TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX
ADMINISTRATION
The Excise Files Information
Retrieval System Has Not Been Effectively Implemented
October 2005
Reference Number: 2006-20-001
This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process and information determined to be restricted from public release ha been redacted from this document.
Phone Number |
202-927-7037
Email Address | Bonnie.Heald@tigta.treas.gov
Web Site
| http://www.tigta.gov
October 18, 2005
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED DIVISION
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
FROM: Michael R. Phillips /s/ Michael R. Phillips
Deputy Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: Final Audit Report – The Excise Files Information Retrieval System Has Not Been Effectively Implemented (Audit # 200520030)
This report presents the results of our review of the management of funds received by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to prevent and reduce motor fuel excise tax evasion. The overall objective of this review was to determine whether the IRS is effectively managing Motor Fuel Tax Evasion Project funds to develop the Excise Files Information Retrieval System (ExFIRS) and enhance motor fuel excise tax enforcement.
Synopsis
The Highway Trust Fund is a critical source
of funding for Department of Transportation programs financing Federal Government
highway construction. Motor fuel excise
taxes account for over 90 percent of the Highway Trust Fund receipts. In Fiscal
Year 2004, motor fuel excise taxes totaled nearly $36 billion. The IRS developed the ExFIRS to identify areas with the
highest risk for nonpayment of motor fuel excise tax liabilities.[1] The most critical ExFIRS subsystem is the
Excise Summary Terminal Activity Reporting System (ExSTARS), which was designed
to track the movement of motor fuel to and from
approved terminals by requiring the monthly submission of information documents
to the IRS reflecting fuel quantity and type. This information can be used to compare the
quarterly fuel volumes reported on the information documents to the information
taxpayers entered on their quarterly excise tax returns to identify for examination those returns on
which taxpayers appear to be in noncompliance. Since 1999, the ExFIRS Project Office
has received approximately $39 million from the Department of Transportation
and an additional $20 million in IRS funds for the development and
implementation of the ExFIRS.
However, the IRS has not effectively implemented the ExFIRS or maximized its return on investment by using the ExSTARS data analysis to identify and research potential tax compliance issues for referral to the Examination function. Reporting gaps in the movement of motor fuel also hinder the effectiveness of the ExSTARS to completely monitor fuel production and sales. The lack of certain data fields in the information documents submitted to the IRS prevents the elimination of duplicate filing of fuel transaction data to both the IRS and the States. In addition, the IRS has worked with information document filers for several years to improve their reporting accuracy, and indications are the data perfection issue will continue to pose a significant problem when mandated electronic filing becomes effective on January 1, 2006.
There has also been a lack of
sufficient executive oversight and project management documentation, which has contributed to the ExFIRS Project experiencing cost overruns and
schedule delays.
Although classified as a nonmajor information technology investment,
the ExFIRS Project meets the IRS’ cost thresholds for a major information
technology investment. The importance of
the ExFIRS to the IRS’ mission and the high external visibility of the
development effort warrant a more stringent capital planning and investment
control process. In addition, the
Federal Highway Administration has relied on the IRS and its contractors to
design, develop, implement, and provide program oversight for the ExFIRS
Project. While
the ExFIRS Project Office maintained documents
considered essential to effective project management and prepared monthly
status reports addressing issues and problems, some
key project management documents were not initially prepared and are
still incomplete. A capacity study and stress test were also not completed
for the ExSTARS to ensure system capacity will be sufficient prior to the
electronic filing mandate, effective January 1, 2006.
In addition, the task orders[2]
awarded to the primary contractor for the ExFIRS Project are cost-plus-fixed-fee
contracts
[3]
and the contracts awarded to the secondary contractor are time and materials
contracts;[4]
however, such contracts are generally not appropriate once it is determined the
development of a system is achievable and the duration and extent of work and
anticipated costs can be accurately estimated.
Performance standards and
acceptable quality levels were also not consistently documented and measurable for the statements of work.[5]
In
addition, the acceptance criteria section generally defined requirements for
the format, accuracy, clarity, and timeliness of the deliverables in
nonmeasurable terms, and the due dates were generally not specific.
Recommendations
We recommended the Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, develop a plan and schedule as soon as possible for initiating an examination program based on identified discrepancies; clarify whether or not an objective of the ExSTARS is to eliminate the requirement for duplicate filing of fuel transaction data by the motor fuel industry to both the IRS and the States by either identifying and addressing the issues that prevent single point of filing or removing the stated objective from IRS publications; develop a schedule for converting all filers to the new data transmission format and begin assessing the $10,000 penalty for failure to file complete and accurate information documents; and ensure the ExFIRS Project Office updates appropriate project management documents, conducts a stress test to ensure sufficient system capacity, completes a transition plan for moving the Project to operations and maintenance status, and schedules a postimplementation review. In addition, we recommended the Commissioner, SB/SE Division, work with the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to include Federal Highway Administration representation on the executive steering committee responsible for the ExFIRS Project, including involvement with program management and executive oversight when the ExFIRS Project moves from development to operations and maintenance status, and provide periodic status reports as requested by the Federal Highway Administration to assess the progress of the ExFIRS Project and support continued funding. We also recommended the Commissioner, SB/SE Division, coordinate with the CIO and the Director, Procurement, to ensure the ExFIRS Project Office includes measurable performance standards in statements of work, clearly defines deliverables, implements an effective plan for monitoring contractor performance, and changes to firm fixed-price contracts.[6] Finally, we recommended the CIO elevate the ExFIRS to a major information technology investment.
Response
IRS management agreed with five of our seven recommendations presented. The IRS is currently establishing an ExFIRS Compliance Operation to conduct preliminary analysis and screening of questionable transactions for referral to revenue agents specialized in fuel tax compliance beginning in Fiscal Year 2006. In addition, the Commissioner, SB/SE Division, will remove any references to single point of filing in their publications. The IRS has also completed development, testing, and installation of the upgraded ExSTARS and is currently developing a schedule for converting all filers to the new data transmission format. In addition, the IRS is identifying entities that should be subjected to the $10,000 penalty for failure to file complete and accurate information and will immediately assess penalties in appropriate situations. Additionally, the CIO will reclassify the ExFIRS as a major project, and the Modernization and Information Technology Services (MITS) organization will identify and correct gaps in project management documentation, as well as ensure new development is managed under the appropriate life cycle discipline and follow appropriate tailoring plans to ensure the appropriate project management, transition, and systems management documentation is developed.
IRS management partially agreed with our recommendation to include Federal Highway Administration representation on the executive steering committee responsible for the ExFIRS Project, including involvement with program management and executive oversight when the ExFIRS Project moves from development to operations and maintenance status. The IRS stated a representative from the Federal Highway Administration will participate as a member of the appropriate executive steering committee for the ExFIRS Project and the requirements of the partnership between the IRS and Federal Highway Administration will be reflected in the revised Memorandum of Understanding to ensure the needs of both agencies are considered. IRS management also partially agreed with our recommendation to ensure the ExFIRS Project Office includes measurable performance standards in statements of work, clearly defines deliverables, implements an effective contractor monitoring plan, and moves to firm fixed-price contracts. The IRS stated the MITS organization will ensure statements of work include measurable performance standards and deliverables are clearly defined. In addition, the MITS organization will enter firm fixed-price contracts when possible and seek to use the appropriate performance-based contracting approach if a firm fixed-price contract is not possible.
Office of Audit
Comment
IRS management did not specifically comment on our recommendation to complete a transition plan, conduct a stress test, and schedule a postimplementation review. We believe these actions are needed to assure an effective transition to the MITS organization and to verify the ExFIRS system is working properly. On those recommendations where IRS management partially agreed with our recommendations, we believe the corrective actions they plan to take will address the recommendations. 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 affected by the report
recommendations. Please contact me at
(202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Margaret E. Begg, Assistant Inspector
General for Audit (Information Systems Program), at (202) 622-8510.
