäägi või defitsiidi. Riigieelarves finantseerimistehinguna kajastatud kirjed on sõltuvalt tehingu sisust samuti tulu või kulu kommenteeritava paragrahvi tähenduses.
 RES § 6 kehtestab eelarvepositsioonide üldised tasakaalureeglid. See nõue tuleneb EL õigusest. ELTL art 126 kohustab liikmesriike hoiduma ülemäärasest riigieelarve puudujäägist ning näeb ette menetluse seda nõuet rikkuvate riikide korralekutsumiseks. ELTL protokollis 12 on toodud ka kontrollväärtused (nn Maastrichti kriteeriumid): kogu valitussektori eelarvepuudujääk ei tohi ületada 3% riigi sisemajanduse kogutoodangust turuhindades (SKP) ja valitsussektori koguvõlg ei tohi ületada 60% SKP-st. Valitsussektor hõlmab lisaks riigile ka kohalikke omavalitsusi ja sotsiaalkindlustusfonde. See tähendab, et riigieelarve koostamisel tuleb arvestada ka muude avaliku sektori eelarvete seisu ning nende puudujäägi korral seda tasakaalustada riigieelarve või muu subjekti eelarve ülejäägiga. Kuna praktikas ei ole õnnestunud paljude EL liikmete ülemäärast eelarvepuudujääki ära hoida (2011. a suutis seda nõuet täita vaid kolm riiki), siis on otsustatud täiendada liidu õigust täiendava liikmesriikidevahelise lepinguga. 1. jaanuarist 2013 kehtiva majandus- ja rahaliidu stabiilsuse, koordineerimise ja juhtimise lepingu (nn fiskaalpakt) art 3 lg 2 nõuab, et riigid fikseerivad eelarve tasakaalu reegli eelistatavalt riikide põhiseaduses või “muus iga-aastase eelarveprotsessi suhtes siduvates ja alalise iseloomuga õigusaktides”, et tagada reegli järgimine kogu eelarve protsessi jooksul. Lepingu art 3 lg 1 kohaselt peavad lepinguga ühinenud riikide valitsussektori koondeelarved olema tasakaalus või ülejäägis, lisades ka võimalikud erandid ja kõrvalekalded.
 Kopeeri link 4.8.
 Kõik riigieelarvega seonduvad dokumendid (eelarve projekt, selle seletuskiri ja muud lisad, vastuvõetud eelarve, lisaeelarved, riigieelarve täitmise aruanne) ning eelarvemenetlus on avalikud (avalikkuse põhimõte). Kui mõne asutuse kulude detailne loetelu on riigisaladus, siis riigieelarve kulupeatükke ei liigendata. Riigieelarve arutelud toimuvad Riigikogus avalikel istungitel. Riigieelarve avaldatakse Riigi Teatajas. Riigi majandusaasta koondaruanne (mis sisaldab ka riigieelarve täitmise aruannet) avaldatakse Rahandusministeeriumi veebilehel.
 Riigieelarve, samuti lisaeelarve eelnõu esitamise õigus on ainult Vabariigi Valitsusel. Valitsus korraldab kogu riigiaparaadi tegevust ning ainult valitsus on suuteline välja tooma riigi rahalisi vajadusi tervikuna. Riigieelarve projekti ettevalmistamist korraldab Rahandusministeerium ning selle käigus esitavad kõik ministeeriumid ja muud riigiasutused oma ettepanekud ja kalkulatsioonid (vt § 117 komm 2).
 Valitsus on kohustatud esitama riigieelarve projekti Riigikogule hiljemalt kolm kuud enne eelarveaasta algust (st hiljemalt 1. oktoobriks). PS-s ei ole antud käitumisjuhist olukorras, kus valitsus esitab riigieelarve projekti hilinenult või ei esita seda üldse. Selline tegevusetus ei too endaga kaasa automaatset valitsuse ametist lahkumist ega anna parlamendile õigust ise riigieelarve projekti koostada. Kuna PS §-s 119 sätestatud Riigikogu laialisaatmise nõude suhtes ei ole mingeid erandeid ette nähtud, on valitsusel võimalik provotseerida Riigikogu laialisaatmine sel teel, et ta lihtsalt ei esita Riigikogule eelarveprojekti.
 Kopeeri link 6.
 Riigieelarve on valitsusele täitmiseks kohustuslik ja sellest kõrvalekaldumine ei ole lubatud. Eelkõige tuleb seda mõista kui keeldu teha eelarves ettenähtust suuremaid kulutusi. RES § 60 lg 1 sätestab sõnaselgelt, et riigiasutusel on õigus võtta kohustusi ainult siis, kui talle on riigieelarves või selle alusel kinnitatud eelarves kohustuse täitmiseks vahendid ette nähtud. Täiendavate kulutuste tegemiseks tuleb algatada lisaeelarve (vt komm 7).
 Täidesaatev võim ei ole seotud mitte ainult eelarve kogumahuga, vaid ka eelarves sätestatud tulude ja kulude liigendusega. Riigieelarves määratud kulude otstarvet on võimalik muuta vaid riigieelarve muutmise teel. Samuti ei tohi täidesaatev võim teha tehinguid ega võtta riigile kohustusi, mis mõjutaksid tulevaste aastate riigieelarveid. Nii näiteks sätestab RES § 60 lg 2, et riigiasutusel on keelatud võtta riigile võlakohustusi, teha tehinguid kapitalirendi tingimustel, anda kontsessioone ja teha muid selliseid tehinguid, kui riigieelarvega ei ole selleks antud luba. Samuti on keelatud anda tagatisi ja laene, teha annetusi, osta aktsiaid, osasid ja muid osalusi (v.a riigi eraõiguslikes juriidilistes isikutes osalemine riigivara seaduse alusel) ning omandada muud finantsvara, kui RES-s või riigieelarves ei ole ette nähtud teisiti. RES § 60 lg 4 näeb ette, et minister võib ministeeriumi valitsemisala riigiasutustel lubada võtta rahalisi kohustusi eelseisvateks eelarveaastateks tingimusel, et ühelgi eelseisval eelarveaastal ei ületa nende ministeeriumi valitsemisala täidetavate rahaliste kohustuste maht 50% ministeeriumi valitsemisala vastava eelseisva eelarveaasta kululae piirmääraga vahenditest.
