1 = Tax return/Return information
3d = Identifying information - Other Identifying Information of an Individual or Individuals

This report presents the results of our statutory review of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The overall objective of the review was to obtain information regarding any FDCPA violations resulting in employee administrative actions or money paid as part of a civil action against the United States Government.

In summary, we did not identify any civil actions where money has been paid out to taxpayers as a result of FDCPA violations. ****1,3d****. We were unable to make these determinations for two reasons. First, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) management information systems did not reflect FDCPA violations at the time of our review. Second, IRS management may not have always properly reported potential FDCPA violations. IRS management has since updated its management information systems to include FDCPA violation codes. Because of our limited scope of review on the second condition, we are not making any recommendations at this time to address the issue of the IRS not always reporting potential violations. However, we are planning to review this issue in our Fiscal Year 2000 audit and will make any warranted recommendations for corrective action at that time.

Executive Summary

Objective and Scope

Background

Results

Conclusion

Appendix I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Appendix II – Major Contributors to This Report

Appendix III – Report Distribution List

Appendix IV – Memorandum #1: Office of Labor Relations and the Internal Revenue Service’s Response

Appendix V – Memorandum #2: Office of Chief Counsel and the Internal Revenue Service’s Response

Appendix VI – Synopsis of 26 U.S.C. (1986) Sections on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Appendix VII – Management’s Response to the Draft Report

Executive Summary

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.§ 1692b (1996), included provisions that restrict various collection abuses and harassment in the private sector that did not apply to the United States (U.S.) Government. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (1998) (future references to this law will be to the law in general and will be referred to as RRA 98), however, requires the IRS to be at least as considerate to taxpayers as private creditors are required to be with their customers. In addition, taxpayers whose FDCPA rights are violated can now file a civil action under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (1986) for damages against the U.S. Government. IRS reports show that approximately 2.5 million taxpayers were in active Collection status as of March 31, 1999. All of these taxpayers have the potential to have their FDCPA rights violated if IRS employees do not comply with the regulations.

Specifically, the RRA 98 added 26 U.S.C. § 6304 (1986), which states that, in general, IRS employees are not to communicate with taxpayers in connection with the collection of any unpaid tax:

• At unusual or inconvenient times.
• If the IRS knows that the taxpayer has obtained representation from a person authorized to practice before the IRS and the IRS knows or can easily obtain the representative’s name and address.
• At the taxpayer’s place of employment if the IRS knows or has reason to know that such communication is prohibited.
• With the intent to harass or abuse, including engaging in activity involving the use or threat of violence, use of profane language, telephone calls which ring continuously, or calls where the employee does not properly identify himself or herself.

The RRA 98 also added 26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(1)(G) (1986) requiring the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration to provide information to the Congress regarding any administrative or civil actions with respect to violations of the FDCPA, including a summary of employee administrative actions taken against IRS employees and a summary of money paid as part of a civil action.

We did not identify any civil actions where money has been paid out to taxpayers as a result of FDCPA violations, based on our review of information provided by the Department of Justice’s Tax Division. ****1,3d****, at the time of our review, IRS management information systems did not reflect the number of FDCPA violations. Instead, IRS systems indirectly tracked violations based on issue codes that describe the inappropriate employee behavior, such as misuse of position/authority or unprofessional conduct. ****1,3d****.

During our limited review of the IRS’ process for controlling and tracking potential FDCPA violations, we identified two areas needing IRS management attention. IRS management addressed the first area during our audit when we brought the issue to their attention.

• The IRS has upgraded existing management information systems to track FDCPA violations and identify monetary settlements to taxpayers.
• IRS management may not always properly report potential FDCPA violations.

Taxpayer complaints about IRS employee conduct can be identified through several IRS functions and management information systems. If a taxpayer files a civil action or if IRS management determines that the taxpayer’s FDCPA rights were potentially violated, the complaint should be referred and tracked on one or both of the following IRS systems:

• Office of Labor Relations’ Automated Labor and Employee Relations Tracking System (ALERTS), which generally tracks employee behavior that may warrant IRS management administrative actions (suspension, removal, etc.).
• Office of Chief Counsel’s Counsel Automated System Environment (CASE), which is an inventory control system that tracks, for example, taxpayer civil actions or bankruptcies.

