Actions Should Continue to Be Taken to Improve Compliance
With the Freedom of Information Act and Related Procedures
May 2002
Reference
Number: 2002-10-093
This report has cleared the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process and
information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted
from this document.
May
20, 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR
CHIEF, COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON
FROM: Pamela J. Gardiner /s/ Pamela J. Gardiner
Deputy Inspector General for
Audit
SUBJECT: Final Audit Report - Actions Should
Continue to Be Taken to Improve Compliance With the Freedom of Information Act
and Related Procedures (Audit #
200110049)
This
report presents the results of our review of denials of written requests to disclose
information to taxpayers. The overall
objective of this review was to determine if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
improperly withheld information requested by taxpayers in writing, based on the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption
(b)(3), in conjunction with Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6103 (2001),
and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7), or by replying that responsive records did not
exist.
In
summary, we found that the IRS improperly withheld information from requesters
in 10.6 percent of the denied, partially denied, or no responsive record FOIA
and Privacy Act (PA) of 1974 requests and
12.2 percent of the I.R.C. § 6103 requests where information was partially or
fully denied or requesters were told that records could not be located. In addition, responses to FOIA and PA
requesters were not timely in 22.7 percent of the cases in this year’s
sample. The reasons why the IRS
improperly withheld information for FOIA, PA, and I.R.C. § 6103 requests
remained consistent over the last 3 years. Additionally,
the types of information improperly withheld were similar during the past 3
years.
Management’s
Response: IRS Disclosure management agreed with the
observations made in the draft report.
Although we have not made specific recommendations in this report, the
management response to the draft report included corrective actions to address
the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s concerns. The corrective actions include identifying
offices requiring more oversight and providing additional training in those
areas, developing a skill assessment plan allowing managers to identify
deficiencies and apply corrective actions to improve employee performance,
developing formal Integrated Data Retrieval System training, and monitoring the
timeliness of responses on a monthly basis.
Management’s complete response to the draft report is included as
Appendix V.
Copies of this
report are also being sent to the IRS managers who are affected by the
report. Please contact me at (202)
622-6510 if you have questions or Daniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General
for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt Organizations Programs), at (202)
622-8500.
Additional Information Can Be Provided in Response to Taxpayers’ Written Requests for Information
Appendix I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix III – Report Distribution List
Appendix IV – Outcome Measures
Appendix V – Management’s Response to the Draft Report
Section 1102 (d)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98) requires the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to conduct periodic audits of a statistically valid sample of the total number of determinations made by the IRS to deny written requests to disclose information to taxpayers on the basis of Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6103 (2001) and/or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption (b)(7).
The FOIA requires that records of the Federal Government generally be available to the public upon request, unless specifically exempted. FOIA exemption (b)(3) regulates the release of records specifically exempt from disclosure by statute (e.g., I.R.C. § 6103). The I.R.C. § 6103 controls the release of tax returns and return information and provides a mechanism for taxpayers to request tax returns and return information or request that it be disclosed to a designee. FOIA exemption (b)(7) regulates the release of records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.
The Privacy Act (PA) of 1974 contains a provision that prevents Federal Government agencies from relying on any exemption in the PA to withhold from an individual any record that is otherwise available to that individual under the FOIA. As a result, we sampled cases requested under the PA, but partially or fully denied under FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or exemption (b)(7).
The IRS’ FOIA Annual Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 showed that of the 34,930 FOIA and PA cases processed, the IRS denied or partially denied 2,792 requests (8.0 percent), and replied that responsive records did not exist for 7,434 requests (21.3 percent). The remaining cases were either granted in full, referred to the agency where the records originated, withdrawn by the requester, or were not provided because the request did not meet the criteria in 26 C.F.R. § 601.702 (1998) or for some other miscellaneous reason.
Within the IRS, the Office of Governmental Liaison and Disclosure is responsible for the disclosure program. This office ensures that the IRS complies with the FOIA, PA, and I.R.C. § 6103 requirements; provides national oversight and guidance on procedural and policy matters to field offices; and provides related training.
Disclosure offices process almost all
FOIA and PA requests for information received by the IRS. Written requests for information under
I.R.C. § 6103 may be processed either by the disclosure offices or by the IRS
office that has custody of the requested records.
