Toll-Free Account
Assistance to Taxpayers Is Professional and Timely, and the
Quality of Information Provided Has Improved
December 2004
Reference Number:
2005-40-018
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.
December 15, 2004
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, WAGE
AND INVESTMENT DIVISION
FROM: Gordon C. Milbourn III
/s/ Gordon C. Milbourn III
Assistant
Inspector General for Audit (Small
Business and Corporate Programs)
SUBJECT: Final
Audit Report - Toll-Free Account Assistance to Taxpayers Is Professional and
Timely, and the Quality of Information Provided Has Improved (Audit #
200440036)
This report presents
the results of our review of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) toll-free
telephone assistance program for account questions. The overall objective of this review was to determine
whether taxpayers received quality service when calling the IRS Toll-Free
Customer Service telephone number (1-800-829-1040) to ask an account-related
question during the 2004 Filing Season. Specifically,
we determined the quality of the service (taxpayer experiences) and the
responses taxpayers received when asking an account‑related question.
Each year, millions of taxpayers
contact the IRS seeking assistance in understanding the tax law and meeting
their tax obligations by either calling the various toll-free telephone
assistance lines,
accessing the IRS Internet web site, or visiting an
The quality of service provided to
taxpayers remained among the major management challenges the IRS faced in Fiscal
Year (FY) 2004. One of the IRS’ major
strategies for FY 2004 was to reduce taxpayer burden by improving the
quality and efficiency of service delivery.
The aim was to provide prompt and courteous responses to all requests
for assistance. The IRS’ goal was to
make its toll-free telephone operation a “world‑class customer service
organization” that provided taxpayers with accessible and accurate tax
assistance.
From
a judgmental sample of 264 calls monitored during the period April 12 through
May 3, 2004, we determined that CSRs treated taxpayers professionally 99 percent
of the time and provided timely service 94 percent of the time. In addition, 86 percent of taxpayers (226 of
264 monitored calls) received accurate answers to their tax account questions. Using a statistical sample during the same
period reviewed, the IRS reported 100 and 97 percent, respectively, for
Professionalism and Timeliness, and 90 percent for Customer Accuracy. The IRS defines Customer Accuracy as giving
the correct answer with the correct resolution.
In
our sample, CSRs did not always follow IRS procedures, and this prevented 38
(14 percent) of 264 taxpayers from receiving the correct answer or
resolution. We identified (scored) the
response as inaccurate if the response provided was either incorrect or
incomplete.
We
also identified an additional 14 (5 percent) of the 264 calls for which the CSR
did not ask the caller all 5 required authentication probe questions. IRS guidelines require the CSR to fully
authenticate the caller (with five required identification probe questions) as
authorized to receive the information before providing an answer to the
taxpayer’s question. In addition, IRS
guidelines currently allow CSRs discretion in asking additional authentication
probes if the address or date of birth does not match the information on the
IRS’ systems. Therefore, the taxpayer
must respond correctly to four of five required probes without the CSR asking
any additional probe questions.
We
recommended the Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, issue a Servicewide
Electronic Research Program alert to all users of Internal Revenue Manual (IRM)
21.1.3.2, reminding them of the revised IRM guidelines concerning taxpayer
authentication and the need for caution when authenticating taxpayers. We also recommended training be provided to
the CSRs on taxpayer authentication, with particular emphasis on high-risk
authentication, during annual Continuing Professional Education.
Management’s
Response: IRS management agreed with the two
recommendations in the report and has already initiated appropriate corrective
actions. IRS management also agreed with
our comment that some IRS improvement can be attributed to the additional
training the IRS conducted as a result of our report last year. The IRS noted that although the IRS and the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration used two different approaches to
sampling calls, the results of the reviews were very close. However, the IRS continues to disagree with our
position on reporting the defects resulting from missed or inadequate
verification questions and quoted the response to the prior year’s report. Accordingly, the IRS disagreed with our Reliability
of Information outcome measure related to 14 taxpayer accounts. Management’s complete response to the draft
report is included as Appendix VII.
Office
of Audit Comment: The IRS does not consider not adequately
authenticating the taxpayer as an error that directly affects the taxpayer. However, we continue to believe providing
information to an individual without fully authenticating him or her increases
the risk that a taxpayer’s confidential information could be disclosed to an
unauthorized individual. This could have
a direct impact on the taxpayer. Therefore,
we believe these errors should be reported in Customer Accuracy. We also believe not including this
information in the reported accuracy rate may affect external stakeholders’
assessment of the IRS’ performance. As a
result, we believe our outcome measure addressing Reliability of Information is
appropriate.