At the time of our review, these systems did not have information that tracked FDCPA violations. However, IRS management had recognized the need to identify FDCPA violations and had already taken steps toward creating specific violation codes that would identify fair debt collection violations on the ALERTS. In addition, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel responded to an audit memorandum, stating that it had added a specific sub-category tracking code to the CASE that will identify FDCPA civil actions filed by taxpayers and track money paid to taxpayers who are successful in FDCPA civil actions against the IRS.

IRS managers are responsible for understanding the provisions of the FDCPA to ensure taxpayer complaints of fair debt collection violations are properly reported to the appropriate IRS division. However, the IRS provided only limited training on the new RRA 98 provisions and did not provide specific guidance to employees in the Chief Operations Officer organization or in the Taxpayer Advocate’s office on the FDCPA regulations and reporting process.

Our review of taxpayer complaints in two IRS districts indicated that all FDCPA violations may not have been reported; however, we do not know if this is happening nationwide. We identified three additional FDCPA violations that were handled internally instead of being referred to the Office of Labor Relations to be tracked. ****1,3d****. IRS management agreed that the complaints should have been reported to the Office of Labor Relations as potential FDCPA violations.

We also reviewed our own Office of Investigations’ Investigations Management Information System to determine if there were any FDCPA violations. We identified seven open investigations (from six different districts in three separate regions) having FDCPA violation codes. However, while IRS management referred these allegations to us as potential IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 720 (1998) (referred to as RRA 98 § 1203) violations or as employee conduct issues, they did not properly identify them as potential FDCPA violations.

This report has no additional recommendations for corrective action beyond what the IRS had committed to during the audit. We will be performing a subsequent review during Fiscal Year 2000 to determine whether potential FDCPA violations are being properly reported nationwide.

Management’s Response: The IRS has upgraded the ALERTS by adding new issue codes that specifically identify FDCPA violations. Guidance has been sent to the Office of Labor Relations staff to ensure proper use of these codes. In addition, the Office of Chief Counsel is now entering case information regarding amounts paid out for violations of 26 U.S.C. § 6304 into the CASE. The entries will indicate whether such payments resulted from settling a claim prior to suit or settlement of judgment as the result of a suit.

Currently, the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) contains procedures for reporting allegations of inappropriate behavior, but the procedures do not refer specifically to the new case issues that are used to identify FDCPA violations. The IRS will supplement the IRM to include procedures that will require managers to identify alleged FDCPA violations and report the violations to the servicing Labor Relations office so they can be tracked on the ALERTS.

Management’s complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix VII.

Objective and Scope

The overall objective of this review was to obtain information regarding any Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692b (1996), violations resulting in employee administrative actions or money paid as a part of a civil action against the United States (U.S.) Government.

To accomplish our objective, we:

• Determined if Internal Revenue Service (IRS) management information systems captured FDCPA violations.
• Reviewed case documentation from IRS management information systems to determine the number of FDCPA violations with employee administrative actions.
• Conducted limited visitations at the IRS National Office and eight IRS field offices to determine how IRS management controls and tracks taxpayer complaints of employee FDCPA violations.
• Contacted the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Tax Division and reviewed its reports to determine if there were any taxpayer FDCPA civil actions that resulted in monetary settlements or judgments.

We are required to report annually on the number of FDCPA violations with employee administrative actions and the money paid as a result of a civil suit against the U.S. Government. This review was limited to obtaining information about FDCPA violations resulting in employee administrative or civil actions. Due to time constraints, we did not evaluate processes the IRS may be using to ensure employees do not violate fair debt collection requirements during their attempts to collect taxes, or determine whether FDCPA violations were properly investigated. We also did not attempt to identify the total number of open FDCPA violations. We plan to address the process of identifying and reporting FDCPA violations in a future review.

Our review was conducted between January 1999 and May 1999 in the Houston, Kentucky-Tennessee, Los Angeles, Midwest, North Florida, Ohio, Pacific-Northwest, and Upstate New York Districts.

Details of our audit objective, scope, and methodology are presented in Appendix I. Major contributors to this report are listed in Appendix II.

Background

On July 22, 1998, the President signed into law the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (1998) (future references to this law will be to the law in general and will be referred to as RRA 98). A provision in RRA 98 added 26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(1)(G) (1986) that required the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to report in one of the semiannual reports information regarding any administrative or civil actions with respect to violations of the fair debt collection provisions of the 26 U.S.C. § 6304 (1986).

The FDCPA included provisions that restrict various collection abuses and harassment in the private sector that did not apply to the U.S. Government. The Congress believed that the IRS should be at least as considerate to taxpayers as private creditors are required to be with their customers.