 Kuna riigieelarve on siiski tulevikku suunatud akt, mis rajaneb prognoosidel, peab eelarve olema piisavalt paindlik, et täidesaatev võim suudaks eelarvet ka tegelikult täita. Kui eelarve oleks liiga detailne, siis peaks valitsus pidevalt algatama eelarve muudatusi ja lisaeelarveid, et eelarvet tegeliku eluga kokku viia. Selle vältimiseks delegeerib RES eelarve kulude detailse jaotuse teatud osas täidesaatvale võimule. Selleks näeb seadus ette eelarveklassifikaatori (RES § 29), mis on kaheastmeline. Esiteks Vabariigi Valitsuse tase (tegevuspõhine liigendus) ja teiseks ministeeriumi tase (eelarveklassifikaator). Esimese kehtestab Vabariigi Valitsus, teise valdkonna eest vastutav minister. Põhiseadusliku institutsiooni eelarve tegevuspõhise liigendamise otsustab Vabariigi Valitsus põhiseadusliku institutsiooni algatusel. Selle liigenduse raames toimub vahendite jaotamine vastavalt RES §-le 31.
 Samuti võidakse riigieelarves anda õigusi teha kõrvalekaldeid ettenähtud kulukirjest. RES § 32 lubab ette näha “piirmäärata vahendid“, mis tähendab, et väljamakseid võib teha vastavalt väljamakse aluseks oleva tulu laekumisele või seaduses ettenähtule. RES § 33 näeb ette võimaluse kanda aasta lõpuks kasutamata kulu järgmisesse aastasse. Taoline paindlik regulatsioon on vajalik näiteks selleks, et vältida aasta lõpus kasutamata jäänud raha ebasihipärast kulutamist. RES § 56 lg 4 näeb ette, et riigieelarves moodustatakse Vabariigi Valitsuse reserv, millest tehakse eraldisi ettenägematuteks kuludeks, investeeringuteks ja finantseerimistehinguteks, mida ei ole võimalik riigieelarve eelnõu menetlemisel planeerida (RES § 58 lg 1). Kui eespool viidatud abinõud osutuvad siiski ebapiisavaks, peab valitsus algatama kehtiva riigieelarve muutmise.
 Kopeeri link 7.
 Kehtivat riigieelarvet saab aasta kestel muuta kahel viisil – eelarve muutmise ja lisaeelarve kaudu. Riigieelarve muutmisega on tegemist siis, kui muudetakse kulude otstarvet, kuid kulude üldsumma jääb samaks (RES § 43 lg 1). Kui eelarve kulude kogumaht suureneb või väheneb, siis tuleb vastu võtta lisaeelarve (RES § 44 lg 1). Aasta jooksul võib vastu võtta ka mitu lisaeelarvet ja eelarve muudatust. Kui tavaliselt kasutatakse lisaeelarvet kavandatust paremini laekunud tulude täiendavaks jagamiseks, siis negatiivseid lisaeelarveid, millega vähendatakse eelarve tulude ja kulude mahtu, on tulnud Eestis vastu võtta 1999., 2008. ja 2009. aastal.
 Nii riigieelarve muutmise seaduse eelnõu kui ka lisaeelarve menetlemine käib RES kohaselt põhimõtteliselt ühtemoodi. Riigieelarve kulusid suurendava lisaeelarve eelnõu esitatakse Riigikogule hiljemalt kolm kuud enne eelarveaasta lõppu. Riigieelarve kulusid vähendava lisaeelarve eelnõu tuleb Riigikogule esitada vähemalt kaks kuud enne eelarveaasta lõppu. Piirangud ei kehti, kui eelarve muutmine või lisaeelarve koostamine toimub eriolukorra, erakorralise seisukorra, sõjaseisukorra või mobilisatsiooni väljakuulutamise tõttu. Lisaeelarve eelnõu saab Riigikogus algatada ainult Vabariigi Valitsus ning lisaeelarve koostamisel tuleb läbida ettevalmistav protseduur sarnaselt põhieelarvega (nt kooskõlastamised Rahandusministeeriumis jne; vt RES §-d 34–38). Riigieelarve muutmist võivad algatada ka teised PS §-s 103 loetletud institutsioonid, kuid sealjuures tuleb arvestada PS §-s 116 toodud nõuet lisada rahalised arvestused, mis näitaksid muudatuste katteallikaid.
 Eestis on eelarve täitmisel ettetulevate kõrvalekallete puhul ainsaks lahenduseks kas eelarve muutmine või lisaeelarve vastuvõtmine Riigikogus. Ei valitsusel ega presidendil ole õigust muuta riigieelarvet isegi mitte sõjaseisukorra ajal. Vabariigi Valitsusel on võimalus sõjaseisukorra ajal taotleda Riigikogult riigieelarve assigneeringute ümberjagamist või esitada riigieelarve muutmise seaduse või sõjaaja lisaeelarve eelnõu (SRKS § 9 lg 1). Ainult siis, kui Riigikogu ei saa kokku tulla, on valitsusel õigus ise ümber jaotada riigikaitselistel eesmärkidel riigieelarve vahendeid või teha täiendavaid kulusid, investeeringuid ja finantseerimistehinguid, milleks riigieelarves ei ole vahendeid ette nähtud või mille tegemiseks riigieelarve vahenditest ei jätku (SRKS § 9 lg 3). Sellisel juhul peab valitsus esimesel võimalusel esitama vastava eelarve muutmise eelnõu Riigikogule kinnitamiseks.
 Paragrahv 114
 Paragrahv 116


type: wikipedia

text:
 Události
 Konrád I. Brněnský převzal vládu nad nově vytvořeným brněnským údělem
 v Szekszárdu byl založen benediktinský klášter
 zvolen papež Alexandr II.
 Úmrtí
 28. leden – Spytihněv II., český kníže (* 1031)
 19. červenec nebo 27. červenec – Mikuláš II., papež (* ?)
 ? – Izák I. Komnenos, byzantský císař (* 1005)
 ? – Humbert de Silva Candida, francouzský kardinál (* asi 1010)
 Hlavy států
 České knížectví – Spytihněv II. / Vratislav II.