FOIA, PA, and I.R.C. § 6103 requests received by disclosure offices are
controlled on the Electronic Disclosure Information Management System
(E-DIMS). I.R.C. § 6103 requests
received by other IRS offices are not controlled on the E-DIMS.
The IRS is not required to track requests for return or
return information from taxpayers or individuals with a material interest (such
as a spouse, child, estate, etc.).
Although the IRS tracks requests received by the Office of Governmental
Liaison and Disclosure, requests received by other IRS offices are not
tracked. As a result, we statistically
sampled I.R.C. § 6103 requests received by the Office of Governmental Liaison
and Disclosure. The universe of I.R.C.
§ 6103 requests closed by other IRS offices could not be determined or
statistically sampled.
Except for the limitation described in the previous paragraph, this audit was performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards during the period September 2001 through February 2002. The audit was performed by interviewing disclosure officials at the IRS Office of Governmental Liaison and Disclosure and by reviewing samples of closed FOIA, PA, and I.R.C. § 6103 cases.
Detailed information on our audit objective, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.
The IRS did not always provide information that requesters were entitled to receive in response to their written inquiries under the FOIA, the PA, and the I.R.C. § 6103. As a result, taxpayers’ rights were potentially violated and the IRS is at risk of incurring unnecessary costs associated with administrative appeals and civil litigation initiated by requesters who were improperly denied information under the FOIA.
Table 1 shows the results of the two statistically valid samples.
Table 1 - Number of Improper Withholdings
in Samples
|
Type of Request |
Size of Sample |
Number of Cases With |
Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
|
FOIA/PA |
141 |
15 |
10.6 % |
|
I.R.C. § 6103 |
131 |
16 |
12.2 % |
Information
requested by taxpayers under the FOIA and the PA
We project, with 85 percent confidence, that the IRS improperly withheld
information from requesters in 458 FOIA and PA cases where information was
denied or partially denied based on I.R.C. § 6103 and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7)
or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available.
Chart 1 shows this year’s results of improper FOIA/PA withholdings compared to the prior two TIGTA reviews.
Chart 1 was removed due to its
size. To see the chart, please go to
the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
The reasons why the IRS improperly withheld information for FOIA and PA requests remained consistent over the last 3 years. For example, Disclosure personnel did not correctly interpret the FOIA and the I.R.C. § 6103 statutes when determining the type of information that should be withheld. Another primary reason was that Disclosure personnel did not always follow internal guidelines that specifically addressed the type of information that could be provided. A third common reason was that Disclosure personnel did not always adequately research IRS databases and, as a result, did not identify information responsive to the request.
Overall, the types of information improperly withheld were similar during the past 3 years. The most common types of information improperly withheld in each of our last three reviews included the following:
· Miscellaneous IRS forms and documentation – (20 instances or 26.3 percent) - This includes case inventory listings and penalty assessment documents.
· Tax transcript information – (18 instances or 23.7 percent) - This includes IRS database tax account transcript data, which contained some tax information that the requester was authorized to receive.
· Employee notes and/or case history notes – (11 instances or 14.5 percent) - This includes tax examiners’ and/or revenue officers’ case notes documenting tax assessment and collection activities.
· Routine office documents – (8 instances or 10.5 percent) - This includes documents used to send, record, or request information, such as facsimile and phone message sheets, routing slips, and pre-addressed mailing labels.
· IRS memoranda and letters – (8 instances or 10.5 percent).
In this year’s review, information in 15 of the 141 (10.6 percent) FOIA and PA cases in our random sample was improperly withheld. Some of the 15 cases had more than one reason for the improper withholding of information. These reasons included:
· In 18 instances, information was improperly withheld because the IRS did not correctly apply the FOIA statute and/or the I.R.C. § 6103. For example, in one case, the IRS improperly withheld return information based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103. Review of the withheld documents showed that the taxpayer’s representative was authorized to receive the return information and the information was within the scope of the request.
