TREASURY
INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION
The Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint Phase 2 Was Generally Reliable, but Oversight of the Survey Design Needs Improvement
February 5, 2008
Reference Number: 2008-40-059
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.
Phone Number | 202-622-6500
Email Address | inquiries@tigta.treas.gov
Web Site |
http://www.tigta.gov
February 5, 2008
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, WAGE AND INVESTMENT DIVISION
FROM: Michael R. Phillips /s/ Michael R. Phillips
Deputy Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: Final Audit Report – The Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint Phase 2 Was Generally Reliable, but Oversight of the Survey Design Needs Improvement (Audit # 200740012.002)
This report presents the results of our review to assess the accuracy and reliability of the
data used to develop the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint (TAB) Phase 2 report. This is the second phase of our review of the
Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint. We
conducted the first phase on the TAB Phase 1 report[1]
and reported that the majority of the
information reviewed was accurate.
Impact on the Taxpayer
The TAB Phase 2 report outlines the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) strategic plan to enhance the services it provides to taxpayers. The IRS developed and implemented a Quality Assurance
process that helped ensure the accurate and reliable reporting of information
contained in the TAB Phase 2 report.
However, improvements are needed to ensure that taxpayer survey results
are reliable and consistent. As the IRS moves forward with its 5‑year
service delivery plan, inconsistencies in the surveys will put the plan at risk
of improperly aligning service content, delivery, and resources with taxpayer
and partner expectations.
Synopsis
In July 2005, Congress issued a report requesting that the IRS develop a 5-year plan for taxpayer service activities;[2] in November 2005, Congress requested that the IRS report to the House and Senate subcommittees by April 14, 2006. The TAB Phase 2 report details research and analyses efforts of the IRS and outlines the TAB Strategic Plan.
Inaccuracies
identified were not the result of errors in data analyses but incorrect wording
in the report.
More than 100 data sources were developed to support information contained in the TAB Phase 2 report. A review of 29 judgmentally selected statements identified 7 (24 percent) as inaccurate. However, none of the inaccuracies were significant. Continued refinement in the Quality Assurance process will ensure the accuracy and reliability of results and conclusions being drawn from the additional planned research.
The IRS drew correct conclusions based on the
survey results included in the TAB Phase 2 report.
Much of the understanding of taxpayer needs, preferences,
and behaviors was developed from responses to four surveys. Because
the IRS had a limited time to issue the TAB Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports, it
decided to include the results of two existing surveys, along with the TAB Conjoint II Study and the Opinion
Survey of Taxpayer Resources and Services, to gain a better understanding of taxpayer needs, preferences, and
behaviors. The methods in which the
surveys were conducted, sampling methodologies, number of respondents, and time
periods of the surveys differed.
Therefore, at times the surveys produced very different estimates on
closely related questions, making comparison among the four surveys difficult.[3]
The IRS acknowledged this and stated that it generally selected results from a single survey when illustrating a predominant pattern and reporting results. Testing did not show that the IRS drew incorrect conclusions based on the survey results included in the TAB Phase 2 report. Nevertheless, as the IRS moves forward with additional research and surveys, it should ensure that the survey designs and survey questions are more comparable so the results can be more effectively and efficiently analyzed and used to draw conclusions and make decisions.
The four surveys were conducted with the assistance of
outside contractors. Although one of the
contracts awarded included specific steps the contractor was to follow to
ensure the completeness and accuracy of documentation compiled, the IRS did not
ensure that these required steps were followed.
The contract required the contractor to (1) provide scanned images of
surveys to the IRS quarterly and (2) select and review 10 percent of the
survey responses to ensure the quality of the information being compiled. There was no documentation that either action
was completed.
As the IRS moves forward with its research and surveys, it should ensure that contractors comply with documentation and quality standards. This will provide additional assurance as to the usability and reliability of the results and the conclusions drawn from them.
Recommendations
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should ensure: (1) the Quality Assurance process and requirements are thoroughly documented and formalized, (2) survey instruments are consistent to enable comparisons of results and reliable conclusions, and (3) contractors maintain adequate documentation supporting the results of the survey and have a process in place to ensure the accuracy of the information being compiled and provided to the IRS.