 Papež – Mikuláš II. / Alexandr II. – Honorius II. (vzdoropapež)
 Svatá říše římská – Jindřich IV.
 Anglické království – Eduard III. Vyznavač
 Aragonské království – Ramiro I.
 Barcelonské hrabství – Ramon Berenguer I. Starý
 Burgundské vévodství – Robert I. Starý
 Byzantská říše – Konstantin X. Dukas
 Dánské království – Sven II. Estridsen
 Francouzské království – Filip I.
 Kyjevská Rus – Izjaslav I. Jaroslavič
 Kastilské království – Ferdinand I. Veliký
 Leonské království – Ferdinand I. Veliký
 Navarrské království – Sancho IV.
 Norské království – Harald III. Hardrada
 Polské knížectví – Boleslav II. Smělý
 Skotské království – Malcolm III.
 Švédské království – Stenkil
 Uherské království – Ondřej I. / Béla I. Uherský
 Externí odkazy
 11. století


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 15.2.2014
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 C 45/47
 Recours introduit le 12 décembre 2013 — ZZ/AFE
 (Affaire F-120/13)
 2014/C 45/88
 Langue de procédure: le français
 Parties
 Partie requérante: ZZ (représentant: S. Pappas, avocat)
 Partie défenderesse: Agence ferroviaire européenne (AFE)
 Objet et description du litige
 L’annulation de la décision de ne pas renouveler le contrat d’agent temporaire de la requérante.
 Conclusions de la partie requérante
 —
 Annuler la décision de ne pas renouveler le contrat d’agent temporaire de la requérante au sein de l’agence;
 —
 condamner l’agence aux dépens.


type: contracts

text:
 21.2.2008
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 L 47/51
 EEZ APVIENOTĀS KOMITEJAS LĒMUMS
 Nr. 124/2007
 (2007. gada 28. septembris),
 ar ko groza EEZ līguma XX pielikumu (Vide)
 EEZ APVIENOTĀ KOMITEJA,
 ņemot vērā Eiropas Ekonomikas zonas līgumu, kurā grozījumi izdarīti ar Protokolu, ar ko pielāgo Eiropas Ekonomikas zonas līgumu, turpmāk – “Līgums”, un jo īpaši tā 98. pantu,
 tā kā:
 (1)
 Līguma XX pielikums ir grozīts ar EEZ Apvienotās komitejas 2007. gada 6. jūlija Lēmumu Nr. 92/2007. (1)
 (2)
 Līgumā jāiekļauj Komisijas 2007. gada 29. marta Lēmums 2007/207/EK, ar ko groza Lēmumus 2001/405/EK, 2002/255/EK, 2002/371/EK, 2004/669/EK, 2003/31/EK un 2000/45/EK, lai pagarinātu ekoloģisko kritēriju spēkā esamību Kopienas ekomarķējuma piešķiršanai dažiem ražojumiem (2),
 IR NOLĒMUSI ŠĀDI.
 1. pants
 Līguma XX pielikumu groza šādi.
 1.
 Šādu ievilkumu iekļauj 2.b punktā (Komisijas Lēmums 2000/45/EK), 2.i punktā (Komisijas Lēmums 2001/405/EK) un 2.j punktā (Komisijas Lēmums 2002/255/EK):
 “—
 32007 D 0207: Komisijas 2007. gada 29. marta Lēmums 2007/207/EK (OV L 92, 3.4.2007., 16. lpp.).”
 2.
 Šādu tekstu iekļauj 2.f punktā (Komisijas Lēmums 2002/371/EK), 2.h punktā (Komisijas Lēmums 2003/31/EK) un 2.n punktā (Komisijas Lēmums 2004/669/EK):
 “, kas grozīts ar:
 —
 32007 D 0207: Komisijas 2007. gada 29. marta Lēmumu 2007/207/EK (OV L 92, 3.4.2007., 16. lpp.).”
 2. pants
 Lēmuma 2007/207/EK teksts īslandiešu un norvēģu valodā, kas jāpublicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ pielikumā, ir autentisks.
 3. pants
 Šis lēmums stājas spēkā 2007. gada 29. septembrī, ja EEZ Apvienotajai komitejai ir iesniegti visi paziņojumi saskaņā ar Līguma 103. panta 1. punktu (3).
 4. pants
 Šo lēmumu publicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ iedaļā un tā EEZ pielikumā.
 Briselē, 2007. gada 28. septembrī
 EEZ Apvienotās komitejas vārdā –
 priekšsēdētājs
 Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON
 (1) OV L 328, 13.12.2007., 42. lpp.
 (2) OV L 92, 3.4.2007., 16. lpp.