· In three instances, the IRS did not conduct a proper search for records. For example, a taxpayer requested copies of information from a specific IRS computer database for tax years 1995 through 1998. The IRS replied that there were no records responsive to the taxpayer’s request. However, review of that database showed that records for 1998 were available and should have been provided to the requester.
· In eight instances, the IRS did not follow Internal Revenue Manual guidelines. For example, a taxpayer requested copies of all documents relating to the audit of his return. The IRS withheld information regarding the assessment of a penalty that should have been released according to established guidelines.
Information
requested by taxpayers under I.R.C. § 6103
We project, with 85 percent confidence, that the IRS improperly withheld
information from requesters in 1,052 I.R.C. § 6103 cases where information was
denied or partially denied or requesters were told that records could not be
located.
Chart 2 shows this year’s results of improper § 6103 withholdings compared to the prior two TIGTA reviews.
Chart 2 was removed due to its size.
To see the chart, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on
the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Over the last 3 years, we identified three common reasons for the IRS improperly withholding information from I.R.C. § 6103 requesters. For example, we found that Disclosure personnel did not always fully address the request made when replying to the requester. In addition, the research performed to identify information responsive to the request was not always adequate. Finally, we found responses to I.R.C. § 6103 requests were not always reviewed by Disclosure management.
Overall, the types of improperly withheld information were similar during the past 3 years. The most common types of information improperly withheld in each of our last three reviews included the following:
· Adjusted gross income information – (13 instances or 23.2 percent).
· Filing information – (12 instances or 21.4 percent) - This includes whether a return was filed and the type of the return.
· Miscellaneous tax account information – (11 instances or 19.6 percent) - This includes penalty information, outstanding balances and payment information.
In this year’s review, information in 16 of the 131 (12.2 percent) I.R.C.
§ 6103 cases in our random sample was improperly withheld. For example:
·
In one case, a
state agency requested information regarding a taxpayer’s filing history for
multiple years with the taxpayer’s consent under I.R.C. § 6103(c). The IRS responded that it did not find any
return information for the years in question, even though the taxpayer filed a
joint return for those years and the records were available under the spouse’s
Social Security Number.
·
In another case, a
probation office requested a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income for the past 10
years with the taxpayer’s consent under I.R.C. § 6103(c). The IRS provided the adjusted gross income
for 3 of the 10 years; it stated that there was no record of filing for the
remaining 7 years. Research showed that
the information regarding 1 of the 7 years was readily available and should
have been provided to the requester.
The IRS did not always respond to FOIA and PA requesters within the time periods allowed by law. We project, with 85 percent confidence, that 977 FOIA and PA requests denied under FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7), or where the IRS replied that responsive records did not exist were not processed timely during the period January 1 through June 30, 2001. As a result, requesters were not provided with responses to their requests within the time required by law. This increases the risk of requesters filing civil actions against the IRS.
Although the TIGTA is not required by the RRA 98 to report on the timeliness of processing for FOIA/PA cases, federal agencies are required to respond to requests within specified time periods. As a result, we assessed the timeliness of responses to FOIA and PA requests during our first statutory review. Because of concerns related to the timeliness of responses identified during our initial review, we included audit testing related to timeliness in our subsequent reviews to assess the IRS’ progress in this area.
The IRS did not respond timely to 22.7 percent of the cases (32 of the 141) in the FOIA and PA random sample. Although the responses were not always timely, the extent of the untimeliness has improved over the last 3 years. As shown in Chart 3, the majority of untimely cases each year were less than or equal to 30 workdays late, and in our 2001 and 2002 reviews, the number of untimely cases over 30 workdays late continued to decline.
Chart 3 was removed due to its size.
To see the chart, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on
the TIGTA Public Web Page.
The FOIA requires Federal agencies, within 20 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of a FOIA request by the disclosure office, to respond to the person making the request. For PA requests, Federal agencies should respond within 30 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of the request by the disclosure office.
In unusual circumstances, the FOIA allows for an involuntary extension of 10 working days after the initial 20 days. Additionally, the agency may request one voluntary extension of these time periods, and if the requester agrees to the extension, the agency must notify the requester of its determination by the end of the extension period. The FOIA does not allow for multiple extension requests.