Appendices
Appendix
I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix
II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix III – Report Distribution List
Appendix
IV – Subsystems of the Excise Files Information Retrieval System
Appendix V
– Management’s Response to the Draft Report
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Department of the
Treasury Congressional Directives included a request that the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration, in consultation with the Inspector
General, Department of Transportation, conduct an audit to evaluate Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) management of funds received
from the Department of Transportation to prevent and reduce motor fuel excise
tax evasion by developing an excise fuel reporting system and enhancing motor fuel
excise tax examinations and criminal investigations. This request was based on the continued
existence of motor fuel excise tax evasion despite prior investments in IRS
enforcement activities and the concern that the IRS has previously experienced
problems in developing information systems.
The IRS administers more than 40 separate excise taxes that
finance 6 separate trust funds.[7] The
Highway Trust Fund, which is a critical source of funding for Department of
Transportation programs, was established as a mechanism to provide dependable
financing for Federal Government highway construction. The Highway Trust Fund receives its revenue
from highway user taxes, including excise taxes on motor fuels and truck-related
taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks and trailers, and heavy vehicle use. The Highway Trust Fund is the largest of the 6
trust funds administered by the IRS and represents 70 percent of all excise
taxes collected. Motor fuel excise taxes
account for over 90 percent of the Highway Trust Fund receipts. In FY 2004,
motor fuel excise taxes totaled nearly $36 billion.
Prior to 1982, evasion of motor fuel excise taxes was not a significant problem because the Federal tax on gasoline and diesel fuels was only $0.04 per gallon. However, significant increases in Federal and State excise tax rates over the years have increased incentives for tax evasion. To reduce the opportunities for taxpayers to evade motor fuel excise taxes, the point of taxation for motor fuels was changed. Motor fuel is now taxed, or dyed red if it is intended for nontaxable purposes, when it moves out of the bulk transportation system (pipeline and vessel) and storage network (refinery[8] and terminal[9]) and into tanker trucks at the terminal rack.[10] The owner of the fuel, referred to as the registered position holder, is liable for payment of the tax as fuel passes the terminal rack. Taxpayers report their excise tax liabilities on Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Returns (Form 720), which are due 1 month following the close of the quarter.
While shifting the point of taxation on motor fuel to the terminal rack and requiring untaxed motor fuels to be dyed red have increased Highway Trust Fund revenue, opportunities continue to exist to avoid or underpay excise taxes. The IRS estimates that $1 billion in Highway Trust Fund revenue is being lost each year due to the mixing of motor fuel with other products to increase the fuel volume and reduce the effective tax rate. Another study completed by private industry in 2002 estimated the diversion of untaxed aviation jet fuel to highway use is costing the Highway Trust Fund an additional $1 billion annually. At the same time, the Department of Transportation reports demands on highway capacity have reached unprecedented levels, and replacement and rehabilitation costs for existing infrastructure have greatly increased. As a result, the Department of Transportation and the IRS consider the evasion of motor fuel excise taxes a serious and growing problem that is creating a significant drain on Highway Trust Fund receipts.
To enhance the IRS’ excise tax enforcement
and compliance activities, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century[11] (TEA-21) in June
1998, which authorized monies to
be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund and given to the IRS for Motor Fuel
Tax Evasion Projects. The TEA-21 authorized $5
million to be given to the IRS in each of FYs 1998 through 2003 to expand
enforcement efforts, supplement examinations and criminal investigations, and
develop an excise fuel reporting system.
To meet the legislative requirements, the IRS developed the Excise Files Information Retrieval System
(ExFIRS), which is an umbrella system comprised of nine subsystems[12]
that support the collection of motor fuel industry information, allow automated
analysis of this information, and help identify areas with the highest risk for
nonpayment of motor fuel excise tax liabilities. The most critical ExFIRS subsystem is the
Excise Summary Terminal Activity Reporting System (ExSTARS), which was designed
through a collaborative effort among
the IRS, the Federal Highway Administration, and State and industry
stakeholders[13]
to prevent and detect the existence of
illegal tax evasion schemes by tracking the
movement of motor fuel to and from approved terminals. The IRS began development of the ExSTARS in
1998 and reported to Congress that the subsystem was implemented in April 2001.[14]
Since the
expiration of the TEA-21 on September 30, 2003, several extensions have been
passed by Congress authorizing
$5 million from the Highway Trust Fund for FY 2004. For FY 2005, Congress authorized $4 million
through July 19, 2005. As illustrated in
Figure 1, the ExFIRS Project Office, which is responsible for overseeing
the technical, administrative, and management aspects for the development and
implementation of the ExFIRS and providing funds to supplement motor fuel
excise tax enforcement activities and criminal investigations, received approximately $59 million in
Department of Transportation and IRS funds between FYs 1999 and 2005. The annual amounts provided from the Highway
Trust Fund were adjusted since the TEA-21 was not passed in time to provide
funding to the IRS for FY 1998; the amounts received each year from the
Department of Transportation were based on actual funding requirements
determined by the IRS. Recent
legislation continues substantial Highway Trust Fund funding to the ExFIRS
Project Office through FY 2009,[15] and additional IRS funding is expected
through the end of FY 2008.
Figure 1: ExFIRS Project Office Funding Between FYs
1999 and 2005
|
Fiscal Year |
Amount Provided by
the Department of Transportation |
Amount Provided by
the IRS |
Annual Amount |
Cumulative Amount |
|
1999 |
$9,250,000 |
$2,417,662 |
$11,667,662 |
$11,667,662 |
|
2000 |
$7,923,000 |
$2,101,000 |
$10,024,000 |
$21,691,662 |
|
2001 |
$4,468,000 |
$2,720,531 |
$7,188,531 |
$28,880,193 |
|
2002 |
$4,609,000 |
$1,798,000 |
$6,407,000 |
$35,287,193 |
|
2003 |
$4,706,500 |
$1,886,000 |
$6,592,500 |
$41,879,693 |
|
2004 |
$4,800,000 |
$4,959,000 |
$9,759,000 |
$51,638,693 |
|
2005 |
$3,600,000 |
$3,613,000 |
$7,213,000 |
$58,851,693 |
|
Totals |
$39,356,500 |
$19,495,193 |
$58,851,693 |
|
Source:
ExFIRS Project Office spending plans.
Figure 2 provides a breakdown of the actual
expenditures between FYs 1999 and 2004, which reflects that most of the funding
received by the ExFIRS Project Office was associated with the development and
implementation of the ExFIRS.
Figure 2: ExFIRS Project Office Expenditures in FYs
1999 Through 2004
|
Expenditure
Category |
Amount |
|
1. Development and Implementation of the
ExFIRS |
$39,897,755 |
|
2. Research and Development Related to Fuel Evasion
Detection Methods and Equipment and Analysis of Fuel Samples |
$10,990,938 |
|
3. Supplement of Criminal Investigations |
$750,000 |
|
Total |
$51,638,693 |
Source: ExFIRS Project Office spending
plans.
This audit was
performed at the IRS Office of Excise Tax Operations within the Small
Business/Self Employed (SB/SE) Division
and the Department of Transportation Offices of the Federal Highway
Administration and Inspector General in
One of the goals in the IRS Strategic Plan 2005 – 2009 is to enhance enforcement of the tax law to collect the taxes due from taxpayers that do not fulfill their tax obligations. The IRS Office of Excise Tax Operations within the SB/SE Division is responsible for the enforcement and compliance activities associated with motor fuel excise taxes. To accomplish the IRS goal, there are approximately 120 fuel compliance officers, whose responsibilities include conducting periodic inspections of onroad vehicles on highways for misuse of dyed diesel fuels. The IRS also has approximately 244 revenue agents, considered to be excise tax specialists, who spend approximately 19 percent of their time examining Forms 720 to ensure motor fuel excise tax compliance. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the results of the fuel compliance officers’ and revenue agents’ activities for FYs 2000 through 2004.