In
addition, we believe requiring the use of the high-risk questions is warranted
to reduce the risk of disclosing confidential information. We continue to be concerned with this item
because of the Wage and Investment Division’s 69 percent accuracy rate for
high-risk authentication. The necessity
of the additional questions can be explained to the taxpayer and the additional
questions would not be considered a burden considering the consequences of
unauthorized disclosure.
Copies of this report
are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report
recommendations. Please contact me at
(202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Michael R. Phillips, Assistant
Inspector General for Audit (Wage and Investment Income Programs), at (202) 927-0597.
Customer Service on the Toll-Free
Telephone Lines for Callers With Account Questions Has Improved
Taxpayer Authentication Needs Improvement
Appendix
I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix
II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix
III – Report Distribution List
Appendix IV
– Outcome Measures
Each year, millions of taxpayers contact the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking assistance in understanding the tax law
and meeting their tax obligations by either calling the various toll-free
telephone assistance lines, accessing the IRS Internet web site, or visiting an
During the 2004 Filing Season, IRS Customer Service
Representatives (CSR) answered over 3.3 million calls for taxpayers with
questions about their accounts when calling the IRS Toll-Free Customer Service
telephone number (1-800-829-1040). An
account inquiry is a contact relating to a taxpayer’s tax account which deals
with entity information, the processing of tax returns, or corrections of
subsequent errors.
According to the 2004 IRS Oversight Board Annual
Report, 91 percent of Americans surveyed viewed the IRS service of providing a
toll-free telephone number to answer their questions as either very or somewhat
important to them. The Board stated that the IRS has made
considerable strides in improving customer service, but cautioned that it would
be highly imprudent to suggest that IRS customer service has reached an
acceptable level and advised the IRS to constantly work to improve customer
service by measuring its progress, recognizing emerging trends, and taking
advantage of new technology.
Stakeholders interviewed by the Board acknowledged the complexity of the
Federal tax code and urged the IRS to seek ways to simplify administrative and regulatory
processes to make them work more efficiently.
The quality of service provided to taxpayers
remained among the major management challenges the IRS faced in Fiscal Year
(FY) 2004. One of the IRS’ major
strategies for FY 2004 was to reduce taxpayer burden by improving the quality
and efficiency of service delivery. The aim was to provide prompt and courteous
responses to all requests for assistance.
The IRS’ goal was to make its toll-free telephone operation a
“world-class customer service organization” that provided taxpayers with accessible
and accurate tax assistance.
1. Preparing or filing individual income tax returns. This option provides the taxpayer with a second automated menu from which to choose the following options: (1) ordering tax forms or publications, (2) finding addresses to mail payments or a tax return to the IRS, (3) finding the amount of his or her Advanced Child Tax Credit, or (4) getting help with other tax questions.
2. Requesting information on a tax refund or personal tax account. This option provides the taxpayer with a second automated menu from which to choose the following options: (1) requesting refund information, or (2) getting answers to personal account questions.
3. Using the business and specialty tax line or obtaining the address for the IRS Internet web site.
4. Repeating the above options.
If the taxpayer does not select an option or is
calling from a rotary telephone and is unable to select a touchtone option, the
same script is repeated providing voice response options. If the taxpayer selects an invalid option, he
or she is transferred to an IRS employee (screener), who screens and transfers
the call to the appropriate CSR to answer the taxpayer’s question.
CSRs answer tax account inquiries and are responsible for providing taxpayers with information on the status of their returns/refunds and for resolving the majority of issues and questions to settle their accounts. The IRS defines an account call as any call:
· Relating to a taxpayer account, both individual and business accounts.
· Regarding entity information (i.e., taxpayer’s or spouse’s name, address, Social Security Number, filing status, and tax year), the processing of a tax return, corrections of errors found during processing, and corrections resulting from adjustments or examination assessments.
· Regarding procedural issues (e.g., where to file a return, when and where to make payments).
· Relating to any other questions on refunds or procedures.
To ensure quality service, the IRS groups or categorizes calls by topics called Applications and by Wage and Investment (W&I) Division taxpayers and Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division taxpayers. There are a total of nine Applications for the General Account Calls Product Line. This review focused only on the 4 W&I Division Applications at the 16 W&I Division toll‑free call sites. (See Appendix VI for the Applications we monitored.)