 (3) Konstitucionālās prasības nav norādītas.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance\n the Favorable Productivity Trends\n for Audits Initiated by the\n Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n August 5, 2009\n\n Reference Number: 2009-30-105\n\n\n\n\n This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process\n and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.\n\n\n\n Phone Number | 202-622-6500\n Email Address | inquiries@tigta.treas.gov\n Web Site | http://www.tigta.gov\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n\n\n\n\nTREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL\n FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n August 5, 2009\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED\n DIVISION\n\n FROM: Michael R. Phillips\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated by the Updated\n Return Selection Formulas (Audit # 200830030)\n\n This report presents the results of our review to determine the status of using National Research\n Program1 data to select individual returns for examination in the Small Business/Self-Employed\n (SB/SE) Division and the impact the data are having on examination results. The review was\n part of our risk-based audit coverage for Fiscal Year 2008 under the major management\n challenge of Tax Compliance Initiatives.\n\n Impact on the Taxpayer\n Fewer examinations initiated by the updated Discriminant Index Function (DIF)2 formulas are\n being closed with no recommended tax changes, which indicates that the Internal Revenue\n Service (IRS) is better focusing its examination resources on returns posing the greatest\n compliance risk and not burdening compliant taxpayers with an examination. SB/SE Division\n statistics also indicate that taxpayers are agreeing with more of the additional taxes\n recommended in examinations initiated by the updated DIF formulas. This is important because\n the additional taxes owed from agreed examinations are far more likely to be collected than those\n that are assessed by default or disputed and appealed through the IRS administrative processes or\n the courts.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n See Appendix IV for a glossary of terms.\n 2\n In this report, the term DIF examinations includes returns related to those originally selected for examination.\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\nSynopsis\nThe IRS considers the National Research Program very important, and the SB/SE Division\nreflected this priority in the emphasis given to using the updated DIF formulas developed from\nNational Research Program data to select returns for examination. The updated formulas were\nfirst used to score individual tax returns in Processing Year 2006, and by the end of Fiscal\nYear 2008 SB/SE Division statistics show the number of DIF initiated examinations is\nincreasing, especially among Revenue Agents (RA).\nWhen compared to earlier DIF initiated examinations, SB/SE Division statistics show that\nexamination productivity continued favorable trends since the updated DIF formulas were\nintroduced. The combined RA and Tax Compliance Officer results show DIF initiated\nexaminations are yielding higher recommended additional taxes, both on an hourly and return\nbasis, and are generating higher examination agreement rates. Statistics also show that the\npercentage of no-change examinations has decreased since the updated DIF formulas were\nintroduced.\nWhile overall examination productivity is trending favorably for DIF initiated examinations, the\nresults are mixed for those closed by RAs. Before the updated formulas were introduced, DIF\ninitiated examinations closed by RAs generated more recommended additional taxes and lower\nno-change rates for most of the five previous periods analyzed. Comparatively, Tax Compliance\nOfficer results show higher recommended additional taxes on a return and hourly basis and a\nlower no-change rate after the updated DIF formulas were introduced.\nThe differences noted in the productivity trends between RAs and Tax Compliance Officers\nsuggest there may be opportunities to improve how effectively returns are screened (i.e., finding\nquestionable items that need to be audited) once delivered to RA groups in the field. Like\nexaminations, return screening at the group level is extremely important because RAs and their\nmanagers ultimately decide which DIF selected returns are examined. Unlike controls over\nexaminations, return screening controls are less formalized and rely heavily on the judgment and\nexperience of individual RAs and their managers. Neither RAs nor their managers are required\nto document the reasons for rejecting (surveying) DIF selected returns. In addition, there is no\nfeedback process in place to evaluate the quality or appropriateness of the survey decisions.\nSince the updated DIF formulas were introduced, RAs and their managers have surveyed\n15,483 DIF selected returns after they were delivered to the group. One-third of the surveys\ninvolved returns reporting $200,000 or more of income, which is a segment of the return\npopulation (high-income individuals) where the IRS believes there is a need for more\nexamination coverage. If controls were strengthened so that survey decisions based on low audit\npotential were adequately supported to allow evaluation, the advantages would likely outweigh\nthe disadvantages.\n\n\n 2\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\nIn terms of advantages, the documentation and feedback might identify potential opportunities to\nenhance revenue and reduce taxpayer burden by better ensuring that RAs and their managers are,\nin fact, only surveying returns with limited or no audit potential and not surveying returns that\nshould be examined because they pose a high compliance risk. Using the recommended taxes\ngenerated by RAs on a return basis in Processing Year 2006 and constant dollars, we estimate\nthat even a modest 4 percent reduction in the no-change rate for DIF initiated audits over the\nnext 5 years would generate an additional $18.7 million in recommended taxes. The no-change\nreduction would also eliminate the burden associated with an examination on an estimated\n1,341 compliant taxpayers.\n\nRecommendation\nTo determine the extent that decisions to survey DIF selected returns based on low examination\npotential may be affecting examination productivity indicators, we recommended that the\nDirector, Examination, establish a process, at least on a test basis, to evaluate the quality and\nappropriateness of those decisions.\n\nResponse\nIRS management agreed with our recommendation and will conduct a review of surveyed DIF\nreturns using a modified Income Tax Survey After Assignment (Form 1900). IRS management\nalso noted that our recommendation will strengthen the SB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s understanding of the\nreasons DIF returns are surveyed. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the draft report is\nincluded as Appendix V.\nCopies of this report are also being sent to IRS managers affected by the report recommendation.\nPlease contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Margaret E. Begg, Assistant\nInspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement Operations), at (202) 622-8510.