Report Type
Report Category
Submitting Agency
State/Local Agency
State (State and Local Reports)
Fraud Type
Agency Reviewed
- (-) Architect of the Capitol (0)
- (-) Department of Housing and Urban Development (1)
- (-) Election Assistance Commission (3)
- (-) Internal Revenue Service (11)
- (-) National Science Foundation (3)
- Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (1)
- Department of Defense (4)
- Department of Education (7)
- Department of Homeland Security (13)
- Department of Justice (2)
- Department of Labor (20)
- Department of the Interior (2)
- Department of the Treasury (8)
- Department of Transportation (4)
- Department of Veterans Affairs (2)
- Environmental Protection Agency (3)
- General Services Administration (1)
- National Security Agency (1)
- Railroad Retirement Board (5)
- Small Business Administration (5)
- Social Security Administration (3)
- Tennessee Valley Authority (1)
- U.S. Agency for International Development (1)
- U.S. Postal Service (9)
Related Organizations
Management Challenges
Any Recommendations
Any Open Recommendations
Reports
Compliance Efforts Are Needed to Address Refund Claims Reported on Form 1139 That Are Based on the CARES Act Net Operating Loss Carryback Provisions
Track and monitor examination results for the 25 “still open” examinations of Forms 1120 with reported NOL and an associated Form 1139 reported in Figure 4 of this report, excluding Joint Committee Refund cases which currently have specific monitoring requirements in place.
Use the examination results from Recommendation 1 to assess whether to increase the number of examinations of Forms 1120 with reported NOL and an associated Form 1139.
The Commissioner, SB/SE Division should review the examination results and computations of proposed NOL adjustments for the 25 “still open” Form 1120 examinations with associated Forms 1139, as referenced in Figure 4, excluding Joint Committee Refund cases which currently have specific review requirements in place, to determine if the interim guidance regarding NOLs is being properly followed.
Processing of Recovery Rebate Credit Claims During the 2021 Filing Season
On June 15, 2021, we alerted IRS management of our concerns with the systemic calculation of the allowable RRC amount. We recommended that IRS management review the returns we identified and provide us with any corrective actions they intended to take.
Conduct analysis of Tax Year 2020 tax returns processed after May 27, 2021, to identify additional individuals who received an RRC for a qualifying child for which the IRS has already paid an EIP or an RRC to someone else and take the actions needed to recover RRC payments that are determined to be erroneous.
Review the 7,022 individuals identified in which the IRS issued multiple RRCs for a qualifying child who was claimed on more than one tax return and take the actions needed to recover payments that are determined to be erroneous.
Conduct analysis of Tax Year 2020 tax returns processed after May 27, 2021, to identify additional individuals who received an RRC for a qualifying child who was claimed on more than one tax return and take the actions needed to recover payments that are determined to be erroneous.
Review the 75,594 tax returns identified in which the individual is potentially a nonresident alien and take the actions needed to recover the RRC payments that are determined to be erroneous.
Perform analysis of Tax Year 2020 tax returns filed after May 27, 2021, to identify additional tax returns with the same characteristics as those the IRS determined were filed by a nonresident alien and take the actions needed to recover erroneous RRC payments.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should coordinate with the Territories to confirm and recover erroneous RRCs.
Review the nearly 6.9 million potentially eligible individuals we provided to the IRS who had not filed a Tax Year 2020 tax return as of May 27, 2021, and send a letter to those individuals who still have not filed a Tax Year 2020 return to encourage them to file a return and claim the RRC if eligible.
Review the 3.1 million eligible individuals we identified who filed a Tax Year 2020 return and proactively issue these taxpayers their credit.
Conduct additional analysis to identify tax returns filed after May 27, 2021, in which an individual is eligible for the RRC based on their Tax Year 2020 tax return and did not claim the credit, and proactively issue the taxpayer their credit.
If IRS management does not proactively issue the RRC to individuals who filed a return and did not claim the credit, the IRS should notify these individuals that they are eligible to claim the RRC and should file an amended tax return to claim the credit.
On March 19, 2021, we alerted IRS management of our concerns that an incorrect amount of advance payments was being used to calculate the RRC for some taxpayers. We recommended that IRS management review the returns we identified and provide us with any corrective actions they intended to take.