CSRs are trained and certified for each current filing season on specific Applications. For example, if an individual taxpayer calls to find out where to mail a tax return, the call would be routed to a CSR that has been trained to handle IRS procedural issues for the W&I Division. If a business taxpayer calls to find out the taxes due on a business account, the call would be routed to a CSR that handles balance-due questions for the SB/SE Division.
To measure its customer service, the IRS uses a quality measurement system called Embedded Quality (EQ), which links employee performance to organizational results related to the quality of customer service. To accomplish this, IRS management listens to a statistical sample of live taxpayer calls from among the Applications and identifies (scores) the calls using 93 attributes that are divided into 5 quality measures:
·
Customer Accuracy.
· Regulatory Accuracy.
·
Procedural Accuracy.
·
Professionalism.
· Timeliness.
The Customer Accuracy, Professionalism, and Timeliness measures are reported to the IRS Commissioner as part of the IRS’ balanced measures. The Regulatory Accuracy and Procedural Accuracy measures are reported internally to IRS management to identify trends and training opportunities.
The Customer Accuracy measure is also reported
externally to IRS stakeholders, e.g., the Congress and the Government
Accountability Office, and as part of the reporting requirement of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). The GPRA requires that all Federal agencies
have appropriate quantitative performance measures. (See Appendix V for details of the EQ.)
This
report presents the results of our second review of the IRS’ toll-free tax
account assistance to taxpayers. In the
prior review, we evaluated tax account assistance by monitoring a judgmental
sample of 191 tax account telephone calls from April 21 through May 16,
2003. We reported that CSRs treated
taxpayers professionally for 99 percent of the calls and provided timely
service for 83 percent of the calls. In
addition, 78 percent of taxpayers (149 of 191 monitored calls) received
accurate answers to their account questions.
Using a statistical sample during the same period we reviewed, the IRS
reported rates of 100 and 97 percent, respectively, for Professionalism and Timeliness,
and 88 percent for Customer Accuracy. In
our sample, CSRs did not always follow IRS procedures. This prevented 22 percent of the taxpayers
(42 of 191) from receiving the correct answer or resolution. We also identified an additional 12 of the
191 calls in which the CSR did not ask the caller all 5 required identification
probe questions.
IRS
management partially agreed to our recommendations. They agreed that most account errors
negatively affecting Customer Accuracy are caused by the incomplete research or
inaccurate interpretation of account reference materials. They also agreed that the Internal Revenue Manual
(IRM) and Account Resolution Guide could be improved to make it easier for the
CSRs to understand and comply with authentication procedures. IRS management developed Continuing
Professional Education (CPE) training for FY 2004 that addressed effective and
complete use of IRM procedures and guidelines.
However,
IRS management did not agree with our position regarding the reporting of
defects related to the authentication process, indicating that the IRS’
classification of this type of defect as a Regulatory Accuracy defect does not
impact the importance that IRS management attaches to taking the proper steps
during the authentication process. IRS
management disagreed with our assumption that a defect in the authentication
process has a direct impact on the taxpayer and should be classified as if an
unauthorized disclosure occurred. IRS
management also disagreed with requiring the use of the high-risk questions.
For
the current audit, we reviewed tax account assistance by monitoring a
judgmental sample of 264 tax account telephone calls from April 12 through May
3, 2004. This review was performed at the
IRS employees are courteous and respectful, and
spend an appropriate amount of time with taxpayers when answering their tax
account questions. Using a judgmental
sample of 264 monitored calls and the IRS’ EQ attributes to rate the calls, we
determined employees provided professional and timely service. In addition, CSRs provided taxpayers with
accurate answers to their tax account questions for 86 percent (226 of 264) of
the calls monitored. The IRS achieved
this level of accuracy, for the most part, because CSRs are thoroughly and
completely researching IRS computer systems to answer taxpayer tax account
questions. (See Appendix VI for a
comparison of the calls monitored by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration [TIGTA] and the IRS by Application for the same time period, April 12 through May 3, 2004.)
CSRs were professional when
responding to taxpayers
Using the IRS EQ attributes to rate the monitored
CSR calls on professionalism, we determined CSRs provided professional service
for 99 percent (1,378 of 1,387) of applicable opportunities. The
IRS defines professional service as promoting a positive image of the IRS by
using effective communication techniques.