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nBackground ..........................................................................................................Page 1\n\nResults of Review ...............................................................................................Page 3\n The Small Business/Self-Employed Division Is Taking Advantage\n of National Research Program Data to Select Returns for Examination ......Page 3\n The Number of Returns Identified for Examination but Subsequently\n Rejected Due to Low Examination Potential Warrants Closer Scrutiny ......Page 6\n Recommendation 1:..........................................................Page 9\n\n\nAppendices\n Appendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objectives, Scope, and Methodology.......................Page 11\n Appendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ........................................Page 13\n Appendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List .......................................................Page 14\n Appendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Glossary of Terms................................................................Page 15\n Appendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report .......................Page 16\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n\n Abbreviations\n\nAIMS Audit Information Management System\nDIF Discriminant Index Function\nFY Fiscal Year\nIRS Internal Revenue Service\nNRP National Research Program\nPY Processing Year\nRA Revenue Agent\nSB/SE Small Business/Self-Employed Division\nTCO Tax Compliance Officer\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n\n Background\n\nThe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) established the\n The first NRP study produced\nNational Research Program1 (NRP) in 2000 to resume critical data that were used to\nmeasuring taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99 voluntary compliance, better update IRS screening formulas\napproximate the tax gap, and develop updated formulas that select likely noncompliant\nto select noncompliant returns for examination. In individual tax returns for\n examination.\nprevious years, the IRS gathered taxpayer compliance\ndata through Taxpayer Compliance Measurement\nProgram examinations. However, many external stakeholders, including Congress and taxpayer\nrepresentative associations, believed that the Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program,\nwhich included a line-by-line examination of each item on a tax return, was too intensive and a\nsignificant burden on the taxpayers with returns selected for the program. The last Taxpayer\nCompliance Measurement Program examinations for individual taxpayers were conducted using\ntax returns filed in 1988.\nSince its inception, the NRP has strived to minimize the burden on the taxpayers selected for its\nstudies. To meet this objective, NRP personnel accessed the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 automated information\nsystems to collect and analyze IRS and third-party information before making contact with\ntaxpayers. This case building process enables the IRS to obtain a more complete picture of a\ntaxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s financial situation and limit the information that must be requested from taxpayers\nonce contact is initiated. According to a Government Accountability Office report,2 the IRS was\ncarrying out the initial NRP study in accordance with plans formalized in 2002. The plans\nincluded identifying and training more than 3,000 examiners and establishing quality assurance\nchecks to help ensure consistent and accurate data collection.\nThe NRP completed the study of individual reporting compliance in 2006 and released an initial\ntax gap estimate based on reviewing about 46,000 randomly selected Tax Year 2001 individual\ntax returns. According to the NRP estimate, the annual tax gap was $345 billion and the largest\nidentified portion of the gap ($197 billion, or 57 percent) was attributed to individuals\nunderreporting their income. Besides the updated tax gap estimate, the NRP study also produced\ncritical data that were used to update the Discriminant Index Function (DIF) formulas to help\nclose the $197 billion tax gap attributed to individual underreporting.\nThe DIF formulas are used to calculate and assign a DIF score for all individual returns based on\ntheir examination potential. The higher the score, the greater the chance an examination will\n\n1\n See Appendix IV for a glossary of terms.\n2\n Tax Administration: IRS Is Implementing the National Research Program as Planned (GAO-03-614, dated\nJune 2003).\n Page 1\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\nresult in a material tax change. After the DIF assigns a score, the returns with the highest scores\nare evaluated by classifiers. These classifiers, who are experienced examiners, determine which\nreturns are most in need of examination and, through examination, will promote the highest\ndegree of voluntary compliance. In some instances, they may also select the issues to be covered\nduring the examination.\nOnce the decision is made that an examination is warranted, the returns are forwarded to either a\nRevenue Agent (RA) or Tax Compliance Officer (TCO) based on the type of return and issues\ninvolved. In general, RAs conduct examinations involving more complex issues related to\nbusiness individuals and of individuals with higher income levels. After being received in the\ngroup, the return is screened again by the group manager and either an RA or TCO. During this\nfinal screening, an examination is initiated or the return is eliminated from the DIF selected audit\nstream.\nThis review was performed in the IRS Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division\nHeadquarters Office in New Carrollton, Maryland, and at the IRS Office of Research, Analysis,\nand Statistics in Washington, D.C., during the period April 2008 through January 2009. We\nconducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing\nstandards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,\nappropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our\naudit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our\nfindings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Detailed information on our audit\nobjectives, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major contributors to the report\nare listed in Appendix II.\n\n\n\n\n Page 2\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n\n Results of Review\n\nOverall, statistics in the SB/SE Division show that examination productivity is improving for\nindividual returns selected by the updated DIF formulas. However, the number of returns that\nthe DIF is identifying for examination but are subsequently rejected due to low examination\npotential warrants closer scrutiny.\n\nThe Small Business/Self-Employed Division Is Taking Advantage of\nNational Research Program Data to Select Returns for Examination\nThe IRS considers the NRP very important, and the SB/SE Division reflected this priority in the\nemphasis given to using the updated DIF formulas developed from NRP data to select returns for\nexamination. The updated formulas were first used to score individual tax returns in Processing\nYear (PY) 2006, and by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 SB/SE Division statistics show the\nnumber of DIF initiated examinations3 conducted by RAs is increasing. Although the number of\nRAs remained about the same, Figure 1 shows there was a considerable increase (49 percent)\nfrom FY 2007 to 2008 in the number of RA examinations initiated by DIF as well as an overall\nincrease in the number of examinations closed in FY 2008.\n Figure 1: SB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s Individual Tax Return Examination Closures in\n FYs 2007 and 2008\n\n RA RA TCO TCO\n FY DIF Initiated Other* DIF Initiated Other* Totals\n 2007 27,945 69,784 53,889 72,088 223,706\n\n 2008 41,644 72,012 61,658 67,229 242,543\n\n Totals 69,589 141,796 115,547 139,317 466,249\n\n* Other: Examinations can be initiated from a variety of sources including potentially abusive transactions,\nstudies/research projects, and third-party document matching.\nSource: Our analysis of closed examination data from the IRS Audit Information Management System (AIMS) for\nFYs 2007 and 2008.