Figure 3: Fuel Compliance Officer Results Figure 4:
Revenue Agent Results
|
FY |
Inspections |
Violations |
Penalty Amount |
|
FY |
Form 720 Examinations |
Taxes Assessed |
|
2000 |
77,005 |
1,260 |
$2,320,930 |
|
2000 |
1,791 |
$179,966,047 |
|
2001 |
72,266 |
1,026 |
$2,467,060 |
|
2001 |
1,067 |
$107,895,276 |
|
2002 |
98,117 |
1,081 |
$2,815,530 |
|
2002 |
994 |
$56,142,040 |
|
2003 |
121,244 |
1,418 |
$3,875,740 |
|
2003 |
1,350 |
$18,040,076 |
|
2004 |
122,489 |
1,263 |
$4,684,240 |
|
2004 |
1,293 |
$90,151,206 |
The
IRS Criminal Investigation Division is responsible for investigating potential
criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code and related financial crimes
to foster confidence in the tax system and compliance with the law. However,
the passage
of legislation in 1993 changing the
point of taxation on motor fuels (from retail outlets to the terminal rack
where fuel is loaded into tanker trucks) resulted in a dramatic decrease in the
number of criminal investigations and assessments. For
example, Congressional testimony indicates the Criminal Investigation Division uncovered fuel excise tax evasion
activity in the hundreds of millions of dollars prior to 1993; however, in FY
2004, the IRS initiated only 2 criminal investigations and assessed only $719,790
in criminal deficiencies.
Implementation of the ExSTARS
was to increase Highway Trust Fund revenue
by providing an efficient and accurate way to identify potentially
noncompliant taxpayers to ensure collection of the appropriate excise tax
revenue. The
ExSTARS tracks the movement of fuel to
and from approved terminals by requiring the monthly submission of a Terminal
Operator Report
(Form 720-TO) and a Carrier Summary Report (Form 720-CS) to the IRS reflecting
fuel quantity and type. According to the IRS, the data on these information
documents could be used to compare the quarterly fuel volumes to the data taxpayers
entered on their Forms 720. Significant discrepancies would be referred
to the IRS Excise Tax Program for further analysis to identify for examination those
Forms 720 on which taxpayers appear to be in noncompliance. This compliance
process is similar to the IRS Underreporter Program, which matches income and
deduction amounts on income tax returns submitted by taxpayers to the
information provided to the IRS by third parties on information documents, such
as the Wage and Tax Statement (Form W-2).
When these amounts do not match, potential underreporter cases are
referred for examination. The information documents for the
Underreporter Program can be submitted by third parties to the IRS either on
paper or electronically. The paper information
documents are scanned using the Service Center Recognition Image Processing
System.[16]
The IRS reported to Congress that the ExSTARS was
implemented in April 2001 and it planned to begin the compliance process of
matching the information document data against data on Forms 720 filed for the
quarter beginning January 1, 2004. The ExSTARS was intended
to permit both the receipt of electronic submissions and the scanning of paper
submissions to create a complete picture of fuel movements, but the detailed
transactions are not being scanned and cannot be included in the matching
process. In April 2005, the IRS reported to Congress that the use of the ExSTARS
to detect underreported tax on individual Forms 720 and generate additional Highway Trust Fund revenue
has been limited because only 70 percent of the 6 to 9 million monthly
fuel transactions are received electronically and it is cost prohibitive to transcribe the detailed
information associated with the remaining transactions filed on paper Forms
720-TO and 720-CS. While the IRS is using
the ExSTARS to conduct the matching of the electronically filed
information document data to the Form 720 data, it elected not to refer identified
potential exception cases for examination until electronic filing
is mandated to substantially increase the number
of information documents being received electronically.
Although it is not
generating examination cases, the IRS maintains it has been able to identify
failures to comply with the information reporting requirements, unusual and/or
questionable movements of fuel, and leads for possible noncompliance. The
IRS was unable to provide information showing the results of these activities;
however, the ExFIRS Project Office stated 1 lead identified from the analysis
of ExSTARS data for excise tax noncompliance could result in a $6
million assessment.
The Chief, Excise Tax Operations,
explained the cases are not being referred for examination because 1) it is
unfair to treat taxpayers who file their tax returns electronically different from
taxpayers who file on paper and 2) the data used in the matching process are
still being perfected. The Chief could
not specifically tell us when exception cases would begin to be referred for
examination. However, our review of the
ExSTARS matching process determined all Forms 720 would be subjected to the
compliance process of matching the tax return information against the data
contained on the electronically filed information documents, regardless of
whether taxpayers filed their Forms 720 electronically.
The results of 1 matching analysis completed by the ExFIRS Project Office on the information documents filed electronically on the ExSTARS and the Form 720 tax returns submitted for the second quarter of FY 2003 reflected that 11 entities had potentially underreported the taxable gasoline on their Forms 720 by nearly 110 million gallons. At the current excise tax rate of $0.184 per gallon, the underreported gasoline would represent excise tax evasion of approximately $20 million.[17] In addition, our review of the matching results for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2004 provided by the ExFIRS Project Office identified potential underreporting of motor fuel excise taxes. However, the Chief, Excise Tax Operations, explained that the ExFIRS Project Office does not currently use Form 720 data from the Master File[18] in the information matching process but instead used a preliminary data file that has not yet posted to the Master File. Therefore, the matching results are not reliable. In addition, the ExFIRS Project Office has identified instances where the IRS Master File reflects a Form 720 was filed while the matching routine erroneously reflects a Form 720 was not filed. We understand the IRS’ concern that the data are not perfected and, therefore, may not represent an actual noncompliance situation. However, when the information indicates a potential tax noncompliance situation, the IRS should further research the information to determine whether a noncompliance situation does exist and, if so, refer it for examination, while the IRS continues to improve the ExSTARS and increase the number of electronically filed information documents. On August 4, 2005, the Chief, Excise Tax Operations, indicated there are plans to revise the matching process so that the ExFIRS data is matched against actual Master File data which should result in an improved matching process to identify actual noncompliance.
Stakeholders alerted the ExFIRS Project
Office in October 2000 that the lack of mandated electronic filing and the IRS’
decision not to key enter the data from the paper-filed information documents
were major issues that would significantly affect the usefulness of the ExSTARS
to the States and not provide the full national terminal reporting system as
promised in 1998. The stakeholders also
commented that the lack of mandated electronic filing will affect the
capability of the IRS to match the submitted information documents to the Forms
720. With passage of the American Jobs Creation
Act of 2004,[19] electronic filing was mandated beginning
January 1, 2006, for Forms 720-TO and 720-CS with 25 or more
transactions. The IRS now reports that, once the information
document database is populated sufficiently throughout 2006, it will be in a
position to begin fully using the ExSTARS to detect unreported transactions
subject to excise taxes and to verify the tax liabilities reported on the
quarterly Forms 720. However, by not currently using the ExSTARS data
analysis to identify potential tax compliance issues, the IRS is not maximizing
the return on investment of the ExFIRS.
Recommendation
Recommendation 1: The Commissioner, SB/SE Division, should develop a plan and schedule as soon as possible for initiating an examination program based on identified discrepancies between the information documents and the tax returns.
Management’s Response: The Commissioner, SB/SE Division, agreed with this recommendation, stating the IRS is currently establishing an ExFIRS Compliance Operation to conduct preliminary analysis and screening of questionable transactions. The ExFIRS Compliance Operation will refer questionable transactions to revenue agents specialized in fuel tax compliance beginning the first quarter of FY 2006.