For the calls monitored, the employees provided a
professional greeting, communicated with clear and appropriate language, used
courteous and respectful tones, listened to the taxpayers in an effective
manner to maximize understanding, and apologized for IRS errors when
appropriate. In addition, when
appropriate, they provided taxpayers with an explanation of why a series of
questions are required. For the
same time period, the IRS reported that CSRs followed procedures for providing
professional service for 100 percent (4,147 of 4,153) of the opportunities. The
IRS’ Professionalism goal for CSRs was 99 percent for FY 2004.
CSRs were timely when responding to taxpayers
Using the IRS EQ attributes to rate the monitored CSR calls on timeliness, we determined the CSRs were timely for 94 percent (419 of 445) of the opportunities. The IRS defines timeliness as resolving an issue in the most efficient manner through the use of proper workload management and time use techniques. Timeliness is measured by factors or actions that are controllable by the CSRs, including whether the employee controlled unrelated or unnecessary dialogue initiated by the taxpayer and restrained from initiating extraneous dialogue with the taxpayer. An additional timeliness attribute measures whether the employee placed the taxpayer on hold for research purposes for an appropriate length of time based on the complexity of the issue.
For the same time period, the IRS reported that its
CSRs followed procedures for providing timely service for 97 percent (1,397 of
1,434) of the opportunities. The IRS’ Timeliness goal for CSRs was 98 percent for
FY 2004.
We
could not determine how long it took taxpayers to get answers to all their
questions, i.e., from the time they were connected to the IRS to the time the call
ended. The IRS toll‑free telephone
systems have the ability to trace one call from the time the IRS’ telephone
service provider delivers the call to the IRS to the time the call is
terminated, but the IRS does not do so because of the large volume of calls it
receives. The IRS does, however, monitor
key segments in the “life” of a call (e.g., the segment from the time a CSR is
connected to the taxpayer to the time the taxpayer was transferred or the call
ended).
We
could determine whether CSRs provided timely service to each taxpayer on the
segments of the calls we monitored, including hold times. During our
monitoring, 156 (59 percent) of the 264 callers were placed on hold during
the course of the conversation. In most
cases, the hold time was warranted and lasted less than 10 minutes.
The IRS’ approach to hold time is that
CSRs should use hold time commensurate with the complexity of the issue being
resolved. Taxpayers are encouraged to
hold while the CSR conducts research and performs account adjustments as an
assurance that their issue is fully resolved.
This is done to minimize the potential of a taxpayer needing to call
back at another time to achieve final resolution.
The IRS evaluates the CSRs on the
appropriate use of hold time as part of the quality review process. For the calls monitored, the taxpayers were on hold as follows:
·
Seventy-eight callers were on hold for more than 25 percent
but less than or equal to 50 percent of the total call time. For example, 1 taxpayer’s total call time was
18 minutes from the time the CSR answered the call to the time the taxpayer
hung up. During this 18 minute call
segment, the taxpayer was placed on hold for 9 minutes. This call was rated appropriate for hold
time.
·
Forty-four callers were on hold less than or equal to 25 percent
of the total call time. For example, 1 taxpayer
in this group was on the phone for 14 minutes.
Of this 14 minute call, the taxpayer was placed on hold for 3
minutes. This call was rated appropriate
for hold time.
·
Thirty callers were on hold for more than 50 percent but
less than or equal to 75 percent of the total call time. For example, 1 taxpayer’s total call time was
32 minutes. During this 32 minute call,
the taxpayer was placed on hold for 22 minutes (2 hold times of 11 minutes
each). This call was rated not
appropriate for hold time because the CSR did not periodically advise the
taxpayer that research was continuing during the hold periods.
·
Four callers were on hold for greater than 75 percent of
the total call time. In this group, 1
taxpayer was on the phone for 6 minutes with the CSR. Of these 6 minutes, the taxpayer was on hold
for 5 minutes. This call was rated
appropriate for hold time.
CSRs provided accurate answers to 86 percent
of tax account questions
Using IRS EQ attributes to rate the monitored CSR
calls on accuracy, we determined the CSRs provided complete and correct answers
to 86 percent (226 of 264) of the monitored calls. The IRS considers a response “complete and correct” when the CSR obtains sufficient
information to answer the question and gives a correct and
complete answer. The IRS’ definition of
accuracy does not take into consideration any additional issues or procedures
that do not directly affect the taxpayer.