Response
IRS management agreed with all of our recommendations. Management will incorporate the Quality Assurance process and requirements implemented during the TAB Phase 2 report into their Research and Analysis Project Guidelines. They will document the substantive procedures for review of text results, use and application of methodology, and detail the variety of data analyses. Management will define standard demographic criteria for use in future TAB-related research and is reviewing a number of surveys to clarify wording of standard questions, such as for demographic information and questions relating to taxpayer satisfaction. Finally, for future Wage and Investment Division, Office of Research and Analysis contracts, management will require that contractors providing support to develop, administer, and analyze surveys that will employ a robust quality assurance process and document the basis of the survey results. Management’s complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix VI.
Please
contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Michael E. McKenney,
Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Wage and Investment Income Programs), at
(202) 622-5916.
An Improved Quality Assurance Process Helped Ensure the
Reliability and Accuracy of Data
Improvements Are Needed to Ensure That
Taxpayer Survey Results Are Reliable and Consistent
Appendices
Appendix
I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix
II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix
III – Report Distribution List
Appendix
IV – Inconsistent Survey Questions – How Taxpayers Contacted the Internal Revenue
Service
Appendix V – Inconsistent
Survey Questions – Who Prepared Taxpayers’ Tax Returns
Appendix
VI – Management’s Response to the Draft Report
Abbreviations
|
IRS |
Internal Revenue Service |
|
TAB |
Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint |
In July 2005,
Congress issued a report requesting that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
develop a 5-year plan for taxpayer service activities;[4] in
November 2005, Congress requested that the IRS report to the House and Senate
subcommittees by April 14, 2006. The
plan was to include strategic, quantitative long‑term goals that balance
enforcement and service activities.[5] The Senate Committee Report stated the plan
should outline the services the IRS should provide to improve service to
taxpayers. The plan was also to detail
how the IRS intends to meet the service needs on a geographic basis and address
how it would improve taxpayer service based on reliable data. The plan was to be developed with the IRS
Oversight Board[6] and the
National Taxpayer Advocate.[7]
On April 24, 2006, the
IRS issued its Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint (TAB) Phase 1 report, which
presented the following five strategic improvement themes:
|
Strategic Improvement Themes |
|
1.
Improve
and expand education and awareness activities. |
|
2.
Optimize
the use of partner services. |
|
3.
Elevate
self-service options to meet taxpayer expectations. |
|
4.
Improve
and expand training and support tools to enhance assisted services. |
|
5.
Develop
short-term performance and long-term outcome goals and metrics. |
Source: The TAB Phase 1 report.
We conducted an audit on the TAB Phase 1 report[8] and reported that the majority of the information reviewed was accurate. However, inaccuracies in the report related to changes in Taxpayer Assistance Center[9] visits and the number of telephone calls answered. In addition, the IRS did not ensure consistency between income and generational analyses and conclusions. The inconsistencies relating to income and generational segmentation did not affect the resulting strategic improvement themes outlined in the TAB Phase 1 report.
IRS management responded that, prior to the completion of our TAB Phase 1 audit report, a thorough Quality Assurance process was developed and implemented for the TAB Phase 2 report. Experienced analysts validated information in the TAB Phase 2 report, including all citations, reference documents, and data presented. This Quality Assurance process was also thoroughly documented. The IRS believes the result is an accurate and well‑documented TAB Phase 2 report.
The picture was removed due to its size. To see the picture, please go to the Adobe
PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Issued in April 2007, the TAB Phase 2 report details the IRS’ research and analyses efforts and outlines the TAB Strategic Plan, which is the future of service delivery as envisioned collaboratively by the IRS, the Oversight Board, and the National Taxpayer Advocate. Within the scope of the TAB Strategic Plan, portfolios of service improvements, performance measures, and additional research projects comprise a solid foundation for the future of service at the IRS. The research results presented are not exhaustive or all-inclusive but instead focus on presenting baselines, trends, and tendencies. The work started with the TAB will continue as the IRS works to expand and refine its knowledge.