The RRA 98 requires the IRS to comply with the following restrictions of the FDCPA. In particular, the IRS may not communicate with taxpayers in the collection of any unpaid tax:

• At unusual or inconvenient times.
• If the IRS knows that the taxpayer has obtained representation from a person authorized to practice before the IRS and the IRS knows or can easily obtain the representative’s name and address.
• At the taxpayer’s place of employment if the IRS knows or has reason to know that such communication is prohibited.
• With the intent to harass or abuse, including engaging in activity involving the use or threat of violence, use of profane language, telephone calls which ring continuously, or calls where the employee does not properly identify himself or herself.

If taxpayers believe the IRS has violated their FDCPA rights, they may file a civil action for damages against the U.S. Government under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (1986). Taxpayers may file an administrative claim for damages with the IRS District Director in the District in which they reside or file for civil damages in a Federal District Court. However, with respect to civil damages, a judgment for damages shall not be awarded if the court determines the taxpayer did not exhaust the administrative remedies available to the taxpayer within the IRS. A synopsis of 26 U.S.C. § 6304 (1986) sections dealing with the FDCPA is contained in Appendix VI.

The IRS’ definition of administrative actions includes disciplinary actions ranging from admonishment through suspension or removal. Administrative actions do not include the lesser actions of oral counseling or reprimand. We used the IRS’ definition of administrative actions when determining the number of FDCPA violations to be reported to the Congress in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(1)(G) (1986).

Results

Information provided by the DOJ Tax Division indicated that as of January 31, 1999, there were no civil actions where money was paid out to taxpayers as a result of FDCPA violations by IRS employees. Through our review of the IRS’ various management information systems, ****1,3d****.

During our limited review of the IRS’ process for controlling and tracking potential FDCPA violations, we identified two areas needing IRS management attention. IRS management addressed the first area during our audit when we brought the issue to their attention.

• The IRS has upgraded existing management information systems to track FDCPA violations and identify monetary settlements to taxpayers.
• IRS management may not always properly report potential FDCPA violations.

The Internal Revenue Service Has Upgraded Existing Management Information Systems to Track Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Violations and Identify Monetary Settlements to Taxpayers

Taxpayer complaints about IRS employee conduct, including potential FDCPA violations, can be identified through several IRS functions and their related management information systems. If IRS management determines that a taxpayer’s FDCPA rights were potentially violated, they should refer the complaint to the Office of Labor Relations for tracking.

At the time of our review, the IRS did not have specific codes to identify fair debt collection violations on any of the systems discussed below. This prevented us from readily identifying the FDCPA violations that need to be reported to the Congress. We did not determine why the IRS did not have specific FDCPA violation codes because it was outside the scope of our review. However, when we discussed this issue with IRS management, they informed us they were already in the process of adding codes to the Office of Labor Relations’ Automated Labor and Employee Relations Tracking System (ALERTS), the primary management information system for tracking FDCPA violations. They also agreed to add FDCPA violation codes to the Office of Chief Counsel’s Counsel Automated System Environment (CASE), which tracks litigation and civil actions against the U.S. Government.

Office of Labor Relations: The ALERTS tracks a wide range of labor relations activity, including actions taken based on findings of IRS employee conduct or performance problems. Information on the ALERTS is updated and tracked throughout the process of determining whether a violation occurred to the final decision on whether employee administrative action is warranted. Appendix IV includes our memorandum and the Office of Labor Relations’ response regarding updating the ALERTS to include new codes to specifically track FDCPA violations.

Office of Chief Counsel: The CASE serves as a general litigation case inventory control system. General litigation cases involve, for example, taxpayer suits, bankruptcy, and advisory opinions. Advisory opinions cover a variety of subjects, such as seizure cases or offers-in-compromise.

Discussions with the Office of Chief Counsel disclosed that monies paid to taxpayers who win judgments against the U.S. Government are paid by the DOJ’s Judgment Fund Branch. Information provided to us by the DOJ indicated there were no civil actions where money has been paid out to taxpayers as a result of FDCPA violations.

We issued an audit memorandum to the Office of Chief Counsel on April 15, 1999, recommending a specific tracking code be added to the CASE to identify FDCPA civil actions filed by taxpayers and to begin tracking money paid out of the Judgment Fund to taxpayers who are successful in FDCPA civil actions against the IRS. As of June 11, 1999, the CASE had been updated to include a new sub-category to capture violations of the FDCPA incorporated into 26 U.S.C. § 6304 (1986) and actionable under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (1986). Appendix V includes our memorandum and the Office of Chief Counsel’s response regarding updating the CASE to include new codes to specifically track potential FDCPA civil actions.