The IRS’ results from a sample of 804 account calls monitored during the
same time period and for the same account Applications indicated a Customer
Accuracy rate of 90 percent (723 of 804) of the calls. The IRS’ account Customer Accuracy goal for
CSRs was 90 percent for FY 2004.
During our prior review, we recommended that CSRs receive additional training on the effective and
complete use of the IRM procedures and guidelines to
ensure that taxpayers are provided complete and correct answers to tax account
questions. The IRS agreed to
provide this training during its FY 2004 CPE, so we are making no additional
recommendations at this time.
The IRS does not consider it a direct impact to the taxpayer when the CSR does not ask all the required identification probe questions or does not correctly complete the taxpayer authentication probe. Therefore, the IRS does not include this as an error in the calculation of Customer Accuracy and when reporting Customer Accuracy externally to stakeholders. We reported this in our last audit of account quality, and the IRS disagreed with our recommendation to report these as Customer Accuracy errors. Again, we believe the IRS should consider not fully authenticating a taxpayer’s identity to be a Customer Accuracy error.
The IRM provides guidelines to ensure the CSR fully
authenticates the caller as authorized to receive the information. The CSR must probe (question) the caller
regarding each taxpayer’s:
(1) Taxpayer Identification
Number.
(2) Name.
(3) Address.
(4) Date of birth.
(5) Filing status.
The IRS clarified its IRM in March 2004 to state that if the taxpayer’s identification number and name do not match IRS records, the CSR must not provide taxpayer information to the caller and should advise the caller to call back with accurate information. If the caller’s responses to either address or date of birth do not match the IRS’ information, the CSR may ask additional questions (referred to as high-risk questions) to help authenticate the caller; however, the CSR is not required to ask additional questions. If the caller cannot provide the correct filing status used to file the return in question, the CSR must ask two or more additional questions to authenticate the caller as someone eligible to receive information about the account.
Not asking one of the five required probes for a caller is considered a disclosure attribute not met and is scored as a Regulatory error. This Regulatory error is reported internally, but it is not considered in the calculation for Customer Accuracy. The IRS does not consider this error as directly affecting the taxpayer since the taxpayer received a correct answer with the correct resolution.
For an additional 15 (6 percent) of the 264 calls
monitored, the CSR did not follow guidelines and did not ask the caller the
minimum required probes. However, 14 of
the 15 calls were rated correct for Customer Accuracy, even though the CSR did
not properly ask all the required probes.
For the 14 calls, the following are the results of the authentication
probes:
·
Five callers were not asked their date of birth.
·
Four callers were not asked their filing status.
·
Three callers were not asked additional authentication probes when
necessary, such as the spouse’s date of birth, the amount of income reported on
the last return, or the tax due on the last return.
·
Two callers were not asked multiple required probes (one caller was not
asked for name, address, date of birth, and filing status; the other caller was
not asked address, date of birth, and filing status).
In all instances, the CSR disclosed information to
the caller about the account. Including
these errors as Customer Accuracy errors would reduce the Customer Accuracy
reported above from 86 percent (226 of 264) to 80 percent (212 of 264) of the
calls monitored.
During the same period as our review, the IRS monitored 804 calls and reported 90 percent (723 of 804 opportunities) Customer Accuracy. Had the IRS considered disclosure to affect its Customer Accuracy, the IRS’ Customer Accuracy would have been reduced from 90 percent to 85 percent (687 of 804 opportunities) for the calls sampled between April 12 and May 3, 2004. This would have provided a more accurate portrayal of the IRS’ level of customer service.
In
addition, the W&I Division’s accuracy rate for high-risk authentication is
only 69 percent for the period January through June 2004, while other attributes
related to disclosure for the same time period are in the 83 to 100 percent
range. This attribute measures if the
CSR followed the high-risk criteria per the IRM guidelines before providing
confidential tax information. For those
cases where additional authentication is warranted, the CSR must verify two or
more additional items from the taxpayer’s account or tax return, such as the
number of exemptions claimed on the last return or the return in question or
children’s dates of birth. No alerts
have been issued advising CSRs of any concerns on this attribute. Annual CPE refresher training also did not
specifically address high-risk
authentication.
CSRs are responsible for knowing with whom they are speaking and the purpose of the call/contact. They must authenticate each caller as someone entitled to receive information about a tax return or tax account. Only after authenticating the taxpayer or third-party designee should the CSR disclose information about the account to the caller.