The factors contributing to the delays in responding to requests were similar to those cited in our 2000 and 2001 reports. Analysis of the 32 cases where responses were not provided timely in this year’s review showed that the IRS:
· Did not respond within the statutory time period and did not request an extension of time from the requester in 12 cases.
· Requested an extension from the requester but either did not request the extension timely or did not respond by the date provided for in the extension letter in 14 cases.
· Requested multiple extensions from the requester but either did not request the first extension timely or did not respond within the first extension period in six cases.
In 19 of the 32 untimely cases, there was no explanation for the delay in responding to the requester. However, two factors generally contributed to the delays in responding to the FOIA and PA requests in the remaining 13 cases. In nine cases, Disclosure personnel required information from other IRS functions (e.g., Collection, Examination, Criminal Investigation, etc.) to process the request. Due to delays in receiving the information from other IRS functions, Disclosure was not able to respond to the request timely. In the remaining four cases, Disclosure personnel needed additional time to copy and review voluminous documents, or higher priority requests were processed first.
In addition, 11 of the 32 untimely cases had long periods of inactivity (i.e., no actions were taken by Disclosure to fulfill these requests for extended periods of time). Analysis showed that these 11 cases had 1 or more periods of inactivity of at least 30 workdays.
As shown in Chart 4, the periods of inactivity have generally decreased over the past 3 years.
Chart 4 was removed due to its size. To see the chart, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
In previous reports, we
made several recommendations that addressed
the issues contained in this report.
For example, in our September 2000 report, we recommended that
Governmental Liaison and Disclosure personnel responding to I.R.C. § 6103
requests should be adequately trained in researching the main IRS database
containing taxpayer filing information.
Management responded that they would conduct a “skills assessment” to
determine the need for additional training in researching the IRS’
database. This skills assessment was
originally scheduled for completion by April 1, 2001. However, management has postponed the completion date until
November 1, 2002. This delay could
contribute to continued inadequate research of the IRS’ database and result in
more requesters being improperly denied information.
In addition, we
recommended in September 2000 that management
perform reviews of completed work.
Management indicated that instructions related to management reviews of
information requests were provided at a national meeting in November 2000. Also, management plans to update internal
procedures during their next formal revision.
However, management reviews can be more effectively performed based on
the number of cases where information was improperly withheld during the last 3
years.
These prior report recommendations are still valid for the issues
contained in this report. As a result,
we are not making any additional recommendations. However, based on the results over the past 3 years of the types
of information improperly withheld, management should re-evaluate whether the
planned corrective actions to address our recommendations can be more timely
and effectively implemented or if interim
measures can be taken to address the continuing deficiencies. Until these actions are properly
implemented, the IRS may not provide FOIA, PA, and I.R.C. § 6103 requesters
with all the information they are legally entitled to within the time periods
required by law.
Management’s Response:
Disclosure management agreed to the observations in our draft report and
plans on taking the following corrective actions:
·
Identify offices
that may require more FOIA oversight, and provide additional technical training
and increase managerial oversight in those areas.
·
Develop a skill
assessment plan that will allow managers to identify deficiencies and apply
corrective actions that are needed to improve employee performance.
·
Develop a formal
Integrated Data Retrieval System training course for Disclosure personnel that
will be rolled out in 2003.
·
Monitor the
timeliness of responses on a monthly basis.
Management’s complete response is included as Appendix V.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
The overall objective of this audit was to determine if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) improperly withheld information requested by taxpayers in writing, based on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6103 (2001), and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or by replying that responsive records were not available. The following tests were performed to accomplish this objective:
I. Determined if the IRS properly adhered to statutory FOIA and Privacy Act (PA) of 1974 requirements as well as procedural requirements.
A. Identified 4,610 national FOIA and PA cases that were closed as partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available during the period January 1 through June 30, 2001.
1. Obtained a national extract from the Electronic Disclosure Information Management System (E-DIMS) that included FOIA and PA cases that were closed during the period January 1 through June 30, 2001, and identified 4,610 FOIA and PA cases that were closed as partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available.
2. Performed limited tests to verify if the E-DIMS extract included the specified time period and information requirements and identified no cases with incomplete information.