Management’s Response: The IRS has upgraded the ALERTS by adding new issue codes that specifically identify FDCPA violations. Guidance has been sent to the Office of Labor Relations staff to ensure proper use of these codes. The Office of Chief Counsel will now be entering case information regarding amounts paid out for violations of 26 U.S.C. § 6304 into the CASE. The entries will indicate whether such payments resulted from settling a claim prior to suit or settlement of judgment as the result of a suit.

Because the IRS systems did not track potential FDCPA violations at the time of our review, we attempted to identify potential violations by analyzing selected cases from the ALERTS. We also reviewed taxpayer complaint cases on the Office of Taxpayer Advocate’s Customer Feedback System (CFS) and employee conduct cases on the TIGTA Office of Investigations’ Investigations Management Information System (IMIS).

Information recorded on the ALERTS is classified by "Case Type," while the employee behavior is classified by "Issue Code." To identify FDCPA violations that resulted in employee administration actions, we selected case types and issue codes with the highest probability of containing FDCPA violations. We requested a list of Case Type "A" (Administration) and "I" (Investigations) having the following issue codes:

Issue Code Description

004 Unacceptable Work Performance

009 Off Duty Misconduct

013 Misuse of Position/Authority

020 Fighting, Assaults, and Threats

022 Taxpayer Charge or Complaint

058 Unprofessional Conduct

090 Rude/Discourteous Conduct

We reviewed the 201 ALERTS cases that met our criteria that were both opened and resolved between
July 22, 1998, and March 18, 1999, and ****1,3d****. These are the only cases we found that meet the requirement for reporting to the Congress.

Taxpayer complaints can also be tracked on the CFS in the Taxpayer Advocate’s office. Taxpayer feedback is documented by IRS management on a Customer Feedback Record (Form 10004) and forwarded to the Taxpayer Advocate’s office for input to the CFS. Prior to inputting the taxpayer complaint information, the Taxpayer Advocate’s office ensures that the taxpayer’s complaint has been addressed. However, the Taxpayer Advocate’s office serves only as a clearinghouse for complaints and does not determine whether management actions were appropriate in resolving the complaint. IRS management in the other functional areas are responsible for coordinating cases resulting in employee disciplinary action with the Office of Labor Relations, which enters the case on the ALERTS.

Because the CFS does not specifically track cases as potential FDCPA violations, we could not identify any violations on that particular system.

Analysis of IMIS Cases

In addition to the IRS systems previously discussed, the TIGTA Office of Investigations tracks, on its IMIS, complaints of IRS employee misconduct that could involve FDCPA violations. Employee misconduct can involve employee theft/embezzlements, assaults, bribery, fraud, or intimidation/harassment of taxpayers. Results of investigations can then be presented to the United States Attorney for prosecution. If accepted, an Assistant United States Attorney will prosecute the case. If declined, cases are referred to IRS management for appropriate employee administrative actions.

The TIGTA Office of Investigations enters complaints into the IMIS by an assigned category code and a violation code that provide a brief description of the alleged inappropriate employee behavior (threat, assault, bribe, etc.). As a result of RRA 98, the Office of Investigations created new fair debt collection violation codes on the IMIS. In addition, all cases open on or after July 22, 1998, were reviewed by the Office of Investigations and assigned fair debt collection codes, if warranted. We reviewed the 23 IMIS cases with fair debt collection violation codes opened between July 22, 1998, and March 18, 1999. Because the cases are still pending completion, no decision has been made on the action to be taken.

Internal Revenue Service Management May Not Always Properly Report Potential Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Violations

We surveyed all 43 IRS District and Service Center Directors on whether they maintained any records of FDCPA violations and any monies paid out based on civil actions. We received responses from 35 Directors and all of them stated that they had no records that any employee violations of the FDCPA were committed between July 22, 1998, and January 31, 1999.

We also reviewed, in two districts, all the available taxpayer complaints recorded on Forms 10004 for the period July 22, 1998, to January 31, 1999, to determine if any involved potential FDCPA violations. We identified three complaints involving potential FDCPA violations that were not reported to the Office of Labor Relations. However, because our review of Forms 10004 was limited to two district offices, we cannot conclude that this is a nationwide problem. We plan to address this issue during our Fiscal Year 2000 review.