Providing information to an individual without fully authenticating him or her increases the risk that a taxpayer’s confidential information has been disclosed to an unauthorized individual. This could have a direct impact on the taxpayer. It is the responsibility of all IRS employees to protect confidential taxpayer information and to understand what is and what is not an authorized disclosure under the provisions of the law.
We
believe that not adequately authenticating the caller prior to providing tax
information should be an error considered to affect the taxpayer and reported
in Customer Accuracy. Not adequately
authenticating the taxpayer may be viewed by a court as either carelessness or
a failure to exercise due care. The
burden is on the IRS employee to ensure that the disclosure is authorized. Therefore, under such circumstances, a court
could find that the employee made an unauthorized disclosure of a tax return(s)
or return information.
We
understand that the IRS believes that Customer Accuracy should reflect only the
accuracy rate of the answers to the account questions and that EQ was designed
to accomplish this. We believe not
including authentication error information in the reported accuracy rate may
affect stakeholders’ assessment of the IRS’ performance. If the IRS chooses not to include this error
in its Customer Accuracy when reporting results externally, it should qualify
the results by stating that errors made when authenticating the taxpayer are
not included in Customer Accuracy.
In addition, we continue to believe that if any
information provided by the taxpayer during the identification probes does not
match the information the IRS has in its records (the first four probes), the
IRS employee should be required to go to high‑risk questions. The IRM and the Account Resolution Guide
currently allow the CSR discretion in asking additional authentication probes
when either the address or date of birth does not match the information on the
IRS’ systems. The IRS believes that
asking a taxpayer more questions might cause additional taxpayer burden. However, we believe the taxpayer would
understand the necessity of additional questions if it were clearly explained
that the IRS is doing its utmost to ensure the confidentiality of the
taxpayer’s information.
During
our prior review, we recommended strengthening the IRM and Account Resolution
Guide to ensure that all required probes are asked and verified and that the
CSRs are required to go to the high‑risk questions when information in
the IRS systems does not match a caller’s information. Although the IRS disagreed with our position
to require CSRs to go to the high-risk questions, we are not making a
recommendation regarding mandatory use of high-risk questions since our
recommendation was included in our prior audit of account quality.
The
Commissioner, W&I Division, should:
1.
Issue
a Servicewide Electronic Research Program quality alert to all users of IRM 21.1.3.2,
reminding them of the revised IRM guidelines concerning taxpayer authentication
and the need for caution when authenticating taxpayers.
Management’s Response:
IRS management issued a Servicewide Electronic Research Program quality
alert to remind all users of IRM 21.1.3.2 of the revised guidelines on
September 27, 2004.
2.
Provide training to CSRs on taxpayer authentication, with
emphasis on high-risk authentication, during annual CPE.
Management’s Response:
IRS management incorporated a mandatory training module in the annual
CPE and all CSRs will be required to receive this module. However, the IRS continues to disagree with
our position on the reporting of the defects resulting from missed or
inadequate verification questions and quoted the response to the prior year’s report. Accordingly, the IRS disagreed with our Reliability
of Information outcome measure involving 14 taxpayer accounts, which is
described in more detail in Appendix IV.
Office of Audit Comment:
The IRS does not consider not adequately authenticating the taxpayer as
an error that directly affects the taxpayer.
However, we still believe providing information to an individual without
fully authenticating him or her increases the risk that a taxpayer’s confidential
information could be disclosed to an unauthorized individual. This could have a direct impact on the
taxpayer. Therefore, we believe these
errors should be reported in Customer Accuracy.
We also believe not including this information in the reported Customer
Accuracy rate may affect external stakeholders’ assessment of the IRS’
performance. As a result, we believe our
outcome measure addressing Reliability of Information is appropriate.
In addition, we continue to believe requiring the use of
the high-risk questions is warranted to reduce the risk of disclosing
confidential information. We continue to
be concerned with this item because of the W&I Division’s 69 percent
accuracy rate for high-risk authentication.
The necessity of the additional questions can be explained to the
taxpayer and the additional questions would not be considered a burden
considering the consequences of unauthorized disclosure.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective, Scope,
and Methodology
The overall objective of this review was to
determine whether taxpayers received quality service when calling the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) Toll-Free Customer Service telephone number
(1-800-829-1040) to ask an account-related question during the 2004 Filing
Season. Specifically, we determined the
quality of the service (taxpayer experience) and the responses taxpayers
received when asking an account‑related question. To accomplish our objective, we:
I. Identified the program’s goals and measures for providing quality service for Fiscal Year 2004 and any concerns raised by the 16 Wage and Investment Division toll-free call sites in preparation for the 2004 Filing Season.