The TAB
Phase 2 report identifies the following five areas for improvement of IRS
service delivery within the strategic environment to increase value to all
stakeholders.
1. Channel and Service Capability
Goal:
Align service tasks and channels with
the most effective and efficient methods of delivery possible.
2. Channel and
Service Performance
Goal:
Strengthen performance across services
and channels by improving first contact resolution, promptness of service, and
accuracy of information.
3. Channel and Service Awareness
Goal:
Improve awareness of services and
channels to taxpayers and partners to facilitate their choice of the most
effective and efficient service delivery options.
4. Burden Reduction
Goal: Reduce burden
to taxpayers and partners by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
service delivery.
5.
Migration
to the Electronic Channel and Services
Goal:
Enhance stakeholder value by helping to
move taxpayers and partners who are willing and able to specific services that
are most effectively and efficiently delivered through the electronic channel.
The TAB Phase 2 report provides an analysis of current IRS
services and channels, along with taxpayer needs, preferences, and behaviors
resulting from four surveys. It also
presents guiding principles and a strategic plan for taxpayer services. The TAB Strategic Plan includes performance measures,
service improvements portfolios, and an implementation strategy.
This review was performed at the IRS Wage and Investment
Division, Taxpayer Services Program Management Office and the Strategy and
Finance function Research Office in
An Improved Quality Assurance Process Helped Ensure the Reliability and Accuracy of Data
In response to inaccuracies and inconsistencies identified during our review of the TAB Phase 1 report, the IRS developed and implemented a Quality Assurance process that helped ensure the accurate and reliable reporting of information for the TAB Phase 2 report. In addition, the process facilitated an independent third-party assessment. The Quality Assurance process included the following actions:
· Training personnel involved in the various stages of the report’s development process, including personnel responsible for performing the research detailed in the report, indexing information in the report to supporting documentation, and quality reviewing the report for accuracy.
More than 100
data sources were developed to support information contained in the TAB Phase 2
report.
· Requiring an indepth review and verification of the report text, data points, charts, and footnotes. In addition, computer links were verified as being accurate with source documents required to be located and touched to verify their existence and the accuracy of the information the documentation supported.
· Developing a Quality Review Template that tracks citations (statements supported by footnotes) from the report, including the names of the individuals who performed the Quality Assurance process reviews of the citations and the steps taken to review them.
· Developing a template, called an analytic, to assist in an independent review of the TAB Phase 2 report and its supporting documentation. Research analysts were required to develop the analytic that details the specific methodology and steps the analysts followed to arrive at their research results. The analytic provided our auditors with an understandable path to the research results supporting the TAB Phase 2 report, thus reducing the time it took to review the documentation and validate the results.
More than 100 data sources were developed to support information contained in the TAB Phase 2 report. A review of 29 judgmentally selected statements identified 7 (24 percent) as inaccurate. However, none of the inaccuracies were significant. One inaccuracy had been previously identified by IRS Quality Assurance process reviewers, but the IRS decided not to call the report back from printing because the inaccuracy was insignificant. In addition, the inaccuracies identified were not the result of errors in the data analyses but rather incorrect wording in the report.
Improvements
can be made to further increase the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance
process.
Nevertheless, improvements can be made to further increase the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance process. Although a number of training courses were held, written guidance was not always provided to analysts to explain how to document their data analyses, which at times can be complex. Without written guidance, documentation may not be complete and independent reviewers may not have the required information to reach the same conclusions. In addition, documentation was not always maintained to support the steps performed during the Quality Assurance process. In five instances, we were unable to determine what actions the Quality Assurance process reviewers performed to validate the specific statements.
The IRS has included a request for $15 million in its Fiscal Year 2008 budget to conduct additional research, which included measuring the effect of service on taxpayer compliance. Continued refinement in the Quality Assurance process will ensure the accuracy and reliability of results and conclusions being drawn from the additional planned research.