Significant Issues Require
Management Attention to Successfully Implement a System to Prevent and Detect
the Existence of Motor Fuel Excise Tax Evasion and Enhance Compliance
Enforcement Activities
The Department of the Treasury Information Technology Manual and the
IRS system development guidelines stipulate that, as part of the information
system life cycle[20] management process, project management
should identify project risks early and manage them before they become
problems. The risk management process
encompasses the identification of risk issues, assessment of risk to define
probability and impact, preparation and implementation of risk mitigation and
risk contingency plans, and continuous monitoring of those actions to ensure
effectiveness. Risk management is used
to ensure critical areas of uncertainty are surfaced early enough to be
addressed without adversely affecting cost, schedule, technical, or
programmatic performance.
The ExFIRS Project Office established a risk
management process to identify and track risks for resolution. For example, the ExFIRS Project Office
developed a Risk Management Plan containing the procedures for performing the
identification, assessment, containment, and closure of performance risks and
related management issues. In addition, the
ExFIRS Project Office prepares monthly status reports addressing issues and
problems, developed a risk management database tool to track risks to
resolution, and established a stakeholder team to address stakeholder issues
surrounding development of the ExSTARS. Although the IRS reported the ExSTARS was
implemented in April 2001, significant issues still requiring management
attention preclude the ExSTARS from effectively
preventing and detecting the existence of motor fuel excise tax evasion. These risks include reporting gaps in the
movement of motor fuel and continued data perfection problems with submitted
returns.
Reporting gaps
in the movement of motor fuel
The ExSTARS was designed to track
all motor fuel movements in and out of approved terminals and to share the
information with State taxing agencies.
However, reporting gaps in the movement of motor fuel hinder the
effectiveness of the ExSTARS to
completely monitor fuel production and sales. For example, at the onset of the ExSTARS
development effort, the stakeholders and the ExFIRS Project Office recognized
that certain carriers (i.e., truck, rail, and foreign vessel) would be exempted from reporting deliveries to the terminal. The ExSTARS also would not include fuel distribution
reporting at the refineries, unregulated terminals, and bulk storage
facilities.
In
addition, one of the objectives of the IRS Excise Tax Program according to
Publication 3536, Motor Fuel Excise Tax EDI Guide, is to eliminate the
requirement for duplicate filing of fuel transaction data by the motor fuel
industry to both the IRS and the States.
In order to facilitate single point of filing, filers submitting
information documents on the ExSTARS are encouraged to sign consents to allow
the IRS to disseminate the motor fuel information to the State agencies
responsible for motor fuel taxes. However, the information documents submitted to the
IRS lack certain data fields required by some States, such as the name of the
distributor and buyer and seller information.
Therefore, the ExSTARS has not provided a single
point of filing, and several States have developed their own electronic
filing systems to receive the fuel transaction data.
On August 4, 2005, the Chief, Excise Tax
Operations, advised us that the ExSTARS can only facilitate single point of
filing if fuel is taxed at the terminal rack by the State; however, the IRS cannot
build a system to meet the needs of all States and did not intend for the
ExSTARS to provide single point of filing.
The Chief explained the IRS does not require the additional data fields required
by some States and has no legal authority to require the motor fuel industry to
provide the additional data fields.
Continued data perfection
problems with submitted returns
Although companies with 25 or more transactions in a month will be required to file Forms 720-TO and 720-CS electronically starting January 1, 2006, indications are the data perfection issue will continue to pose a significant problem with submitted documents when the electronic filing mandate becomes effective. In 2003, the ExFIRS Project Office formed the Data Perfection Team to correct inaccuracies associated with information documents received by the ExSTARS and to ensure future documents were transmitted accurately. The monthly status reports submitted by the Data Perfection Team reflected that several companies continue to submit inaccurate information documents month after month. Although the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 established a $10,000 penalty for failure to file complete and accurate information documents (effective January 1, 2005), the IRS elected not to assess the penalty while working with the filers to perfect their information documents on the ExSTARS prior to the January 1, 2006, electronic filing deadline.
In addition, management reports were not
periodically generated to identify the magnitude of the data perfection problem
and to ensure the effective tracking of the progress in resolving the data
integrity issues. The inaccuracies in
the data occurred because most filers transmitting the information documents
electronically use an older Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)[21] format (EDI 4010), which does
not provide error messages alerting filers of the failure to transmit the
information document or inaccuracies in the data. Prior to January 1, 2006, the IRS plans to
implement an updated data transmission format (EDI 4030) that will alert filers
of errors in filing; however, the IRS plans to run both data transmission
formats simultaneously. As a result, the
data inaccuracies will continue because filers can continue to use the older
format to transmit motor fuel information documents after January 2006 and the
Chief, Excise Tax Operations, has not prepared a transition strategy and
schedule to convert all filers to the new data transmission format.
The IRS has also experienced a recent decline in electronic filing participation on the ExSTARS, which will hamper its efforts to address the data integrity issue since new electronic information document filers will likely encounter data perfection problems. The IRS reported that, when the ExSTARS was first implemented in April 2001, it received information documents from only 894 (66 percent) of 1,346 registered terminals. As a result of outreach efforts with industry groups and individual taxpayers, in April 2004 the IRS reported it had received information documents from over 96 percent of registered terminals. However, the IRS also reported it receives 30 percent of the monthly fuel transactions on paper. While the electronic filing mandate will become effective January 1, 2006, the number of terminals filing electronically to report fuel deliveries is actually decreasing as the deadline approaches. For example, Figure 5 illustrates the number of terminals filing electronically to report deliveries decreased from 905 in February 2004 to only 613 in February 2005, a decrease of over 32 percent. The IRS attributes the decrease in electronic filing to the selling off of terminals by the larger entities to new and smaller operators that are filing paper information documents.
Figure 5 was removed due to its
size. To see Figure 5, please go to the
Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
By addressing these outstanding issues, the IRS could improve the effectiveness of the ExSTARS to completely
monitor fuel production and sales, promote a single point
of filing for the motor fuel industry, enhance the usefulness of the ExSTARS
to the States, and facilitate the IRS’ efforts to match the submitted
information documents to the Forms 720. Although
the IRS communicated to Congress that establishment of a significant penalty
for failure to file information documents, coupled with the mandated electronic
filing effective January 1, 2006, will enable it to successfully implement the
ExSTARS as it was designed, the continued data perfection problems will prevent
the ExSTARS from reliably detecting unreported motor fuel transactions subject
to excise taxes. As a result, in January 2006 excise tax evasion may not be
detected to increase revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, and expected gains in
efficiency may not be realized.
Recommendations
Recommendation 2: The Commissioner, SB/SE Division, should clarify whether or not an objective of the ExSTARS is to eliminate the requirement for duplicate filing of fuel transaction data by the motor fuel industry to both the IRS and the States by either identifying and addressing the issues that prevent single point of filing or removing the stated objective from Publication 3536.
Management’s Response: The Commissioner, SB/SE Division, agreed to remove any references to single point of filing in their publications to avoid any confusion since the IRS is not authorized to direct single point of filing.
Recommendation 3: The Commissioner, SB/SE Division, should develop a schedule for converting all filers to the new data transmission format and begin assessing the $10,000 penalty for failure to file complete and accurate information documents, as authorized by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
Management’s Response: The Commissioner, SB/SE Division, agreed with this recommendation, stating the IRS has completed development, testing, and installation of the upgraded ExSTARS using EDI 4030 and is currently developing a schedule for converting all filers to the new data transmission format. To ensure all filers can begin electronically filing by January 1, 2006, the IRS will initiate broad-based and individual outreach and education to the entities currently filing paper returns. In addition, the IRS is currently identifying entities that should be subjected to the $10,000 penalty for failure to file and/or failure to file accurate information as mandated by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and will immediately assess penalties in appropriate situations.