Work with the BFS to ensure that individuals who were denied the RRC and have still not activated their EIP1 or EIP2 debit card as of December 31, 2021, have EIPs reversed in their tax account and are issued their RRC. These processes should include notifying Metabank that the debit cards in question are to be cancelled.
Work with the BFS to obtain recurring data during Processing Year 2022 to identify individuals who have not activated their advance ARPA RRC debit card at the time a return is filed and implement processes to reverse the advance payment so these individuals can receive the RRC on their Tax Year 2021 tax return.
We alerted the Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, of our concerns that the IRS was unnecessarily burdening taxpayers whose RRC claims were identified for manual ERS review. We recommended the IRS develop processes to systemically adjust RRC claims using the computer-generated RRC calculation.
On April 6, 2021, we alerted IRS management of our concerns regarding ERS tax examiners incorrectly computing the RRC (see management’s action in response to Recommendation 1). We recommended the IRS review the returns we identified and take the actions necessary to ensure that these taxpayers receive the amount of the RRC
they are entitled to receive.
On March 12, 2021, we alerted IRS management of our concerns that some tax returns were not being identified by fraud filters. We recommended IRS management review the returns we identified and associated fraud filters to identify why these returns were not selected and make programming changes as necessary to ensure proper
identification of returns with potentially questionable claims.
Conduct analysis to identify Tax Year 2020 RRC claims processed after May 27, 2021, to identify other returns in which ERS tax examiners incorrectly calculated the number of allowable dependents and returns that were not reprocessed per IRS guidance after programming was corrected, and ensure that these taxpayers receive the correct amount of the RRC.
Review the 14,508 individuals identified in which the IRS issued an RRC to an individual who was claimed as a dependent on someone else’s tax return but did not check the dependent box and take the actions needed to recover payments that are determined to be erroneous.
Conduct analysis of Tax Year 2020 tax returns processed after May 27, 2021, to identify additional individuals who received an RRC and were also claimed as a dependent on someone else’s tax return but did not check the dependent box, and take the actions needed to recover the RRC payments that are determined to be erroneous.
Review the 238,680 individuals under the age of 25 identified as potential dependents and take the actions needed to recover payments that are determined to be erroneous.
Review the 15,741 individuals identified in which the individual incorrectly received an RRC and an EIP for the same qualifying child and take the actions needed to recover RRC payments that are determined to be erroneous.
The Child Tax Credit Update Portal Was Successfully Deployed, but Security and Process Improvements Are Needed
Program and Organizational Changes Are Needed to Address the Continued Inadequate Tax Account Assistance Provided to Taxpayers
On September 20, 2021, we notified the Director, Accounts Management, that the Austin site was not requiring Accounts Management screeners to come into the office to perform their duties, resulting in a significant backlog and delays in inventory being routed to Accounts Management to be worked. We recommended that the IRS establish consistent guidance and clarification on when resources can be directed to the office to help with screening inventory, to ensure that sufficient staff is available to screen documents in a timely manner, and establish processes to monitor the progress,
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should update existing scanning software or obtain a new scanning software to
address document capacity concerns.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should ensure that programming is updated to systemically reject electronic
submissions of Forms 2848 and 8821 when missing one of the five essential elements (name, address, signature, etc.) without manually mailing a rejection letter.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should ensure that the rejection letter used for Forms 2848 and 8821 is updated
to include language that a revised form can be submitted electronically via an IRS Tax Pro Account25 or through Taxpayer Digital Communication.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should develop an action plan to prioritize the continued expansion of documents that can be sent in via electronic fax and converted into a Correspondence Imaging System (CIS) image.
Develop an action plan to prioritize the continued expansion of documents that can be sent in via electronic fax and converted into a CIS image.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should Identify priority work that needs to be expedited by the Image Control Team (ICT) and assess the feasibility of creating an electronic fax number to receive this inventory.