Recommendation
The Commissioner, Wage
and Investment Division, should:
Recommendation 1: Ensure the Quality Assurance process and requirements are thoroughly documented and formalized. The written guidelines should require a documented process detailing the review of text results, the development of analytics detailing specific methodology and steps taken when performing data analyses, and a process to ensure that analysts are adhering to documentation requirements.
Management’s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. Management will incorporate the Quality Assurance process and requirements implemented during the TAB Phase 2 report into their Research and Analysis Project Guidelines. They will document the substantive procedures for review of text results, use and application of methodology, and detail the variety of data analyses. Documentation requirements will be highlighted throughout the written Quality Assurance guidelines and will focus on the core principle of reproducibility of results.
Improvements Are Needed to Ensure That Taxpayer Survey Results Are Reliable and Consistent
Much of the IRS’ understanding of taxpayer needs, preferences, and behaviors was developed from responses to four surveys. Only two surveys, the TAB Conjoint II Study and the Opinion Survey of Taxpayer Resources and Services, were commissioned specifically for the TAB. The other two surveys were developed outside the TAB strategy.
·
The Taxpayer
Customer Service and Channel Preference Survey was conducted to understand taxpayer use of and preferences for IRS service
channels.[10] Analyses
of responses also identified taxpayer attitudes toward tax service and
administration in general. Survey data were
gathered from 1,101 respondents during
the period March 19 through April 13, 2006.
·
The TAB
Conjoint II Study was conducted to determine taxpayer preferences for
contacting the IRS to resolve tax-related issues and for assistance with tax
return preparation and filing. The
survey also gathered information about taxpayers’ past experiences contacting the
IRS. Survey data were gathered from 2,196
respondents during the period June 23 through July 5, 2006.
·
The Opinion
Survey of Taxpayer Resources and Services was conducted to gain insight about taxpayer awareness of, prior use
of, expectations for, and future willingness to use IRS and non-IRS tax‑related
resources and services. Survey data were
gathered from 8,160 respondents during August 2006.
·
The 2006
Wage and Investment Market Segment Survey was conducted to help the IRS
understand taxpayer needs, preferences, and behaviors; reveal use and
acceptance of key Wage and Investment Division products and services; and
provide feedback for education and outreach functions. Survey data were gathered from 3,114
respondents during the period June through August 2006.
The Taxpayer Customer
Service and Channel Preference Survey was commissioned by the Oversight
Board. The remaining three surveys were either
commissioned or conducted by the IRS.
The surveys were not consistently designed, making comparisons difficult
Comparison
of surveys was difficult because different methods were used to conduct the
surveys, similar questions were worded differently, and/or taxpayers were offered
different choices of responses for similar questions.
Because the IRS had
a limited time to issue the TAB Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports, it decided to include
the results of two surveys developed outside the TAB strategy, along with the results
of the TAB Conjoint II Study and the Opinion Survey of Taxpayer Resources and Services, to gain a better understanding of taxpayer
needs, preferences, and behaviors. However,
the methods in which the surveys were conducted, sampling methodologies, number
of respondents, and time periods of the surveys differed. At times, the surveys produced very different
estimates on closely related questions, making a comparison among the four
surveys difficult.[11] The
IRS acknowledged this and stated that it generally selected results from a
single survey when illustrating a predominant pattern and reporting results
included in the TAB Phase 2 report.
Overall, IRS conclusions from the survey
results included in the TAB Phase 2 report appeared to be sound. Nevertheless, the following four examples
demonstrate the differences in the surveys and the challenges the IRS had in attempting
to analyze and compare the results.
Example 1: In an attempt to identify the
percentage of taxpayers who had contacted the IRS during a given time period,
the IRS used questions from each of the four surveys. The results varied from 27 percent to
43 percent. The IRS acknowledged the Opinion Survey of Taxpayer Resources and Services low estimate and concluded the lower estimate likely occurred
because the Survey’s questions
covered a short time interval and the Survey
did not include contacts with respondents after they had filed their Tax Year 2005
tax returns. Figure 1 presents a
comparison of the questions, the related choices, the different time periods
covered, and the results.