B. Designed an attribute sample based on an 85 percent confidence level, expected error rate of 12 percent, and estimated precision of 4 percent. This sampling methodology was chosen so the TIGTA could project the number of cases with improper withholdings to the universe of cases that were partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available. The sampling plan and methodology were reviewed by a professional statistician to ensure that they were valid.
C. Randomly sampled 141 of 4,610 FOIA and PA cases that were partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available.
1. Reviewed 41 of the 141 randomly selected FOIA and PA cases that were closed on the E-DIMS as partially or fully denied pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with IRC § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) to determine if the decision to withhold information was appropriate and if the determination was made in a timely manner.
2. Reviewed 100 of the 141 randomly selected FOIA and PA cases that were closed on the E-DIMS as no responsive records (i.e., the IRS replied that responsive records were not available) to determine if the record search was adequate and if the determination was made in a timely manner.
D. Analyzed our audit results from the last 3 years to determine any common causes for the improper withholdings of FOIA and PA requests.
E. Projected the number of improper withholdings in the range of 297 to 619 (6.9 percent to 14.4 percent) FOIA and PA cases that were partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with IRC § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available. The projection was made using attribute sampling, with an 85 percent confidence level, and an error rate of 10.6 percent. As a result, the actual precision factor was 3.7 percent. A professional statistician reviewed the projection to ensure that it was valid.
F. Projected the number of untimely determinations in the range of 758 to 1,196 (17.6 percent to 27.8 percent) FOIA and PA cases that were partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with IRC § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available. The projection was made using attribute sampling, with an 85 percent confidence level, and an error rate of 22.7 percent. As a result, the actual precision was 5.1 percent. A professional statistician reviewed the projection to ensure that it was valid.
II. Determined if Disclosure offices adhered to legal requirements when denying written requests received from taxpayers under I.R.C. § 6103 (as opposed to the FOIA or the PA).
A. Obtained a national extract from the E-DIMS and identified 19,722 I.R.C. § 6103 (c) and (e) requests received from taxpayers or their designees that were closed during the period January 1 through June 30, 2001. Limited tests were performed to determine if the E-DIMS extract included the specified time period and information requirements.
B. Designed an attribute sample based on an 85 percent confidence level, expected error rate of 10 percent, and estimated precision rate of 4 percent. This sampling methodology was chosen because it would allow us to project the number of cases with improper withholdings to the universe of closed I.R.C. § 6103 (c) and (e) requests where information was partially or fully denied or requesters were told that records were not available. The sampling plan and methodology were reviewed by a professional statistician to ensure that they were valid.
C. Initially randomly sampled 400 of the 19,722 I.R.C. § 6103 (c) and (e) closed cases. Reviewed only the first 300 cases sampled to obtain the required number of cases to statistically project our results.
1. Determined that 131 of the 300 (43.7 percent) randomly sampled and reviewed cases included instances where information was partially or fully denied or requesters were told that the records were not available.
2. Based on an initial analysis of the 300 randomly sampled cases, we estimated that the population of 19,722 closed I.R.C. § 6103 (c) and (e) requests contained 8,612 requests where information was partially or fully denied or requesters were told that records were not available.
D. Reviewed the 131 cases where information was partially or fully denied or requesters were told that records were not available to determine if the decision to withhold the information based on I.R.C. § 6103 was appropriate.
E. Analyzed our audit results from the last 3 years to determine any common causes for the improper withholdings of I.R.C. § 6103 requests.
F. Projected the number of improper withholdings in the range of 697 to 1,407 (8.1 percent to 16.3 percent) I.R.C. § 6103 (c) and (e) requests where information was partially or fully denied or requesters were told that records were not available. The projection was made using attribute sampling, an 85 percent confidence level, and an error rate of 12.2 percent. As a result, the precision factor was 4.1 percent. A professional statistician reviewed the projection to ensure that it was valid.