\n\nSB/SE Division statistics additionally indicate that taxpayers agreed with more of the additional\ntaxes recommended in examinations initiated by the updated DIF formulas. In FY 2008, the\nnumber of agreed DIF initiated examinations increased 76 percent from a comparable period\nending in FY 2005. From a revenue collection perspective, this is important because the\n\n\n3\n In this report, the term DIF initiated examinations includes related returns.\n Page 3\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\nadditional taxes owed from agreed examinations are far more likely to be collected than those\nthat are either assessed by default or disputed and appealed through the IRS administrative\nprocesses or the courts. To illustrate, we evaluated the collections from a random sample of\n30 closed examinations for which the taxpayers agreed with the results (agreed assessments) and\n30 examinations for which the taxes were assessed by default during FY 2004. Our evaluation,\nsummarized in Figure 2, shows that even though more than 200 percent more taxes were owed\nfrom the defaulted assessments, the agreed assessments produced 184 percent more revenue.\nFigure 2 additionally shows that almost all (99.8 percent) of the additional taxes, penalties, and\ninterest recommended in the agreed examinations have been collected, while the vast majority\n(75 percent) of the taxes, penalties, and interest owed from the defaulted examinations remains\noutstanding.\n Figure 2: Comparison Between the Amount of Assessments Collected From\n FY 2004 Agreed and Defaulted Examinations Through March 1, 2009\n\n Type of Number of Total Total Percentage\n Closure Examinations Assessed Collected Collected\n Agreed 30 $438,123.88 $437,117.08 99.8\n Default 30 $949,753.06 $237,237.34 25.0\nSource: Our analyses of random pilot samples of agreed and default cases.\n\nBesides finding the SB/SE Division is conducting more DIF initiated examinations and obtaining\nmore agreements, our comparative analysis shows key examination productivity indicators are\ntrending favorably since the updated DIF formulas were introduced. When compared to earlier\nDIF initiated examinations, RA and TCO combined results show that under the updated\nformulas, DIF initiated examinations are yielding higher recommended additional taxes, both on\nan hourly and return basis, and are resulting in fewer closures with no recommended tax changes\n(no-change examinations).\n\nOverall, productivity indicators are trending favorably for DIF initiated\nexaminations\nIt is important to note that the periods included in our comparative analysis are based on\nPYs 2001 through 2006 and the 2 succeeding fiscal years for each processing year when the\nexaminations were completed and the results recorded in the IRS AIMS. We conducted our\nanalysis in this manner to present a fair and meaningful comparison because at the time of our\nreview only 2 fiscal years (2007 and 2008) of examinations had been completed after the\nupdated formulas were implemented in PY 2006. Consequently, examinations open longer than\nthe 2 fiscal years following the year in which the examined tax return was processed are not\nincluded in our analysis. We also believe it is important to recognize that, due to various other\nongoing initiatives that the SB/SE Division has implemented to enhance the examination\nprocess, we were unable to isolate the impact on examination productivity from the updated\n Page 4\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\nformulas with any degree of preciseness. These initiatives included an increased emphasis on\nlimiting the scope of examinations to just the issues posing the greatest compliance risk and\nusing a fast track settlement process to resolve disputes.\nOne measure of examination productivity is the amount of additional taxes recommended for\neach return examined. Overall, we found that the recommended additional taxes on a return\nbasis continued to increase for DIF initiated examinations after the updated formulas were\nintroduced in PY 2006. As Figure 3 shows, the recommended additional taxes increased\n72 percent from a low of $4,753 in PY 2003 to $8,193 in PY 2006. Our analysis also shows that\nRA examinations resulted in as much as two to three times more additional tax recommended per\nreturn than those conducted by TCOs. A factor likely contributing to the difference is the types\nof returns the examiners generally are assigned to examine. In general, RAs conduct more\nexaminations of business individuals and of individuals with higher income levels. Typically,\nexaminations of business individuals and those at higher income levels result in higher additional\nrecommended taxes per return than examinations of nonbusiness individuals and those at lower\nincome levels.\n Figure 3: Additional Taxes Recommended by RAs and TCOs Per Return\n for PYs 2001 Through 2006\n Recommended Dollars per\n\n\n\n\n $10,000\n $8,193\n Closed Return\n\n\n\n\n $8,000\n $7,051\n $6,000 $5,845\n $5,262 $4,753 $5,122\n $4,000\n $2,000\n $0\n 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006\n Processing Year\n\n\n Source: Our analysis of closed examination data for PYs 2001 through 2006 returns from the IRS AIMS for\n FYs 2002 through 2008.\n\nTwo other examination productivity indicators are the amount of additional taxes recommended\nfor each direct examination hour used to examine the return and the percentage of examinations\nclosed as a no-change. Concerning the amount of additional taxes recommended for each direct\nexamination hour used to examine the return, we found the examinations initiated under the\nupdated DIF formulas resulted, on average, in a modest increase of about 11 percent more\nadditional recommended taxes than the DIF examinations closed in earlier periods. Additionally,\nthere was a decline in the percentage of no-change examinations initiated under the new\nformulas, as reflected in Figure 4. The reduction in the percentage of no-change examinations is\nnotable because it indicates that the IRS is better focusing its examination resources on returns\n\n\n Page 5\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\nposing the greatest compliance risk and not burdening as many compliant taxpayers with an\nexamination.\n Figure 4: Combined Percentage of RA and TCO DIF Initiated No-Change\n Examinations in PYs 2001 Through 2006\n Percentage of No-Change\n\n\n\n\n 20%\n 18%\n 15% 15% 14%\n Returns\n\n\n\n\n 13% 12% 13%\n 10%\n\n 5%\n\n 0%\n 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006\n Processing Year\n\n\nSource: Our analysis of closed examination data for PYs 2001 through 2006 returns from the IRS AIMS for\nFYs 2001 through 2008.\n\nWhile overall examination productivity is trending favorably for DIF initiated examinations, the\nresults are mixed for those closed by RAs. In most of the 5 processing years before the updated\nformulas were introduced, DIF initiated examinations closed by RAs generated more\nrecommended additional taxes and had lower no-change rates.\n\nThe Number of Returns Identified for Examination but Subsequently\nRejected Due to Low Examination Potential Warrants Closer Scrutiny\nIn 4 of the 5 processing years (2001 through 2005) before the updated DIF formulas were\nintroduced, our comparative analysis shows the DIF initiated examinations closed by RAs\ngenerated higher recommended additional taxes on an hourly and return basis than those\nexaminations after the DIF formulas were updated. We also found the RA no-change rate was\nlower in 3 of the 5 processing years before the updated formulas were introduced.\nComparatively, TCO results are trending more favorably. Their recommended additional taxes\non a return and hourly basis were higher and no-change rate lower after the updated DIF\nformulas were introduced in PY 2006. Figure 5 summarizes the RA and TCO recommended\nadditional taxes and no-change rates in PYs 2001 through 2006.