We reviewed the three complaints ****1,3d****. While these complaints were handled internally through the Taxpayer Advocate’s office, they should also have been referred to the Office of Labor Relations to be tracked on the ALERTS. IRS management has agreed that these complaints should have been referred as potential FDCPA violations.

Also, our review of the 23 IMIS cases with FDCPA codes identified 7 potential FDCPA violations (from
6 different districts in 3 separate regions) that IRS management had referred to the TIGTA Office of Investigations as potential RRA 98 § 1203 violations, but had not indicated they were also potential FDCPA violations. Instead, the potential violations were identified by the Office of Investigations and coded as such on the IMIS. We did not determine why the IRS did not report these cases as potential FDCPA violations.

IRS managers are responsible for understanding the provisions of the FDCPA to ensure taxpayer complaints of fair debt collection violations are properly identified and reported for appropriate administrative action. However, the IRS provided only limited training on the new RRA 98 provisions and did not provide specific guidance on the FDCPA regulations and reporting process to employees in the Chief Operations Officer organization or in the Taxpayer Advocate’s office.

Because of the limited scope of our current review, we were unable to determine the root cause of the problem of not identifying and reporting potential FDCPA violations. Accordingly, we are not making any recommendations at this time. We will be doing a subsequent review to determine whether potential FDCPA violations are being properly reported nationwide.

Management’s Response: Currently, the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) contains procedures for reporting allegations of inappropriate behavior, but the procedures do not refer specifically to the new case issues that are used to identify FDCPA violations. The IRS will supplement the IRM to include procedures that will require managers to identify alleged FDCPA violations and report the violations to the servicing Labor Relations office so they can be tracked on the ALERTS.

Conclusion

We are required to provide information annually to the Congress regarding any administrative or civil actions with respect to violations of the FDCPA, including a summary of employee administrative actions taken against IRS employees and a summary of money paid as part of a civil action. Our review of IRS records for the period July 22, 1998, through March 18, 1999, ****1,3d****. No monies have been paid out from civil actions filed as a result of FDCPA violations.

****1,3d****. To increase the reliability of its management information systems, the IRS upgraded existing systems to track potential FDCPA violations and to identify monetary settlements to taxpayers.

IRS reports show that approximately 2.5 million taxpayers were in active Collection status as of March 31, 1999. All of these taxpayers are at risk of abuse if IRS employees do not comply with the FDCPA regulations.

Appendix I

The overall objective of this review was to obtain information regarding any Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692b (1996) violations resulting in employee administrative actions or money paid as part of a civil action against the United States Government. To accomplish this objective, we conducted the following audit tests.

1. Determined if FDCPA violations resulting in administrative or civil actions were captured in the offices of the District or Service Center Directors.
1. Issued a memorandum to all 43 District and Service Center Directors’ offices to obtain information on FDCPA violations resulting in administrative or civil actions.
2. Discussed with eight randomly selected District Directors how taxpayer complaints were captured and how cases were processed from receipt to disposition, including:
1. Administrative monetary settlements with taxpayers.
2. Administrative disciplinary actions taken on employees.
3. Civil actions by taxpayers.
3. Discussed with Collection Division management how complaints were captured and how cases were processed from receipt to disposition.
4. Requested a listing or report of FDCPA violations received through the District or Service Center Directors’ offices.

2. Determined if FDCPA violations were captured on the Office of Labor Relations’ Automated Labor and Employee Relations Tracking System (ALERTS).

1. Discussed with National and Regional Office of Labor Relations personnel whether FDCPA violations were captured on the ALERTS and how violations were processed from receipt to disposition.
2. Obtained and reviewed a download of the 201 ALERTS cases that met our criteria and that were both opened and closed between July 22, 1998, and March 18, 1999, to identify potential FDCPA violations.

1. Sorted identified violations by type (Communication with the Taxpayer or Harassment and Abuse).
2. Determined the disposition of each violation.

3. Determined if FDCPA violations were captured on the Taxpayer Advocate’s Customer Feedback System and how violations were processed from receipt to disposition, by interviewing National and District Taxpayer Advocate personnel. Reviewed all the Customer Feedback Records (Form 10004) for the period
   July 22, 1998, to January 31, 1999, in two districts to determine if any of the complaints dealt with potential FDCPA violations.
4. Determined if FDCPA violations were captured on the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) Investigations Management Information System (IMIS).