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This Report
Daniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General for Audit
(Headquarters Operations and Exempt Organizations Programs)
Nancy
Nakamura, Director
Jeffrey M. Jones, Audit Manager
Margaret Anketell, Senior Auditor
Cheryl Medina, Senior Auditor
Thomas Polsfoot, Senior Auditor
Thomas Seidell, Senior Auditor
Donald Martineau, Auditor
Michael McGovern, Auditor
Appendix III
Commissioner N:C
Director, Governmental Liaison and Disclosure CL:GLD
Director, Office of Disclosure CL:GLD:D
Chief Counsel CC
National Taxpayer Advocate
TA
Director,
Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis
N:ADC:R:O
Office of
Management Controls N:CFO:F:M
Director, Legislative Affairs CL:LA
Appendix IV
This appendix presents detailed information on the measurable impact that our recommended corrective actions will have on tax administration. These benefits will be incorporated into our Semiannual Report to the Congress.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Taxpayer Rights – Potential; 458 responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act (PA) of 1974 requests where information was improperly withheld (see page 3).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
This attribute sample was randomly selected from the universe of FOIA and PA requests that were closed nationally during the period January 1 through June 30, 2001, as: 1) a full or partial denial with either FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6103 (2001), and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) cited as one of the reasons for withholding information or 2) a no responsive record case.
We arrived at the estimate by:
· Multiplying the number of requests closed as partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available by the percentage of cases that were miscoded, could not be located, or did not contain adequate documentation in the sample.
4,610 * 10/151 = 305 cases
· Subtracting the estimated number of miscoded cases in the universe from the number of requests closed as partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available.
4,610 – 305 = 4,305 cases
· Multiplying the estimated number of requests closed as partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available (adjusted for the percentage of miscoded, missing, and inadequate documentation cases in the sample) by the error rate of cases reviewed. A case was considered an “error” if the IRS improperly withheld information that was available and could have been released under the FOIA.
4,305 * 10.6 percent = 458 cases
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Taxpayer Rights – Potential; 1,052 responses to I.R.C. § 6103 requests where information was improperly withheld (see page 6).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
This attribute sample was randomly selected from the universe of I.R.C. § 6103 (c) and (e) requests that were closed nationally by disclosure offices during the period January 1 through June 30, 2001. Disclosure offices are not required to input a disposition code showing how I.R.C. § 6103 cases are closed (granted, denied, etc.). Therefore, the majority of these cases did not include a disposition code.
The TIGTA estimated the size of the universe by:
· Identifying 19,722 closed I.R.C. § 6103 (c) and (e) requests.
· Randomly reviewing 300 of these cases to estimate the universe of denied, partially denied, or no responsive record cases closed during the period January 1 through June 30, 2001.
· Multiplying the total number of closed requests in the audit universe by the percentage of cases in the sample where information was partially or fully denied or taxpayers were told that records were not available (131 of 300).
19,722 cases * 43.7 percent = 8,612 cases
· Multiplying the estimated universe of cases where information was partially or fully denied or taxpayers were told that records were not available by the error rate for the cases reviewed (12.2 percent). A case was considered an “error” if the IRS improperly withheld information from the requester.
8,612 cases * 12.2 percent = 1,052 cases
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Taxpayer Rights – Potential; 977 FOIA and PA requests partially or fully denied under FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records did not exist were not processed timely during the period January 1 through June 30, 2001 (see page 8).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
This attribute sample was randomly selected from the universe of FOIA and PA requests that were closed nationally during the period January 1 through June 30, 2001, as: 1) a full or partial denial with either FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) cited as one of the reasons for withholding information or 2) a no responsive record case.
We arrived at our estimate by:
· Multiplying the number of requests closed as partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available by the percentage of cases that were miscoded, could not be located, or did not contain adequate documentation in the sample.
4,610 * 10/151 = 305 cases
· Subtracting the estimated number of miscoded cases in the universe from the number of requests closed as partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available.
4,610 – 305 = 4,305 cases
· Multiplying the estimated number of requests closed as partially or fully denied based on FOIA exemption (b)(3), in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103, and/or FOIA exemption (b)(7) or where the IRS replied that responsive records were not available (adjusted for the percentage of miscoded, missing, and inadequate documentation cases in the sample) by the percentage of untimely responses. The following calculation was made to arrive at the estimate:
4,305 * 22.7 percent = 977 cases
Appendix V
Management’s Response to the Draft Report
The response
was removed due to its size. To see the
complete response, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the
TIGTA Public Web Page.