Figure 1: Percentage of Taxpayers Who Had Contacted the IRS
|
Survey |
Sources and Service Channels |
Time Period |
Percentage of Taxpayers |
|
The Taxpayer Customer Service and Channel Preference Survey asked
respondents 1 question on whether they had contacted the IRS in the last 2 years for any
reason. Five service channels were provided for respondents to select. |
Email, IRS Telephone, IRS Office Visit, IRS Web Site,
Postal Service |
Past 2 Years |
41
percent |
|
The TAB
Conjoint II Study asked
respondents 4 separate questions about service channels they had used in the
last 2 years. Each of the four
questions was specific to a service channel.
|
IRS Telephone, IRS Office Visit, IRS Web Site, Postal
Service |
Past 2 Years |
41
percent |
|
The Opinion Survey of Taxpayer
Resources and Services asked respondents to select the resources
and services used when completing their Tax Year 2005 returns. Sixteen choices (including six sources and seven
IRS service channels) were provided for respondents to select.[12] |
Accountant, Books, Email, IRS Forms and
Publications, IRS Kiosk, IRS Office
Visit, IRS Telephone, IRS Web Site, Non‑IRS Web Site, Postal Service,
Tax Preparation Company, Tax Preparation Software, Volunteer Tax Preparation |
Filing Season 2006[13] |
27
percent |
|
The 2006
Wage and Investment Market Segment Survey asked eight separate questions.
·
Four questions asked if respondents had contacted
the IRS in the past year. ·
One question asked respondents how they had handled
the most recent notice. ·
One question asked respondents to identify
where they had obtained their tax forms and instructions. Fifteen choices[14] (including
10 non-IRS channels and 3 IRS service channels) were provided. |
Accountant, Bank, Copy Center, Email, Employer, IRS
Kiosk, IRS Telephone, IRS Office Visit, IRS Web Site, Library, Other
Government Office, Non‑IRS Web Site, Postal Service, Some Other Place,
Tax Preparation Software, Volunteer Tax Preparation |
Past 1 year |
43
percent |
|
·
Two questions asked if there was a need to
contact the IRS for assistance with their tax returns and, if so, how they had
contacted the IRS. Seven service
channels were provided for selection.[15] |
|
|
|
|
TAB Phase 2 Report Conclusion: Between 41 percent and 43 percent of all taxpayers contacted the IRS
directly for help over a 1-year to 2-year period. |
|||
Source: The
2007 TAB Phase 2 report and related surveys.
Example 2: The Opinion Survey of Taxpayer Resources
and Services asked respondents about customer service channels about which
they had little knowledge or experience,
while the 2006 Wage and
Investment Market Segment Survey did
not ask respondents to evaluate or even respond to questions regarding
IRS customer service channels they had not used.
Example 3: All four surveys included questions to determine how taxpayers prepared their tax returns, but each survey provided respondents with different choices.[16]
·
The Taxpayer Customer Service and Channel
Preference Survey asked respondents
what main individual prepared their Federal tax returns. Seven choices were provided.
·
The TAB
Conjoint II Study asked respondents
what main person prepared their most recent tax returns. Three choices were provided.
·
The Opinion Survey of Taxpayer Resources and
Services asked respondents to
select the resources and services used when completing their Tax Year 2005
returns. Sixteen choices were provided.
·
The 2006 Wage and Investment Market Segment
Survey asked respondents who
prepared their tax returns. Eight
choices were provided.
Example
4: The number of respondents for the 4 surveys
varied from more than 1,000 to more than 8,000, making it difficult to compare
the percentages among them and to analyze the overall results. The IRS’ attempt to analyze the results for
similar questions in different surveys resulted in different percentages (see
Figure 1). The IRS, for example, would
choose to use the responses from the survey with the highest population or
number of respondents, assuming the higher the population of respondents, the
lower the margin of error. However,
there are statistical methods to test whether two percentages from different
populations are equal.
Considerable effort and resources were used
to administer the surveys, analyze the results, and draw conclusions that could
be used to make decisions on taxpayer service delivery. As the IRS moves forward with additional
research and surveys, it should ensure that the survey designs and survey
questions are consistent and more comparable.