1. Discussed with TIGTA Office of Investigations personnel whether FDCPA violations were captured and how violations were processed from receipt to disposition.
2. Obtained a download of the 23 IMIS cases that had a FDCPA violation code indicating a potential FDCPA violation had occurred between
   July 22, 1998, and February 28, 1999, to identify the number of violations resulting in administrative actions.

1. Traced cases closed with administrative action (identified in IV.B.) to the ALERTS database to determine whether they were reported to the Office of Labor Relations.

5. Determined if FDCPA violations that resulted in civil actions were captured on the Office of Chief Counsel’s Counsel Automated System Environment (CASE) and how violations were processed from receipt to disposition, by interviewing personnel from the Chief Counsel’s office.

6. Determined the nationwide number of FDCPA violations that resulted in civil actions where monetary settlements were awarded to taxpayers.

1. Discussed with national and regional fiscal office management procedures required for disbursing monetary payments to settle taxpayer administrative claims for damages or civil actions.
2. Identified the fiscal accounting codes related to settlement disbursements for FDCPA violations.
3. Contacted the Department of Justice’s Tax Division to determine whether its system(s) contained any taxpayer FDCPA civil actions or monetary settlements with taxpayers.

Appendix II

Maurice S. Moody, Associate Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt Organizations Programs)

M. Susan Boehmer, Director

Richard Dagliolo, Director

Gary Lewis, Director

Nancy A. Nakamura, Director

Mary V. Baker, Deputy Director

Amy Coleman, Audit Manager

Robert Irish, Audit Manager

Alan Lund, Acting Audit Manager

Lynn Wofchuck, Audit Manager

Deadra English, Senior Auditor

Javier Fernandez, Senior Auditor

Jimmie Johnson, Senior Auditor

Frank Jones, Senior Auditor

Brian Kelly, Senior Auditor

E. John Thomas, Senior Auditor

Charlie Winn, Senior Auditor

Paul Baker, Auditor

Doris Cervantes, Auditor

Debra Dunn, Auditor

George Franklin, Auditor

Andrea Hayes, Auditor

Erin Kaauwai, Auditor

Kristi Larson, Auditor

Julian O’Neal, Auditor

Susan Price, Auditor

Steven Stephens, Auditor

Ronnie Summers, Auditor

William Thompson, Auditor

David Yorkowitz, Auditor

Appendix III

Deputy Commissioner Operations C:DO

Chief Operations Officer OP

Chief Management and Finance M

Assistant Commissioner (Collection) OP:CO

Assistant Commissioner (Support Services) M:S

Assistant Commissioner (Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis) M:OP

National Director for Legislative Affairs CL:LA

Office of the Chief Counsel CC

Director, Houston District D

Director, Kentucky-Tennessee District D

Director, Los Angeles District D

Director, Midwest District D

Director, North Florida District D

Director, Ohio District D

Director, Pacific-Northwest District D

Director, Upstate New York District D

Office of Management Controls M:CFO:A:M

Audit Liaison:

Appendix IV

Response has been removed due to its size. To see the complete Response, please go to the Adobe PDF version of this report.

Appendix V

Response has been removed due to its size. To see the complete Response, please go to the Adobe PDF version of this report.

Appendix VI

26 U.S.C. § 6304(a) (1986) generally states that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), without prior consent given directly by the taxpayer, may not communicate with taxpayers in the collection of any unpaid tax:

1. At unusual or inconvenient times.
2. If the IRS knows that the taxpayer has obtained representation from a person authorized to practice before the IRS and the IRS knows or can easily obtain the representative’s name and address.
3. At the taxpayer’s place of employment if the IRS knows or has reason to know that such communication is prohibited.

26 U.S.C. § 6304(b) (1986) generally states the IRS may not engage in any conduct which is intended to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of any unpaid tax. The following conduct is a violation of this subsection:

1. The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person.
2. The use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader.
3. Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.
4. Placement of calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity.

26 U.S.C. § 6304(c) (1986) generally states taxpayers can now file civil actions against the Government under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (1986) for violations for unauthorized collection actions.

26 U.S.C. § 7433 (1986) generally states taxpayers can file civil actions for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States if any IRS employee, in connection with any collection of Federal tax, recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision of this title. Also, a judgment for damages shall not be awarded unless the court determines that the plaintiff has exhausted the administrative remedies available to such plaintiff within the IRS.

Appendix VII

Response has been removed due to its size. To see the complete Response, please go to the Adobe PDF version of this report.