\n\n\n\n\n Page 6\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n Figure 5: RA and TCO Recommended Additional Taxes and No-Change Rates\n From DIF Initiated Examinations in PYs 2001 Through 2006\n\n Revenue Agent Tax Compliance Officer\n Processing Dollars per Dollars per No-Change Dollars per Dollars per No-Change\n Year Hour Return Rate Hour Return Rate\n 2001 436 15,724 15 % 395 3,851 19 %\n 2002 683 17,552 7% 395 3,996 14 %\n\n 2003 508 15,083 15 % 415 4,114 12 %\n\n 2004 310 10,648 25 % 435 3,881 13 %\n\n 2005 440 14,322 22 % 513 4,417 11 %\n\n 2006 420 13,654 19 % 594 5,130 9%\n\n Average\n for All PYs 423 13,863 19 % 458 4,254 13 %\n\nSource: Our analysis of closed examination data for PYs 2001 through 2006 returns from the IRS AIMS for\nFYs 2002 through 2008.\n\nThe differences noted in the productivity trends between RAs and TCOs suggest there may be\nopportunities to improve how RAs are examining the returns and/or how effectively returns are\nscreened (i.e., finding questionable items that need to be examined) once delivered to RA groups\nin the field. Although we did not review case files to evaluate the quality of examinations\nconducted by either RAs or TCOs, the SB/SE Division has controls in place that are designed to\nensure examinations are meeting standards and potential problems with the technical aspects of\nexaminations are identified so corrective actions can be initiated.\nOne control used by the SB/SE Division to measure how well examiners are meeting the\ntechnical and procedural aspects of examinations is the National Quality Review System. Under\nthis system, examiners are required to fully document examination case files showing the issues\nconsidered and the decision process followed in reaching conclusions. From a control\nperspective, this documentation is critical because it provides the principal support for the\ndecisions made about how much, if any, additional taxes are owed by the taxpayer. The\ndocumentation is also used by National Quality Review System reviewers as the basis for\nevaluating samples of closed examinations against auditing standards and advising management\nof potential problems so needed corrective actions can be taken.\nLike examinations, return screening at the group level is extremely important because RAs and\ntheir managers ultimately decide which DIF selected returns are examined. Consequently,\nselecting returns for examination that pose little or no compliance risk can have a direct adverse\n\n\n Page 7\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\neffect on the amount of recommended additional taxes, no-change rates, and taxpayer burden,\nregardless of how well the technical and procedural aspects of the examinations are performed.\nUnlike controls over examinations, return screening controls are less formalized and rely heavily\non the judgment and experience of individual RAs and their managers. Although RAs and their\nmanagers can reject (survey) a DIF selected return for a number of reasons, neither are required\nto document the reason for the survey. For example, RAs and their managers can survey a return\nto avoid repetitively auditing the same taxpayer. They can also survey a return because they\nbelieve it has limited audit potential, even though the DIF formulas and a classifier have\nindicated otherwise. Besides limited documentation, there is no feedback process in place to\nevaluate the quality or appropriateness of the survey decisions. The reliance on judgment and\nexperience when combined with the absence of a feedback process can be particularly\nproblematic in today\xe2\x80\x99s environment because the IRS is increasingly hiring new RAs and\npromoting others as new managers to replace the growing loss of experienced RAs and managers\nto retirement.\nSince the updated DIF formulas were introduced, SB/SE Division statistics show RAs and their\nmanagers have surveyed 15,483 DIF selected returns due to limited examination potential. As\nFigure 6 shows, one-third of the surveys involved returns reporting $200,000 or more of income,\nwhich is a segment of the return population (high-income individuals) the IRS believes needs\nmore examination coverage. We believe that if controls were established so that survey\ndecisions based on low examination potential were adequately supported to allow evaluation, the\nadvantages would likely outweigh the disadvantages.\n Figure 6: Individual Returns Selected by the Updated DIF Formulas\n in PYs 2006 through 2008 and Subsequently Surveyed at the RA Group\n Level Due to Low Examination Potential\n\n RA Manager Total\n Types of Returns Surveys Surveys Surveys\n Nonbusiness \xe2\x80\x93 Total Positive Income less than $200,000. 132 202 334\n Business \xe2\x80\x93 Total Positive Income less than $200,000 3,423 6,443 9,866\n\n Subtotal - Total Positive Income less than $200,000 3,555 6,645 10,200\n Nonbusiness \xe2\x80\x93 Total Positive Income of $200,000 but less than $1 million 158 286 444\n Business \xe2\x80\x93 Total Positive Income of $200,000 but less than $1 million. 1,345 1,895 3,240\n Nonbusiness and Business \xe2\x80\x93 Total Positive Income of $1 million or more 881 718 1,599\n\n Subtotal \xe2\x80\x93 Total Positive Income greater than $200,000 2,384 2,899 5,283\n\n Grand Total 5,939 9,544 15,483\n\nSource: Our analysis of closed nonexamined return data for PYs 2006 through 2008 returns from the IRS AIMS for\nFYs 2006 through 2008.\n\n Page 8\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\nIn terms of advantages, the documentation and feedback might identify potential opportunities to\nenhance revenue and reduce taxpayer burden by better ensuring that RAs and their managers are,\nin fact, only surveying returns with limited or no audit potential and not surveying returns that\nshould be examined because they pose a high compliance risk. Using the recommended taxes\ngenerated by RAs on a return basis in PY 2006 and constant dollars, we estimate that even a\nmodest 4 percent reduction in the no-change rate for DIF initiated examinations over the next\n5 years would generate an additional $18.7 million in recommended taxes. The no-change\nreduction would also eliminate the burden associated with an examination on an estimated\n1,341 compliant taxpayers. Moreover, having the documentation and a feedback process in\nplace would be in line with the Federal Government\xe2\x80\x99s control standards, which require\nestablishing controls to provide assurances that work is carried out in accordance with the intent\nof policies and procedures management has in place.\nThe primary disadvantages involve the time spent documenting the support for the survey\ndecision and evaluating the appropriateness of the decision in relation to the support provided.\nWhile we do not have specific evidence to support this position, we believe the time and\nresources spent documenting and evaluating survey decisions could be mitigated by expanding\non existing work practices. Moreover, the documentation and evaluation could be limited to a\ntest period and involve only certain types of DIF selected returns, such as those involving\nhigh-income individuals.\nAccording to the IRS procedures, RAs and managers already consider such factors as\ncompliance risk, materiality, and potential dollar yields in deciding to survey DIF selected\nreturns based on examination potential. Consequently, the documentation could be limited to\nrecording the factors considered and conclusions reached on the existing Income Tax Survey\nAfter Assignment (Form 1900). Currently, the Form 1900 is mandatory for surveying some\ntop-priority returns, such as returns included in NRP compliance studies, and is forwarded to\nSB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s Planning and Special Procedures Office where the survey decision is reviewed\nagainst established criteria.\n\nRecommendation\nRecommendation 1: To determine the extent that survey decisions based on low examination\npotential may be affecting examination productivity indicators, we recommend that the Director,\nExamination, establish a process, at least on a test basis, to evaluate the quality and\nappropriateness of the survey decisions made by RAs and their managers on DIF selected returns\nso that corrective actions, if needed, can be identified and taken.