Project Oversight and Management Need to Be Improved for the
Development and Implementation of the Excise Files Information Retrieval System
The TEA-21 required the Department of Transportation to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the IRS regarding the development and maintenance
of an excise fuel reporting system by the IRS.
The Memorandum of Understanding established that the priority for the
use of available funding by the IRS was to establish and operate the ExFIRS. Although the ExFIRS Project Office was unable
to provide an initial cost estimate and implementation schedule, indications
are the Project has experienced considerable cost overruns and schedule
delays. For example, the expectation was
the over $30 million initially provided by the Highway Trust Fund through FY
2003 would be sufficient to develop the ExFIRS.
However, by the end of FY 2004, the Project Office had spent nearly $40
million on ExFIRS development. An
October 2000 ExFIRS Project status report also stated the ExFIRS was on target
to be completed by September 2003.
However, the implementation date for the ExFIRS is currently scheduled
for September 30, 2008.
The cost overruns and schedule delays signify a need for improved project oversight and monitoring for the development and implementation of the ExFIRS. Specifically, the ExFIRS Project should be classified as a major information technology investment by the IRS to ensure increased executive oversight, the Federal Highway Administration should have increased involvement in program management and financial oversight, and key project management documents should be improved to meet system development life cycle requirements.
The ExFIRS Project should be classified as a major information technology
investment
to ensure increased executive oversight
The Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996[22] requires agencies to use a disciplined Capital Planning and Investment
Control (CPIC)[23] process to acquire, use, maintain, and
dispose of information technology assets.
In addition, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, Preparation, Execution, and Submission of
the Budget, requires each agency to include an information
technology Investment Portfolio, commonly referred to as an Exhibit 53, with its annual budget submission to the OMB containing
the information technology investment title, description, amount, and funding
source. The required information
allows the OMB to review and evaluate each agency’s information technology
spending and to compare information technology spending across the Federal
Government.
For the Exhibit 53, the agency
should classify each information technology investment as either major or
nonmajor. The OMB defines a major information technology investment as one that
requires special management attention because of certain attributes, including
the importance to an agency’s mission; external visibility; and high
development, operating, or maintenance cost.
According to the IRS’ CPIC process for acquiring and maintaining
information technology property, the IRS classifies a project as a major
information technology investment if the annual investment exceeds $5 million
or the total life cycle cost exceeds $50 million. Major information technology investments
require a more stringent CPIC process, including increased executive oversight
and the preparation of a detailed Capital Asset Plan and Business Case,
commonly referred to as an Exhibit 300.
The IRS currently classifies the ExFIRS as a
nonmajor information technology investment on its Exhibit 53 because the
Highway Trust Fund investment amounts were not considered during the CPIC
classification process. However, once
the Highway Trust Fund monies are combined with the IRS investments, the ExFIRS
Project meets the IRS’ CPIC cost thresholds for a major information technology
investment. For example, the ExFIRS
Project Office spent over $6 million in FY 2004 on ExFIRS development and the
total life cycle cost of the ExFIRS Project will exceed $50 million. In addition, the importance of the ExFIRS to
the IRS’ mission and the high external visibility of the development effort
warrant its consideration as a major information technology investment for OMB
reporting purposes.
Since the ExFIRS Project
involves intragovernmental payments (i.e., Department of Transportation
payments to the IRS from the Highway Trust Fund), the Department of
Transportation should have included the ExFIRS on its Exhibit 53 and reflected
the reimbursement amount provided from the Highway Trust Fund to the IRS. To avoid double counting, the IRS should have
inserted a narrative in its Exhibit 53 to reflect the reimbursable amount
received from the Highway Trust Fund.
The IRS should also be responsible for preparing and submitting the
Exhibit 300 to the OMB, while the Department of Transportation would reflect a
line item on its Exhibit 53 indicating the funds are part of a multiagency
business case. By not being properly
classified, the ExFIRS Project development effort is not receiving the
necessary level of IRS executive oversight and monitoring to ensure efficient
resource use and maximized rates of return.
The
In September 1998, the IRS and the Department of Transportation signed a
Memorandum of Understanding that assigned joint oversight responsibility
to the Federal Highway Administration Director, Office of Transportation Policy
Studies, and the IRS Director, Specialty Taxes, for reviewing the development
and implementation of Motor Fuel Tax Evasion Project activity. In addition, the IRS was required to form a
stakeholder workgroup on ExFIRS design and development by October 1, 1998, that
would include the Federal Highway Administration as a participant. The Federal Highway Administration has also issued
policies establishing general stewardship[24] and oversight responsibilities for projects,
including process reviews, project evaluations, and program management
activities.
Since the TEA-21 contained limitations on the
Department of Transportation involvement in the development and implementation
of the ExFIRS (i.e., the Department of Transportation could not impose any
conditions on the use of funds by the IRS, the IRS would develop and maintain
the ExFIRS through contracts, and the ExFIRS would be under the control of the
IRS), the Federal Highway Administration did not consider the ExFIRS to be a
Federal Highway Administration system development activity. Aside from providing the funding, Federal
Highway Administration management viewed their role as encouraging the
development of a relationship between the IRS and external stakeholders (i.e.,
State revenue and transportation departments and industry). As a result, the Federal Highway
Administration relied on the IRS and its contractors to design, develop,
implement, and provide program oversight for the ExFIRS Project. For example, the Federal Highway
Administration has attended only a limited number of the required ExFIRS
working group sessions headed by the IRS, does not maintain any formal project
management and oversight documents, and did not establish any performance
measures to assess the ExFIRS’ effectiveness or return on investment. The Associate
Administrator for Policy and Governmental Affairs, Federal Highway
Administration, explained that since the IRS is responsible for the collection
of the fuel-related excise taxes, the Federal Highway Administration believed
the IRS would have the best understanding of what would be required of the
ExFIRS to become an enforcement tool for Federal and State excise tax
compliance efforts, including the establishment of performance measures that
would be more appropriately developed as the system was closer to becoming
fully operational. The Associate
Administrator for Policy and Governmental Affairs also explained the Federal
Highway Administration attended those ExFIRS working group sessions where
specific Federal Highway Administration activities were planned, received
yearly updates on the ExFIRS Project as part of the Joint Federal/State Motor
Fuel Tax Compliance Steering Committee and through meetings of the Federation
of Tax Administration Motor Fuel Tax Section, and was in regular contact with
the IRS and members of the ExFIRS working group.
In addition, the IRS has not included the
Federal Highway Administration as a participant in IRS executive oversight
committees responsible for monitoring the development and implementation of the
ExFIRS or provided program evaluations of the ExFIRS development effort. The IRS’ accounting to the Federal Highway
Administration on how the Highway Trust Fund monies have been spent has also
been limited. The recent legislation
that will continue providing funding from the Highway Trust Fund to the IRS
through FY 2009 for the Motor Fuel Tax Evasion Projects increases the IRS’
reporting requirements to the Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration management
believes the financial accountability and ExFIRS Project status reporting
provisions included in the legislation will make the IRS more accountable and
enhance their oversight of the ExFIRS Project.
For example, the legislation requires the IRS to submit to the Secretary
of the Department of Transportation an annual report describing the current
status of the Motor Fuel Tax Evasion Projects and specifying the estimated
annual yields.
Key project management documents should be improved to meet system development
life cycle requirements
A key goal of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 is that organizations
should have processes and information in place to help ensure information
technology projects are being implemented at acceptable costs and within
reasonable and expected time periods. Department
of the Treasury Publication 84-01, Information System
Life Cycle Manual, issued in July
1994 states project management documentation is an integral part of the system
development process. For example, a realistic schedule and
cost estimate is essential so goals can be set and measured based on a
comparison between planned and actual costs and completion dates.