On July 12, 2021, TiGTA notified the Director, Accounts Management, of concerns regarding inaccuracies as it related to the compiling and reporting of the Accounts Management Inventory Report (AMIR). TIGTA recommended that the IRS perform a reconciliation of each Accounts Management site’s AMIR to the source reports to identify inventory inconsistencies and reporting errors by site
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should complete the inventory reconciliations for the four remaining Accounts
Management site’s to identify and correct inventory inaccuracies and inconsistencies and implement processes to provide oversight by periodically performing reconciliations for each site so that any future inconsistencies and errors are identified and corrected in a timely manner.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should develop specific and detailed instructions for preparing the Accounts Management Inventory Report (AMIR), including how controlled and uncontrolled inventory should be captured
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should develop a process to systemically pull all controlled inventory for each
Accounts Management site for the Accounts Management Inventory Report (AMIR) to ensure consistency, reduce human error, and
increase efficiencies
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should modify Accounts Management inventory reporting to report unassigned
controlled inventory separately on the nationwide Accounts Management Inventory Report (AMIR) and limit the site-specific AMIRs to only
the inventory assigned to be worked in each site.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should evaluate directing taxpayers to send tax account correspondence and
replies intended for Accounts Management directly to Campus Support Sites for processing to reduce backlogs at Tax Processing Centers and improve services to taxpayers.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should prioritize the development and implementation of tools that will enable
taxpayers seeking assistance or responding to Accounts Management to correspond with the IRS electronically, including the ability to directly upload documents into Accounts Management’s inventory.
The Chief Taxpayer Experience Officer, in conjunction with the Director, IRS NEXT Office, should evaluate establishing two distinct IRS programs as part of the IRS reorganization under the Taxpayer First Act – one dedicated to answering toll-free telephone calls and one dedicated to working Accounts Management inventory – with adequate staffing to provide appropriate service to taxpayers using each channel.
On June 9, 2021, we notified the Director, Customer Account Services, that Submission Processing requested resources from Accounts Management to assist with clearing the Image Control Team (ICT) backlog and was told by Campus Support management that no resources could be made available to assist with reducing the ICT backlog. We recommended that the IRS assess the availability of Campus Support’s ICT staffing or other resources that could be made available to assist with clearing the ICT backlogs at Tax Processing Centers.
On September 3, 2021, we notified the Director, Accounts Management, of concerns relating to the newly stood-up Fresno Campus Support Site, including scanners not being used to the full extent possible. We recommended that IRS management provide us with it plans to address our concerns identified with the new Fresno Campus Support Site, including additional staffing to assist Image Control Team (ICT).
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should complete a strategic review of all 10 Image Control Team (ICT) sites to determine what contributes to the ICT’s inability to timely scan and validate documents. Based on the results of this review, initiate steps to address the concerns identified. This should include the development of an action plan to ensure that the high-capacity ICT scanners and staffing are realigned to the appropriate sites based on actual or expected inventory levels and that responsibility of the ICT operations are consolidated under the appropriate function.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should cross-train additional mail clerks at Campus Support Sites to work Image Control Team (ICT) validations, freeing up additional resources in sites with higher inventories needing to be scanned, or consider shipping inventory to sites with less inventory to be scanned.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should develop specific instructions and a common template for all 10 Image Control Team (ICT) sites to consistently capture ICT inventory information.
Performance Audit of the Implementation of OMB COVID-19 Flexibilities – Florida International University
Resolve the $1,252 in questioned Award Cash Management $ervice drawdowns for which FIU has not agreed to reimburse NSF and direct FIU to repay or otherwise remove the sustained questioned costs from its NSF awards.
Direct FIU to provide documentation supporting that it has repaid or otherwise credited the $14,167 of questioned costs for which it has agreed to reimburse NSF.
Direct FIU to update its administrative and management processes and internal control procedures surrounding the Award Cash Management $ervice for awards with expiring appropriations. Updated processes should ensure FIU appropriately documents how it calculates the final draw amounts for awards with expiring appropriations, to ensure it only uses the draws to cover costs incurred before the appropriation expired.
Direct FIU to strengthen its award set-up processes and procedures to ensure it cannot charge costs to an active award if the Federal appropriations for the award have expired.
Resolve the $791 in questioned fringe benefit costs for which FIU has not agreed to reimburse NSF and direct FIU to repay or otherwise remove the sustained questioned costs from its NSF awards.
Direct FIU to provide documentation supporting that it has repaid or otherwise credited the $5,934 of questioned promotional and salary costs for which it has agreed to reimburse NSF.
Direct FIU to establish clear guidance regarding the <span class="tx-tooltip" tabindex="0">
allowable uses
<span class="tx-tooltip-text">
<span class="cf0">An allowable use is any expenditure on which an entity can spend funding.</span>
</span>
</span>
of participant support cost funding. This guidance should address: a. Allowable uses of participant support cost funding. b. How to verify personnel did not apply fringe benefit rates to participant stipends or other non-salary expenses.