Consistency will ensure that the survey results can be more effectively
and efficiently analyzed and used to draw conclusions and make decisions.
The IRS should ensure that contractors follow documentation and quality assurance requirements for the surveys
The four surveys were conducted with the assistance of outside contractors. Although one of the contracts awarded included specific steps the contractor must follow to ensure the completeness and accuracy of documentation compiled, the IRS did not ensure that these required steps were followed.
One
contractor did not perform steps to ensure that data were accurate and
complete.
During tests of the data for one survey, auditors identified blank responses (respondents did not appear to answer the questions). Auditors attempted to obtain copies of the survey responses to determine the reason for the blank responses and how they affected survey results. The contract required the contractor to (1) provide scanned images of surveys quarterly and (2) select and review 10 percent of the survey responses to ensure the quality of the information being compiled. There was no documentation that either action was completed. The scanned images were destroyed along with the hard copies of the surveys. As a result, our auditors were unable to validate the overall results of the survey. In addition, because the contractor did not complete the required 10 percent review of the survey responses, the risk increases that the survey results are misleading or inaccurate.
Internal controls should be in place to ensure that management’s directives are carried out. Control activities should occur at all levels and functions and include a wide range of activities, including creation and maintenance of related records that provide evidence of the execution of these activities as well as appropriate documentation.
As the IRS moves forward with its research and surveys, it should ensure that contractors comply with documentation and quality standards. This will provide additional assurance as to the usability and reliability of the results and the conclusions drawn from them.
Recommendations
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment
Division, should:
Recommendation 2: Ensure survey instruments are consistent to enable comparisons of results and reliable conclusions.
Management’s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. Management will define standard demographic criteria for use in future TAB-related research and is reviewing a number of surveys to clarify wording of standard questions, such as for demographic information and questions relating to taxpayer satisfaction.
Recommendation 3: Ensure contractors maintain adequate documentation supporting the results of the survey and have a process in place to ensure the accuracy of the information being compiled and provided to the IRS.
Management’s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. For future Wage and Investment Division, Office of Research and Analysis contracts, they will require that contractors providing support to develop, administer, and analyze surveys employ a robust quality assurance process and document the basis of the survey results.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Our overall objective was to assess the accuracy and reliability of the data used to develop the TAB
Phase 2 report. To accomplish this
objective, we:
I. Assessed the reliability of the IRS Quality Assurance process followed for validating information included in the TAB Phase 2 report.
A. Met with IRS officials to discuss the process followed for validating the TAB Phase 2 report.
B. Selected a judgmental sample of 29 statements from the 5 sections of the Tab Phase 2 report and reviewed supporting documentation provided by the IRS to determine if the information contained evidence that the data were validated. The judgmental sample included both income and generational segmentation, which were issues in the prior Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report.
C. Validated a judgmental sample of 29 statements by following the IRS’ methodology to ensure that the output was the same as the IRS results and, in addition, determined if the information contained evidence that the data were accurate.
II. Determined if documentation and validation standards exist and were incorporated into the Wage and Investment Division Research function analyses of data by identifying IRS and Federal Government-wide standards.
III. Determined the accuracy of the statements cited in the TAB Phase 2 report.
A. From the judgmental sample of 29 statements reflected in the TAB Phase 2 report, identified the source information supporting the statements.
B. Reviewed the source documents provided by the IRS to determine the accuracy of the source data and the accuracy of the TAB Phase 2 report statements.
IV.
Assessed the methodology and performance of the
four major surveys.
A.
Provided survey methodology and results to a contract
statistician to assess the methodology and performance of the four surveys.
B.
Provided
survey results to an external statistician to review the results, to determine
if weighting and projection are sound.
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This Report
Michael E.
McKenney, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Wage and Investment Income
Programs)
Augusta R.
Cook, Director
Russell P.