In addition, project plans are
necessary to communicate status and direction and to allow management to verify
if appropriate progress is being made during the development process. The IRS Internal Revenue Manual section
containing the policies and procedures for system development efforts states
the IRS will follow the guidance specified by the Department of the Treasury.
The Chief, Excise Tax Operations, advised us that
the ExFIRS Project Office prepared the project management documentation required
by the IRS at the time the project was initiated. The ExFIRS Project Office explained
the project management documentation was prepared following military standards and
was tailored to meet both IRS and Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering
Institute[25]
Capability Maturity Model Integration[26]
requirements. A recent review by the
Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute found the primary contractor for
the ExFIRS Project met level 2[27]
of the Capability Maturity Model Integration requirements. The ExFIRS Project Office also maintained information system
life cycle documents considered essential to effective project management. For example, the ExFIRS Project Office
developed a Risk Management Plan and prepared monthly status reports. However, some key project management documents required by Department of the Treasury Publication 84-01 were not initially prepared for the
ExFIRS Project and are still incomplete and/or inaccurate. For example:
As a result, the IRS does not have a baseline cost estimate and schedule, which is necessary to
determine whether the ExFIRS Project is on schedule and within budget. The ExFIRS Project
Office stated a business case was not initially prepared because
development of the ExFIRS was mandated by legislation and the Project Office
was not required to prepare a business case to obtain funding from both the
Department of Transportation and the IRS for the system development
effort. It was not until later in 2002
that the ExFIRS Project Office began preparing a business case for the Project
to continue receiving IRS funding. The
ExFIRS Project Office also explained a project
schedule was not prepared because it did not know how long the Project would
take to complete or how much the system would cost and the contractor did not
provide specific due dates for the deliverables.
Instead, due dates were determined as tasks
were completed. In addition, unless a
stress test is conducted, the IRS does not have assurance the system capacity
will be sufficient once electronic filing is required on January 1,
2006.
Without the proper amount of
executive oversight and complete and accurate project management documentation,
the IRS increases the risk the ExFIRS Project will incur cost overruns and
schedule slippage. The ExFIRS may also
not accomplish its primary objective to improve motor fuel excise tax
compliance.
On June 28, 2005, we were advised
the ExFIRS Project was to move out of the development and implementation phase
and into the operations and maintenance phase around October or November 2005. Once this transition occurs, the
Modernization and Information Technology Services (MITS) organization will
assume responsibility for the ExFIRS Project.
Recommendations
Recommendation 4: The Chief Information Officer (CIO) should elevate the ExFIRS to a major information technology investment, update the Exhibit 53, and prepare an Exhibit 300.
Management’s Response: The CIO agreed with this recommendation, stating the ExFIRS Project Manager will update the Exhibit 53 to reclassify the ExFIRS as a major project and prepare an Exhibit 300.
Recommendation 5: The
Commissioner, SB/SE Division, should work with the CIO to determine which executive
steering committee will be responsible for the ExFIRS Project while the Project
is being developed and include a representative from the Federal Highway
Administration on the executive steering committee. When the ExFIRS Project moves to operations
and maintenance status, the Federal Highway Administration should be involved
with program management and executive oversight and provided periodic
status reports as requested by the Federal Highway Administration to assess the
progress of the ExFIRS Project and support continued funding. The planned revisions to the Memorandum of
Understanding between the IRS and the Federal Highway Administration should
include these requirements.
Management’s Response: The IRS partially agreed with this recommendation, stating the IRS will maintain responsibility for the program management, executive oversight, and periodic status reporting. However, a representative from the Federal Highway Administration will participate as a member of the appropriate executive steering committee for the ExFIRS Project. In addition, the IRS will reflect the requirements of the partnership between the IRS and Federal Highway Administration in the revised Memorandum of Understanding to ensure the needs of both agencies are considered as the IRS plans and implements actions to improve fuel tax compliance.
Office of Audit Comment: While IRS management did not completely agree with the recommendation, we believe the corrective actions they plan to take will address the recommendation.
Recommendation 6: The
Commissioner, SB/SE Division, should ensure
the ExFIRS Project Office
updates appropriate project management documents (i.e., project management plan and work breakdown structure), as required during the development phase;
conducts a stress test to ensure sufficient system capacity; completes a
transition plan for moving the Project to operations and maintenance status;
and schedules a postimplementation review.
Management’s Response: The CIO agreed with this recommendation, stating that as the IRS transitions the systems development, operations, and maintenance of the ExFIRS Project from the SB/SE Division to the MITS organization any gaps in proper project and systems management documentation will be identified and corrected by the MITS organization. After the transition, any new development will be managed under the Business Systems Modernization (BSM) Enterprise Life Cycle discipline and follow appropriate tailoring plans to ensure development of proper project management, transition, and systems management documentation.
Office of Audit Comment: IRS management did not specifically comment on our recommendation to complete a transition plan, conduct a stress test, and schedule a postimplementation review. We believe these actions are needed to assure an effective transition to the MITS organization and to verify the ExFIRS system is working properly.
The Project Office Should Incorporate More Performance-Based Services Acquisition
Principles for Acquired Services
For FY 2005, the OMB established a goal requiring all agencies to apply performance-based services acquisition methods on at least 40 percent of eligible service actions over $25,000 to include contracts and task orders.[28] In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)[29] requires agencies to use performance-based services acquisition methods to the maximum extent practicable when acquiring services. The FAR explains performance-based services acquisition methods are preferred because they are intended to ensure required performance quality levels are achieved and total payment is related to the degree to which services performed meet contract standards.
The FAR requires agencies to describe requirements in terms of results rather than process; use measurable performance standards, use quality assurance monitoring plans, and prepare performance evaluations; provide for reductions of fees or price; and include performance incentives where appropriate. Agencies are also required to prepare interim evaluations to provide current information for source selection purposes for any contract period of performance, including options, exceeding 1 year. In addition, the IRS Office of Procurement states the success of using performance-based services acquisition is heavily dependent on the use of performance-based statements of work that define the needs through required outcomes, along with well-formulated contract administration plans that make cost-effective use of resources to measure contractor performance.
The task orders awarded to the primary contractor for the ExFIRS Project are cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts[30] for nearly $39 million, and the contracts awarded to the secondary contractor are time and materials contracts[31] for approximately $2.7 million. In addition, the ExFIRS Project primary and secondary contractors have been providing contracted services for over 6 years, but the contract types awarded have not changed. Although these contract types may have been appropriate during the initial planning and development stages, regulations state that such contracts are generally not appropriate once it is determined the development is achievable, firm performance objectives and schedules have been established, and the duration and extent of work and anticipated costs can be accurately estimated. Instead, the use of a firm fixed-price[32] contract would be more suitable since it would provide maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively.
The ExFIRS Project Office generally included the elements
recommended for a performance-based work statement in the statements of work[33]
prepared for each of the contractors providing services. For example, the statements of work
consistently defined the requirements in terms of desired results rather than methods of work performance. However, the statements of work did
not consistently document performance
standards and acceptable quality levels, and when documented, they were not
measurable. In addition, the acceptance
criteria section of some statements of work defined requirements for the
format, accuracy, clarity, and timeliness of the deliverables in nonmeasurable
terms, and the due dates for the deliverables were generally not specific
(i.e., as needed and as mutually agreed).
The statements of work for the primary contractor also did not include
due dates for the deliverables or acceptance criteria. Without measurable performance standards
identified in the statements of work, the ExFIRS Project Office cannot
effectively monitor contractor performance, which may have contributed to the
cost overruns and schedule delays experienced by the ExFIRS Project.