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management agreed with our recommendation and\n will conduct a review of surveyed DIF returns using a modified Form 1900 that includes\n a listing of common reasons returns are surveyed. Based upon the results of the review,\n the SB/SE Division will take appropriate actions. IRS management also noted that our\n\n Page 9\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\nrecommendation will strengthen the SB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s understanding of the reasons DIF\nreturns are surveyed.\n\n\n\n\n Page 10\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n Appendix I\n\n Detailed Objectives, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe overall objectives of this review were to determine the status of using NRP1 data to select\nindividual returns for examination in the SB/SE Division and the impact the data are having on\nexamination results. During the review, we relied on databases provided to us by the IRS. We\ndid not conduct audit tests to determine the accuracy and reliability of the information in any of\nthe databases. However, we did assess the completeness of the data as described below and\nconcluded the data were reliable and adequate to conduct our work. To accomplish our\nobjectives, we:\nI. Reviewed Government Accountability Office and Treasury Inspector General for Tax\n Administration reviews on NRP planning and implementation efforts, NRP newsletters,\n and SB/SE Division Strategic Plans for FYs 2008-2009 to gain an understanding of the\n history and current status of the NRP.\nII. Interviewed NRP officials on the process used to measure the performance of DIF and\n Examination function officials on the return survey process.\nIII. Analyzed IRS closed examination data for FYs 2007 and 2008 from AIMS relating to\n PY 2006 DIF identified and related returns. The analysis focused on 1) no-change rate\n for returns examined, 2) dollars recommended per examination hour, and 3) dollars\n recommended per return examined.\nIV. Reviewed a random sample2 of 30 agreed examination cases selected from a population\n of 25,464 cases shown as closed in FY 2004 on AIMS to determine the amount of\n assessed taxes as a result of the examination and the amount of taxes collected. We also\n reviewed a random sample3 of 30 unagreed examination cases selected from a population\n of 3,257 cases shown as closed in FY 2004 on AIMS to determine the amount of assessed\n taxes as a result of the examination and the amount of taxes collected. We compared the\n amounts of assessed taxes and collected taxes for both samples.\nV. Determined if examinations of PY 2006 computer-identified and related returns scored\n by the revised DIF formulas were more productive than the PYs 2001 to 2005 returns\n scored by the prior DIF formulas by analyzing FYs 2002 to 2007 closed AIMS data and\n focusing on 1) no-change rate for returns examined, 2) dollars recommended per\n examination hour, and 3) dollars recommended per return examined.\n\n1\n See Appendix IV for a glossary of terms.\n2\n A random sample was used to ensure that each case had an equal chance of selection.\n3\n A random sample was used to ensure that each case had an equal chance of selection.\n Page 11\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\nVI. Analyzed data on surveyed returns, including determining the number of returns with\n $200,000 or more in total positive income surveyed by managers and surveyed by\n examiners for PYs 2006 through 2008 using AIMS data from FYs 2006 through 2008 for\n returns closed and not examined by the IRS.\nVII. Assessed the methods used by the IRS National Headquarters Research function and the\n SB/SE Division Research function to measure the effectiveness of the revised DIF\n formulas using the Government Accountability Office\xe2\x80\x99s Standards for Internal Control in\n the Federal Government.\nVIII. Assessed the completeness of the closed AIMS data used to complete the above\n objectives.\n A. Reconciled the closed AIMS data for FYs 2002 through 2008 with the appropriate\n Table 37 Reports.\n B. Reconciled the closed AIMS and survey data with Master File data.\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n Appendix II\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nMargaret E. Begg, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement\nOperations)\nFrank Dunleavy, Director\nRobert Jenness, Audit Manager\nLisa Stoy, Audit Manager\nWilliam Tran, Lead Auditor\nTimothy Greiner, Senior Auditor\nDavid Hartman, Senior Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n Appendix III\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nCommissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE\nDeputy Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S\nDirector, Examination, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S:E\nDirector, National Research Program RAS:NRP\nChief Counsel CC\nNational Taxpayer Advocate TA\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nDirector, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O\nOffice of Internal Control OS:CFO:CPIC:IC\nAudit Liaison: Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n Appendix IV\n\n Glossary of Terms\n\nAudit Information Management System \xe2\x80\x93 A system that the IRS Examination function uses to\ncontrol returns, input assessments and adjustments to the Master File, and provide management\nreports.\nDiscriminant Index Function \xe2\x80\x93 Mathematical formulas used by the IRS to calculate and assign\na score for all individual returns based on their examination potential.\nFiscal Year \xe2\x80\x93 The IRS\xe2\x80\x99 Fiscal Year is a 12-month period which runs from October 1 to the\nfollowing September 30.\nMaster File \xe2\x80\x93 IRS database that stores various types of taxpayer account information. This\ndatabase includes individual, business, and employee plans and exempt organizations data.\nNational Research Program \xe2\x80\x93 Research conducted by the IRS to determine filing, payment,\nand reporting compliance by taxpayers for different types of taxes. The IRS established the\nprogram in the year 2000 to resume measuring taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99 voluntary compliance.\nNational Quality Review System \xe2\x80\x93 The SB/SE Division conducts case reviews from individual\naudits. The data collected from the reviews are input to the system for analysis on how well\nexaminers are meeting the technical and procedural aspects of examinations.\nProcessing Year \xe2\x80\x93 The calendar year in which a tax return is processed.\nRevenue Agents \xe2\x80\x93 Conduct examinations involving more complex issues related to business\nindividuals and individuals with higher income levels.\nTaxpayer Compliance Measurement Program \xe2\x80\x93 The IRS\xe2\x80\x99 method of data collection that\naudits every line on tax returns for a random sample of taxpayers.\nTax Compliance Officers \xe2\x80\x93 Conduct examinations on individuals\xe2\x80\x99 nonbusiness related, sole\nproprietorships, and individuals with business and other supplemental income.\nTax Year \xe2\x80\x93 Annual accounting period taxpayers use to keep records and report income and\nexpenses on their tax returns. For individuals, it is usually the same as the calendar year.\nTotal Positive Income \xe2\x80\x93 Calculated using only positive income values from specific income\nfields from a tax return and treating losses as zero.\n\n\n\n\n Page 15\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\n Favorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n Appendix V\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\x0c Potential Opportunities Exist to Enhance the\nFavorable Productivity Trends for Audits Initiated\n by the Updated Return Selection Formulas\n\n\n\n\n Page 17\n\x0c'