Martin, Audit Manager
Lena Dietles,
Lead Auditor
Pamela
DeSimone, Senior Auditor
Lynn
Faulkner, Senior Auditor
Robert Howes,
Senior Auditor
Kathy Coote,
Auditor
Roberta
Fuller, Auditor
Kevin O’Gallagher,
Information Technology Specialist
Appendix III
Acting Commissioner C
Office of the Commissioner – Attn: Acting
Chief of Staff C
Deputy Commissioner for
Operations Support OS
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE
Chief, Agency-Wide Shared Services OS:A
Deputy Commissioner, Wage and Investment
Division SE:W
Director, Customer Assistance, Relationships,
and Education, Wage and Investment Division
SE:W:CAR
Acting Director, Strategy and Finance, Wage
and Investment Division SE:W:S
Director,
Taxpayer Services Program Management Office, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:TSPMO
Chief, Performance Improvement, Wage and
Investment Division SE:W:S:PI
Director, Stakeholder Partnerships,
Education, and Communication, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:CAR:SPEC
Chief
Counsel CC
National
Taxpayer Advocate TA
Director, Office of Legislative Affairs
CL:LA
Director,
Office of Program Evaluations and Risk Analysis
RAS:O
Office of
Internal Control OS:CFO:CPIC:IC
Audit Liaison: Senior Operations
Advisor, Wage and Investment Division
SE:W:S
Appendix IV
Inconsistent Survey Questions – How Taxpayers Contacted the
Internal Revenue Service
The following survey questions demonstrate the different methodologies in which the surveys were conducted and provide examples of specific questions with the different options for respondents.
Taxpayer Customer Service and Channel
Preference Survey: This
survey was conducted by telephone using random digit dialing.
Did you contact the IRS in any of the
following ways in the last 2 years for any reason?
a. Called the IRS on the telephone.
Yes
No
Do not know
b. Visited an IRS office for in-person help.
Yes
No
Do not know
c. Wrote an email to the IRS.
Yes
No
Do not know
d. Visited the IRS web site, other than to file taxes.
Yes
No
Do not know
e. Sent the IRS a letter in the mail, other than to file taxes.
Yes
No
Do not know
TAB Conjoint II Study: This survey was conducted through the Internet or via television top box (provided to those without computer access).
Have you visited a local IRS office for any
reason in the last 2 years (24 months)?
Yes
No
Have you tried calling the IRS Toll Free telephone
line in the last 2 years?
Yes
No
Have you visited the IRS web site in the last
2 years?
Yes
No
The IRS also answers questions through
regular mail. Have you sent a letter to
the IRS with a tax question in the last 2 years?
Yes
No
Opinion Survey of Taxpayer Resources and Services: This survey was conducted using questionnaires mailed to taxpayers and returned by mail.
Which of the following tax resources and
services, if any, did you use when completing your 2005 tax return? (The respondent was instructed to select all
answers that applied).
2006 Wage and Investment Market Segment Survey: This survey was conducted by telephone using a computer-assisted interview system.
Where did you go to get your
forms and instructions about filing your 2005 taxes? (The respondent was instructed to select
all answers that applied).
Did you need to contact the IRS
about preparing your 2005 tax return?
How did you contact the IRS for help with your 2005 taxes?
1.
Called the IRS Toll-Free telephone line?
·
Yes.
·
No.
·
Do not know.
·
Refused.
2.
Visited the local IRS office (
·
Yes.
·
No.
·
Do not know.
· Refused.
3.
Emailed the IRS?
·
Yes.
·
No.
·
Do not know.
·
Refused.
4.
Sent regular mail to the IRS?
·
Yes.
·
No.
·
Do not know.
·
Refused.
5.
Visited the IRS web site?
·
Yes.
·
No.
·
Do not know.
·
Refused.
6. Used volunteers trained by the IRS that provide free tax
preparation?
·
Yes.
·
No.
·
Do not know.
·
Refused.
7. Used
an IRS kiosk, which is like a bank automatic teller machine?
·
Yes.
·
No.
·
Do not know.
·
Refused.
In the past year, have you called
any IRS Toll-Free telephone line FOR ANY REASON?
·
Yes.
·
No.
·
Do not know.
·
Refused.