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy best practices support allowing the contractor to prepare the quality assurance plan and report on the monitoring of services provided; however, Federal Government oversight is required to confirm monitoring results. The quality assurance plan prepared for the ExFIRS Project by the primary contractor defines the contractor’s quality program activities for ensuring the quality of the software products and production processes. The primary and secondary contractors also provide monthly and quarterly progress/status reports identifying actions completed for the last month and significant assignments and activities planned for the next month as required in the statements of work. However, the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative[34] has not provided any documented reviews of these reports assessing whether the Project is on course, measuring performance levels, identifying trends of performance-related inefficiencies, and making necessary modifications.
For example, the ExFIRS Project Office worked with a contractor
to form a Data Perfection Team to review monthly error listings generated from
the monthly submission of information documents to the ExSTARS. The Data Perfection Team was also responsible
for educating the reporting companies to address the data inaccuracies. However, our review of the monthly status
reports found the process was apparently ineffective because the Data
Perfection Team was reviewing the same companies in February 2005 it reviewed
during the first 3 months of the contract (i.e., June - August 2003). Since this is a time and materials contract,
the contractor has no positive profit incentive for cost control or labor
efficiency. Management stated converting
to a firm fixed-price contract is not possible because the specific actions
required by the contractor to resolve recurring problems may not be
determinable.
As a result of our prior audit reviewing the use of performance-based services acquisition techniques to manage task orders in the BSM program,[35] the IRS issued firm fixed-price contracting guidance to ensure increased delivery and performance in the BSM program, which includes implementing a firm fixed-price contracting policy; creating performance-based work statements; developing measurable performance standards, performance incentives, and monitoring plans; and evaluating contractor performance. While this guidance was issued for use in the BSM program, we believe it provides valuable guidance for increasing the use of performance-based services acquisition principles for the SB/SE Division contracting activities. In addition, it will assist the IRS in attaining the FY 2005 performance-based services acquisition goal established by the OMB.
Without measurable performance standards and appropriate monitoring of contractor performance, the IRS has no reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls are being used. As a result, the IRS is essentially taking most of the risk in the ExFIRS development effort, which could result in higher costs, as opposed to a firm fixed-price contract in which the maximum risk is placed on the contractor.
Recommendation
Recommendation 7: The Commissioner, SB/SE Division, in coordination with the CIO and the Director, Procurement, should ensure the ExFIRS Project Office includes measurable performance standards in statements of work, clearly defines deliverables, implements an effective plan for monitoring contractor performance, and moves to firm fixed-price contracts.
Management’s Response: The IRS partially agreed with the recommendation, stating the MITS organization will ensure statements of work include measurable performance standards and deliverables are clearly defined. In addition, upon transition of the ExFIRS Project, and as operation and maintenance progresses, the MITS organization will enter firm fixed-price contracts when possible following the guidance issued on April 30, 2004, which established BSM policy on firm fixed-price contracting. If entering a firm fixed-price contract is not possible, the IRS will seek to use the appropriate performance-based contracting approach.
Office of Audit Comment: While IRS management did not completely agree with the recommendation, we believe the corrective actions they plan to take will address the recommendation.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective,
Scope, and Methodology
The overall objective of this review was to determine whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is effectively managing Motor Fuel Tax Evasion Project funds to develop the Excise Files Information Retrieval System (ExFIRS) and enhance motor fuel excise tax enforcement. To accomplish this objective, we:
I.
Evaluated the effectiveness of the project
management controls surrounding the development of the ExFIRS.
A.
Reviewed key project management documents (e.g.,
project management plan, project schedule, milestone concurrence) and
interviewed ExFIRS Project Office management to determine whether the documents
were completed and approved prior to/during the development and implementation
of the ExFIRS.
B.
Reviewed the business case to determine whether it
contained required components, project life cycle cost estimates were
sufficiently supported, and it was formally approved prior to initiation of the
ExFIRS Project.
C.
Interviewed Federal Highway Administration and ExFIRS Project
Office management and reviewed ExFIRS system requirements and
acceptance-related documentation to determine whether the system requirements were reviewed and
approved by the stakeholders (i.e., Federal Highway Administration, States, and
industry).
D.
Interviewed ExFIRS Project Office management and
reviewed project phase completion dates, actual costs, associated contracts,
task orders, performance work statements, and contractor evaluations to determine whether the ExFIRS Project
was effectively managed to control project costs and schedules.
E.
Reviewed Federal Highway Administration requirements governing
oversight of Motor Fuel Tax Evasion Projects and interviewed Federal Highway
Administration management to determine whether the Federal Highway
Administration was sufficiently involved and provided effective oversight of
ExFIRS development and implementation.
F. Interviewed ExFIRS Project Office management and met with representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, industry, and States to determine whether stakeholder issues and concerns regarding ExFIRS development were adequately addressed.
II.
Assessed whether the ExFIRS enhanced enforcement
efforts to increase motor fuel excise tax revenue for the Highway Trust Fund.
A.
Interviewed personnel from the Criminal
Investigation Division, Office of Excise Tax Operations, and ExFIRS Project
Office to identify motor fuel excise tax examination and investigation cases
generated from the ExFIRS.
B.
Reviewed reports containing motor fuel excise
tax cases identified and selected for examination and interviewed Office of Excise Tax Operations personnel to
determine the numbers and results of motor fuel excise tax cases identified,
selected, and/or forwarded to a field office for inclusion in the examination
inventory each year since 1998, including the numbers generated by the ExFIRS.
C.
Reviewed reports containing the results of the
motor fuel excise tax investigations and interviewed Criminal Investigation
Division personnel to determine how many motor fuel excise tax cases were
referred to the Criminal Investigation Division, the number of cases accepted,
and the investigation results including the specific results of those cases
generated by the ExFIRS for each year since 1998.
D.
Interviewed Criminal Investigation Division and Office
of Excise Tax Operations personnel to determine whether performance measures
were established to assess the results of the motor fuel excise tax
examinations and investigations.
E. Interviewed personnel from the Data Perfection Team,[36] Office of Excise Tax Operations, and ExFIRS Project Office to determine what analyses has been completed on the data obtained since the implementation of the Excise Summary Terminal Activity Reporting System and whether the results were used to enhance fuel tax enforcement efforts.
III. Identified Motor Fuel Tax Evasion Project funds provided by the Department of Transportation to the IRS during Fiscal Years 1998 through 2004; reviewed ExFIRS Project Office records and IRS financial accounting system reports; and met with management from the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Excise Tax Operations, and ExFIRS Project Office to determine whether the IRS used the Highway Trust Fund funding in accordance with legislative guidelines and other governing criteria.
Appendix II
Major Contributors
to This Report
Margaret E. Begg,
Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Information Systems Program)
Gary Hinkle, Director
Danny Verneuille,
Audit Manager
Van Warmke, Lead
Auditor
Beverly Tamanaha, Senior Auditor
Tina Wong, Senior
Auditor
Olivia Jasper, Auditor
Linda Screws, Auditor
Appendix III
Commissioner C
Office of the
Commissioner – Attn: Chief of Staff C
Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support OS
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE
Chief, Criminal Investigation SE:CI
Associate Chief Information Officer, Business Systems Development OS:CIO:I:B
Associate Chief Information Officer,
Management OS:CIO:M
Director, Capital Planning and Investment Control OS:CIO:R
Director,
Communications, Liaison, and Disclosure
SE:S:CLD
Director, Specialty Programs SE:S:SP
Director, Stakeholder Management OS:CIO:SM
Chief, Excise Tax Operations SE:S:SP:EX
Chief Counsel CC
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 Liaisons:
Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support OS
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE
Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S
Manager,
Program Oversight Office OS:CIO:SM:
Appendix IV
Subsystems
of the Excise Files Information Retrieval System
The Excise Files Information Retrieval System (ExFIRS) is an umbrella system made up of nine subsystems that support the collection of motor fuel industry information, automated analysis of this information, and identification of areas with the highest risk for nonpayment of excise taxes.