II. Determined the procedures used by the Centralized Quality Review Site and the local call sites for incorporating any identified error trends in the current year’s training.
III.
Determined the
accuracy and quality of the IRS’ toll-free telephone assistance responses.
A. Selected a judgmental sample
of 290 calls from an estimated population of approximately 822,000 toll-free
account services provided by the IRS for the period April 12 through May 3,
2004. We selected a judgmental sample
due to limited staff resources while using a monitoring schedule that was
representative of the IRS’ hours of operation at call sites for answering
toll-free account questions. Only 264 of
290 calls were used to report our results because 14 were tax law calls and 12
were transferred outside of the monitored Applications. We were unable
to follow the taxpayers through transfers and did not include tax law accuracy
results.
B. Captured the conversation between the Customer Service Representative (CSR) and the caller on the call transcription form and evaluated the CSR’s response by researching the Internal Revenue Manual for procedures and regulations and IRS computer systems for the taxpayer account information. We input the results onto the electronic data input form for each call.
C.
Computed the critical
measures for the 264 calls monitored.
IV.
Analyzed the monitored calls to determine the service taxpayers
received when calling to get answers to tax account questions.
V.
Compared the results to the rates the IRS reported for the same
measures during the same reporting period.
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This Report
Michael
R. Phillips, Assistant Inspector General for Audit
(Wage and Investment Income Programs)
Augusta
R. Cook, Director
Paula
W. Johnson, Audit Manager
Jackie
E. Forbus, Lead Auditor
Grace
Terranova, Senior Auditor
Jerry
G. Douglas, Auditor
Patricia
A. Jackson, Auditor
Andrea
R. McDuffie, Auditor
Geraldine
S. Vaughn, Auditor
Appendix III
Commissioner C
Office of the
Commissioner – Attn: Chief of Staff C
Deputy Commissioner
for Services and Enforcement SE
Deputy
Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division
SE:W
Director,
Customer Account Services, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:CAS
Director,
Strategy and Finance, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S
Director,
Accounts Management, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:CAS:AM
Director,
Chief
Counsel CC
Chief,
Performance Improvement, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S:PI
National
Taxpayer Advocate TA
Director,
Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA
Director,
Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O
Office
of Management Controls OS:CFO:AR:M
Audit
Liaison: Senior Operations Advisor, Wage
and Investment Division SE:W:S
Appendix IV
This appendix presents detailed information on the
measurable impact that our recommended corrective actions in this report and the recommended corrective
actions from our Fiscal Year 2003 audit report will continue to have on tax
administration. These benefits will be
incorporated into our Semiannual Report to the Congress.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Taxpayer Burden – Actual; 38 taxpayer accounts affected (see page 6).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
For 38 of
the 264 calls monitored, the Customer Service Representative (CSR) did not
always follow Internal Revenue Service (IRS) procedures and this prevented the
taxpayer from receiving the correct answer or resolution. We considered the CSR as answering a
taxpayer’s question correctly if the taxpayer received a correct response or
the CSR took the appropriate action or disposition leading to a correct
resolution.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Taxpayer Privacy and Security – Potential; 14 taxpayer accounts affected (see page 9).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
For an additional 15 of the 264 calls monitored, the
CSR did not ask the caller the minimum required probes or the information the
taxpayer provided did not match the information on IRS data systems. For 14 of the 15 calls, Customer Accuracy was
rated as correct. In all instances, the
CSR disclosed information to the caller about the account. For the 14 calls, the CSR did not ask the
taxpayer’s date of birth during 5 calls, did not ask additional authentication
probes as necessary during 3 calls, did not ask the taxpayer’s filing status
during 4 calls, and did not ask multiple probes during 2 calls (1 caller was
not asked his/her name, address, date of birth, and filing status; the other
caller was not asked address, date of birth, and filing status). Including these errors in our results would
reduce Customer Accuracy from 86 percent (226 of 264 opportunities) to 80 percent
(212 of 264 opportunities) of the calls monitored.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
Reliability of Information – Actual; 14 taxpayer
accounts affected (see page 9).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
For an additional 15 of the 264 calls monitored, the
CSR did not ask the minimum required probes or the information the taxpayer
provided did not match the information on IRS data systems. For 14 of the 15 calls, Customer Accuracy was
rated as correct. In all instances, the
CSR disclosed information to the caller about the account. For the 14 calls, the CSR did not ask the
taxpayer’s date of birth during 5 calls, did not ask necessary additional
authentication probes during 3 calls, did not ask the taxpayer’s filing status
during 4 calls, and did not ask multiple probes during 2 calls (1 caller was
not asked his/her name, address, date of birth, and filing status; the other
caller was not asked address, date of birth, and filing status). Including these errors in our results would
reduce Customer Accuracy from 86 percent (226 of 264 opportunities) to 80 percent
(212 of 264 opportunities) of the calls monitored.