In the past year, have you
visited the IRS web site for any reason?
·
Refused.
After you filed your 2005 tax return did you contact the IRS,
including checking the IRS web site, about your refund or receipt of your
return?
·
Refused.
How did you handle
the most recent notice?
·
Did nothing regarding
the notice.
In addition to any interaction with the IRS that we have already
discussed, have you contacted the IRS for the following 3 reasons in the past
12 months?
a. To get information about
payments.
Yes.
No.
b. To obtain a prior year’s tax
return.
Yes.
No.
c. To obtain an employer or
individual tax identification number.
Yes.
No.
Appendix V
Inconsistent Survey Questions
– Who Prepared Taxpayers’ Tax Returns
The following survey questions demonstrate the different methodologies in which the surveys were conducted and provide examples of specific questions with the different options for respondents.
Taxpayer Customer Service and Channel
Preference Survey: This
survey was conducted by telephone using random digit dialing.
Who
was the main individual that prepared your Federal tax return?
TAB Conjoint II Study: This survey was conducted through the Internet or via television top box (provided to those without computer access).
Who was the main
person who prepared your most recent tax return? (The respondent was instructed to select only
one answer).
Opinion Survey of Taxpayer Resources and Services: The survey was conducted using questionnaires mailed to taxpayers and returned by mail.
Which of the following tax resources and
services, if any, did you use when completing your 2005 tax return? (The respondent was instructed to select all
answers that applied).
2006 Wage and Investment Market Segment Survey: This survey was conducted by telephone using a computer-assisted interview system.
Who was the main person who
prepared your taxes?
Appendix VI
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] The Strategic Improvement Themes in the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint Phase I Report Appear to Be Sound; However, There Were Some Inaccurate Data in the Report (Reference Number 2007-40-078, dated May 18, 2007).
[2]
[3] Appendices IV and V detail the method in which the surveys were conducted and give examples of specific questions with the different options for respondents.
[4] United States Congress, Senate Report 109-109. Transportation, Treasury, The Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2006: Internal Revenue Service, Processing, Assistance and Management, Committee Recommendation, July 26, 2005.
[5] United States Congress, Conference Report 109-307. Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference: Internal Revenue Service, Processing Assistance, and Management (Including Rescission of Funds), November 14, 2005.
[6] A nine-member independent body charged with overseeing the IRS in its administration, management, conduct, direction, and supervision of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws and to provide experience, independence, and stability to the IRS so it may move forward in a cogent, focused direction.
[7] The National Taxpayer Advocate heads the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the IRS whose employees assist taxpayers who are seeking help in resolving tax problems that have not been resolved through normal channels.
[8] The Strategic Improvement Themes in the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint Phase I Report Appear to Be Sound; However, There Were Some Inaccurate Data in the Report (Reference Number 2007-40-078, dated May 18, 2007).
[9] An IRS office with employees who answer questions, provide assistance, and resolve account-related issues for taxpayers face to face.
[10] Service channels are the means for obtaining taxpayer services, including telephone, face-to-face, electronic, and written correspondence.
[11] Appendices IV and V detail the methods in which the surveys were conducted and give examples of specific questions with the different options for respondents.
[12] The two choices “I did not use any of the above resources or services” and “Not applicable” were not included in Figure 1. In addition, the two choices for the toll-free telephone operations (automated and representative) are reflected under the category of telephone. Some choices are repeated in different questions. See Appendix IV for questions.
[13] Filing Season is the period from January through mid-April when most individual income tax returns are filed.
[14] The two choices “Do not know” and “Refused” were not included in Figure 1. See Appendix IV for questions.
[15] Three of the 7 channels were also included in the 16 choices shown. Some choices are repeated in different questions. See Appendix IV for examples of questions.
[16] See Appendix V for a list of questions and choices.
[17] An IRS office with employees who answer questions, provide assistance, and resolve account-related issues for taxpayers face to face.
[18] An IRS office with employees who answer questions, provide assistance, and resolve account-related issues for taxpayers face to face.
[19] The translation from Spanish to English is notary public.