Direct FIU to strengthen its monitoring procedures surrounding costs charged to its NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates programs. Updated procedures should ensure FIU charges costs associated with promotional and/or other unallowable items to nonFederal funding sources.
Direct FIU to update its current practices to ensure it only applies fringe benefits using fringe benefit rates that have been approved by its cognizant audit agency.
Performance Audit of the Implementation of OMB COVID-19 Flexibilities – State University of New York at Stony Brook
Direct Stony Brook to provide documentation supporting that it has repaid or otherwise credited the $20,530 of questioned Award Cash Management $ervice drawdowns associated with unspent funds.
Direct Stony Brook to update its administrative and management processes and internal control procedures surrounding the Award Cash Management $ervice for awards with expiring appropriations. Updated processes could include validating that Stony Brook only draws down funding based on immediate cash needs and/or adequately documents that any Award Cash Management $ervice draws in excess of its actual expenses support immediate cash needs.
Direct Stony Brook to provide documentation supporting that it has repaid or otherwise credited the $6,913 in questioned travel costs for which it has agreed to reimburse NSF.
Direct Stony Brook to provide additional guidance to ensure personnel reimburse NSF timely for cash drawn down for unused travel advances.
Direct Stony Brook to provide documentation supporting that it has repaid or otherwise credited the $3,898 in questioned travel costs for which it has agreed to reimburse NSF.
Direct Stony Brook to strengthen its monitoring procedures and internal controls surrounding the allocation of travel expenses to sponsored projects. Processes could include reviewing and assessing the allocation of all travel expenses charged to NSF awards.
Direct Stony Brook to separately track its on-campus and off-campus activities so that it can appropriately apply the approved on-campus and off-campus indirect cost rates.
Direct Stony Brook to update its current budget proposal process to eliminate the use of blended indirect cost rates.
Direct Stony Brook to update its current award set-up practices to require that, when setting up accounts established for NSF awards, personnel ensure that the accounts apply indirect costs using the rates that were established in the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement in effect as of the date of the NSF grant award, rather than using the rates included within the original grant proposal.
Direct Stony Brook to update its current award set-up practices to remove the establishment of indirect cost budget caps.
Performance Audit of the Implementation of OMB COVID-19 Flexibilities – University of New Mexico
Resolve the $17,269 in questioned unreasonable per diem, airfare, and ground transportation costs for which UNM has not agreed to reimburse NSF and direct UNM to repay or otherwise remove the sustained questioned costs from its NSF awards.
Direct UNM to strengthen its administrative and management procedures for reviewing travel expenses incurred on sponsored projects. Updated procedures could include periodic training for Principal Investigators to ensure they understand when NSF Grant Officer approval should be requested and how to appropriately document that only reasonable costs were charged to NSF awards.
Direct UNM to strengthen its policies and procedures regarding the reasonableness of per diem expenses incurred when employees are temporarily relocated for a period longer than 30 days.
Resolve the $3,613 in questioned tuition costs for which UNM has not agreed to reimburse NSF and direct UNM to repay or otherwise remove the sustained questioned costs from its NSF awards.
Direct UNM to provide documentation supporting that it has repaid or otherwise credited the $83 of questioned travel costs for which it has agreed to reimburse NSF.
Direct UNM to strengthen its controls surrounding the approval of expense reimbursements to ensure approvers appropriately verify that travelers are reimbursed at the appropriate U.S. General Services Administration per diem rate(s).
Direct UNM to strengthen its policies and procedures surrounding the use of participant support cost funding to cover tuition remission expenses. Specifically, UNM should update its current tuition remission policies and procedures to ensure that it does not use participant support costs to cover costs associated with credit hours that do not benefit student participants.
Direct UNM to update its award set-up practices to require that, when setting up accounts established for NSF awards, personnel ensure that the accounts apply indirect costs using the rates that were established in the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement in effect as of the date of the NSF grant award, rather than using the rates included within the original grant proposal.
Direct UNM to require subawardees to apply indirect costs using the rates that were established in the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement in effect as of the date of the subaward agreement, rather than using the rates included within the subaward budget and proposal.