1.
Excise Fuel Online Network (ExFON) – The
ExFON is an integrated case processing and tracking system used by the fuel compliance
officers and group managers for the Dyed Diesel Program.
2.
Excise
Summary Terminal Activity Reporting System (ExSTARS) – The ExSTARS requires a monthly information document from fuel terminal operators and
carriers detailing the receipts and disbursements of liquid products passing
through a taxable fuel storage and distribution facility. The information documents can be filed on
paper or electronically. Return information
is provided to the States in accordance with appropriate disclosure laws.
3.
Excise
Tax Online Exchange (ExTOLE) – The ExTOLE is a repository of State records housed by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS). The data come from the States but
are available to other States and the IRS, under disclosure agreements.
4.
Excise Tax
Registration Authentication System (ExTRAS) – The ExTRAS is a centralized
database containing information relating to Application for Registration (For
Certain Excise Tax Activities) (Form 637).
The ExTRAS provides
centralized data entry, monitoring, and reporting of all Form 637
registrants. These registrants are
allowed to buy, tax free, goods otherwise subject to excise tax, with the
obligation to pay the tax when the goods are resold. Excise Tax Program personnel can research and
track the registration status of all Form 637 registrants. These registrants include manufacturers or
buyers/resellers of sport fishing
equipment, gas-guzzler
or luxury automobiles, vaccines, and tires, as well as those engaged in the
fuel businesses. Form 637 submissions
are also scanned.
5.
6.
Excise
Compliance Inventory Delivery System (ExCIDS) – The ExCIDS is a computer-based case delivery
system that will feed the ExTAC. The
design calls for paper returns to be scanned and delivered directly into an
inventory queue for group managers to assign to revenue agents. Additionally, the ExCIDS will provide
a means of delivering, tracking, controlling, and managing the workload for the
Excise Tax Program management office.
7.
Below
the Rack Information Sharing (BTRIS) – The BTRIS application supports fuel
fingerprinting efforts – a critical part of compliance efforts aimed at “cocktailing”
and illegal blending. Using
chemical gas chromatogram technology, the application incorporates an automated,
pattern-matching capability to assist users in comparing diesel fuel samples to
terminal references or stored adulterated samples. The outcome of this comparison is a Fuel
Fingerprint Library.
8.
Excise
Management Information System (ExMIS) Data Warehouse and Operational Database – The ExMIS Data
Warehouse and Operational Database provides a common data management solution,
from disparate legacy databases and information stores, created from a variety
of sources. The ExMIS Data Warehouse and Operational Database contains information gathered from the
various ExFIRS applications (ExFON, ExTAC, ExTRAS, and ExSTARS), as well as IRS
sources and United States Customs import information, pertaining to
taxable commodities.
9. Excise Compliance Information System (ExCIS) – The ExCIS provides Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return (Form 720) data to the ExMIS Data Warehouse and Operational Database.
Appendix V
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.
[1] See Appendix IV for a description of the ExFIRS subsystems.
[2] A task order is an order for services placed against an established contract or with Federal Government sources.
[3] A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for payment to the contractor of a negotiated fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract. The fixed fee does not vary with actual cost but may be adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed under the contract.
[4] A time and materials contract provides for direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates (wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses) and for materials (including handling costs) at cost.
[5] A statement of work is a written description of the IRS’ minimum requirements that are to be met by contract.
[6] A firm fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places maximum risk and full responsibility on the contractor for all costs and resulting profit or loss.
[7] Trust funds are accounts established by law to hold
receipts, such as specific taxes or revenue, collected by the Federal
Government for financing special programs.
[8] A refinery is a facility used to produce taxable fuel
from crude oil, unfinished oils, natural gas liquids, or other hydrocarbons.
[9] A terminal is a storage and distribution facility for
taxable fuel that is supplied by pipeline or vessel.
[10] A terminal rack is a location at the terminal consisting of a series of valves, pipes, and meters where motor fuel is dispensed.
[11] Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998).
[12] See Appendix IV for a description of the subsystems.
[13] A stakeholder is a group or individual affected by, or in some way accountable for, the outcome of an undertaking. Stakeholders may include project members, suppliers, customers, and end users.
[14] The ExFIRS Project Office explained that, although the ExSTARS was implemented in April 2001, the subsystem was not considered fully operational at that time and the participation by information document filers was limited.
[15] House of Representatives Bill (H.R.3), which passed the Senate with amendment on May 17, 2005, and was signed by the President on August 10, 2005, provides additional funds from the Highway Trust Fund to the IRS for FYs 2006 through 2009.
[16] The Service Center Recognition Image Processing System uses character recognition and imaging technologies to process high volumes of documents with few unrecognized characters.
[17] The ExFIRS Project Office explained that the amount of actual tax evasion may not be as high as $20 million because the Form 720 data used in the compliance process are obtained prior to the complete processing of the Forms 720 by the IRS.
[18] The Master File is the IRS database that stores various types of taxpayer account information. This database includes individual, business, and employee plans and exempt organizations data.
[19] Pub. L. No. 108-357, 118 Stat. 1418 (2004).
[20] The information system life cycle involves the phases
through which an information system passes from beginning to end.
[21] EDI is a computer-to-computer exchange of routine
business data in a standard format.
[22] Pub. L. No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 642 (codified in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C., 5 U.S.C. app., 10 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C., 16 U.S.C., 18 U.S.C., 22 U.S.C., 28 U.S.C., 29 U.S.C., 31 U.S.C., 38 U.S.C., 40 U.S.C., 41 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C., 44 U.S.C., 49 U.S.C., 50 U.S.C.).
[23] The CPIC is a management process for the ongoing identification, selection, control, and evaluation of investments in information resources focused on agency missions and achieving specific program outcomes.
[24] Stewardship activities include continuous process improvement initiatives, performance measurement, and project involvement activities to ensure the efficient and effective management of the public funds.
[25] The Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute is a Federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Department of Defense. Its core purpose is to help others make measured improvements in their software engineering capabilities.
[26] The purpose of the Capability Maturity Model Integration is to provide guidance for improving an organization’s processes and the ability to manage the development, acquisition, and maintenance of products or services.
[27] A capability level 2 process is characterized as a
“managed process,” which is a performed process that is also planned and
executed in accordance with policy; employs skilled people having adequate
resources to produce controlled outputs; involves relevant stakeholders; is
monitored, controlled, and reviewed; and is evaluated for adherence to its
process description.
[28] A task order is an order for services placed against an established contract or with Federal Government sources.
[29] 48 C.F.R. pt 1-53 (2002).
[30] A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for payment to the contractor of a negotiated fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract. The fixed fee does not vary with actual cost but may be adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed under the contract.
[31] A time and materials contract provides for direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates (wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses) and for materials (including handling costs) at cost.
[32] A firm fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places maximum risk and full responsibility on the contractor for all costs and resulting profit or loss.
[33] A statement of work is a written description of the IRS’ minimum requirements that are to be met by contract.
[34] A Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative performs a key function in the contract award and administration process by ensuring contractors fulfill contract terms and conditions and taxpayer dollars are prudently spent.
[35] Additional Improvements Are Needed in the Application of Performance-Based Contracting to Business Systems Modernization Projects (Reference Number 2002-20-170, dated September 2002).
[36] The Data Perfection Team was formed by the ExFIRS Project Office to correct inaccuracies associated with information documents received by the Excise Summary Terminal Activity Reporting System and to ensure future documents were transmitted accurately.