These
14 potential disclosure errors would not be included in the IRS’ reported
Customer Accuracy. The IRS believes that
Customer Accuracy should reflect only the accuracy rate of the answers to the
account questions. Including these disclosure
errors would reduce Customer Accuracy. Not including these errors affects the reliability of the information the IRS reports
externally to stakeholders and could affect their assessment of the IRS’
program.
Appendix V
On October 1, 2002, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
implemented a revised system for measuring the quality of taxpayer assistance
which links employee performance to organizational results related to the
quality of customer service. The
Embedded Quality (EQ) system replaced the previous “pass/fail” method and uses
instead a “defect-per-opportunity” method.
This method was designed to distinguish between wrong answers and
procedural defects that do not affect the accuracy of the answer.
The comprehensive measures include Timeliness,
Professionalism, and Accuracy (comprised of Customer, Regulatory, and
Procedural Accuracy). Customer Accuracy
reflects whether the Customer Service Representative (CSR) gave a correct and
complete response/resolution to the taxpayer’s issue. This measurement system was used on the
toll-free telephone operations beginning with the 2003 Filing Season.
The IRS Centralized Quality Review Site measures the
service provided by toll-free telephone operations’ CSRs by listening to a
statistically valid sample of live taxpayer calls from among the various Applications
and rating the calls using the EQ system.
In the EQ measurement and calculation process, the
measures are calculated using the percentage correct based on the number of
opportunities for defect within each of five “buckets.” The “buckets” are divided into Timeliness,
Professionalism, and Accuracy; the Accuracy “bucket” is further subdivided into
Customer Accuracy, Regulatory Accuracy, and Procedural Accuracy “buckets.” They are defined as follows:
·
Customer Accuracy: Giving the correct answer with
the correct resolution. “Correct” is measured based upon the taxpayer receiving
a correct response or resolution to his or her case or issue and, if
appropriate, the CSR taking the necessary case actions or case disposition to
provide this response or resolution. For
the purpose of coding, reviewers do not take into consideration any additional
IRS issues or procedures that do not directly affect the taxpayer’s issue or
case. This measurement system was
baselined on the toll-free telephone operations during the 2003 Filing
Season. For Fiscal Year 2004, the IRS’
goal for Customer Accuracy was 90 percent.
·
Regulatory Accuracy: Adhering to
statutory/regulatory process requirements when making determinations on
taxpayer accounts.
·
Procedural Accuracy: Adhering to
nonstatutory/nonregulatory internal process requirements.
·
Professionalism: Promoting a positive image of
the IRS by using effective communication techniques.
·
Timeliness: Resolving an issue in the most
efficient manner through the use of proper workload management and time use
techniques.
Appendix VI
Comparison of Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration and Internal Revenue Service Results
of Monitored Calls in Wage and Investment Division Applications for Account
Calls Product Lines
|
APPLICATIONS |
TIGTA CALLS
MONITORED |
TIGTA CORRECT ANSWERS |
TIGTA CUSTOMER ACCURACY
RATE |
IRS CUSTOMER ACCURACY RATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wage & Investment Procedural |
12 |
11 |
92% |
93% |
|
Wage & Investment Individual Master File Balance Due |
20 |
17 |
85% |
85% |
|
Wage &
Investment |
2 |
0 |
0% |
75% |
|
Individual Master File Account |
230 |
198 |
86% |
90% |
|
Total/Overall Accuracy |
264 |
226 |
86% |
90% |
Source: Results of the TIGTA and IRS independent
reviews of four toll-free accounts category/Application calls monitored during
the period April 12 through
Appendix VII
Management’s Response to the
Draft Report
The response was removed due to its size. To see the response, please go to the Adobe
PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.