Report Type
Report Category
Submitting Agency
- Arizona Auditor General (1)
- Department of Education OIG (1)
- Department of Homeland Security OIG (4)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG (3)
- Department of Justice (251)
- Department of Justice OIG (3)
- Department of Labor OIG (53)
- Department of the Interior OIG (2)
- Department of the Treasury OIG (18)
- Department of Veterans Affairs OIG (1)
- Department of War OIG (1)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency OIG (1)
- Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit (1)
- New York, Ulster County Office of the Comptroller (1)
- Oregon Secretary of State, Audits Division (1)
- Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (22)
- Railroad Retirement Board OIG (5)
- Small Business Administration OIG (5)
- Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (9)
- State of Louisiana (1)
- Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (5)
- Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau (2)
State (State and Local Reports)
- Arizona (1)
- California (25)
- Colorado (1)
- Florida (12)
- Georgia (6)
- Illinois (3)
- Iowa (2)
- Kansas (1)
- Kentucky (1)
- Louisiana (7)
- Maryland (39)
- Michigan (19)
- Missouri (1)
- Nevada (20)
- New Jersey (13)
- New Mexico (1)
- New York (26)
- North Carolina (3)
- Ohio (2)
- Oregon (2)
- Puerto Rico (5)
- Rhode Island (6)
- South Carolina (2)
- Tennessee (5)
- Utah (1)
- Virginia (2)
- Washington (3)
- Wisconsin (2)
Fraud Type
Agency Reviewed
- Department of Education (1)
- Department of Homeland Security (4)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development (3)
- Department of Justice (3)
- Department of Labor (52)
- Department of the Interior (2)
- Department of the Treasury (27)
- Department of Veterans Affairs (1)
- Department of War (1)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency (1)
- Internal Revenue Service (5)
- Multiple Agencies (19)
- Railroad Retirement Board (5)
- Small Business Administration (5)
Related Organizations
- Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) OIG (2)
- Department of Health & Human Services (1)
- Department of Homeland Security (10)
- Department of Homeland Security OIG (19)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG (1)
- Department of Labor (10)
- Department of Labor OIG (214)
- Department of State OIG (1)
- Department of the Treasury (1)
- Department of Veterans Affairs OIG (1)
- Department of War OIG (1)
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (85)
- Internal Revenue Service (21)
- Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (1)
- Postal Inspection Service (15)
- Railroad Retirement Board OIG (2)
- Small Business Administration (8)
- Small Business Administration OIG (6)
- Social Security Administration OIG (8)
- Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (1)
- Texas, City of Dallas Auditor (2)
- Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (3)
Management Challenges
Any Recommendations
Any Open Recommendations
Reports
Search for reports and investigative results.
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.
COVID-19: The Employment and Training Administration Needs to Improve Oversight of Grants Awarded in New York
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training establish and implement data verification checks to ensure participants reported are unique individuals who obtained services through Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act programs while strengthening controls to properly exit participants after 90 days without services.
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training establish and implement a plan to improve monitoring activities to ensure grant recipients and sub-recipients are properly documenting eligibility and ensuring participant-level services are delivered by each program in which the participant is co-enrolled.
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training remedy the $19,639,718 in questioned costs associated with the contractual service contracts awarded in non-compliance with federal requirements.
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training remedy the $5,751,502 in questioned costs associated with payroll and non-payroll costs.
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training establish and implement a plan to increase the level of technical assistance and monitoring for grant recipients and sub-recipients to ensure they comply with the general procurement standards.
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training develop and implement a formal comprehensive Conflict of Interest Policy to ensure staff are actively monitoring, identifying and resolving conflict of interest issues.
Increasing Transparency into COVID-19 Spending
OMB should, in coordination with the PRAC, offer resources for agencies that focuses on improving the quality of award descriptions to result in consistent use and application of this field across all agency submissions and to provide clarity on the intent and purpose of pandemic assistance.
OMB should develop and implement a plan, leveraging its resources and in coordination with the PRAC, to disseminate to individual agencies examples of insufficient award descriptions in need of remediation.
OMB should engage with Congress to consider legislating amendments to extend independent oversight of USAspending.gov data submissions, including developing new requirements in consultation with CIGIE and the PRAC for the review of agency award descriptions.
OMB should conduct a feasibility study, in coordination with relevant federal and non-federal stakeholders, as to how to better track and report subrecipient funding.
OMB should engage with Congress to consider legislating amendments to extend independent oversight of USAspending.gov data submissions, including developing new requirements in consultation with the CIGIE and the PRAC for the review of subrecipient reporting.
Nigerian Man Sentenced to More Than 11 Years in Prison for Fraudulently Obtaining $1.3 Million in COVID-19 Jobless and Disability Benefits
Quarterly Report to Congress
Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Business Tax Return Processing Operations
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should coordinate with the Office of Servicewide Penalties to ensure that the 1,295 taxpayer accounts with potential incorrect ES penalties are reviewed and corrected as necessary.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should coordinate with the Office of Servicewide Penalties to ensure that the 1,295 taxpayer accounts with potential incorrect ES penalties are reviewed and corrected as necessary.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should evaluate the feasibility to direct additional types of payments from Tax Processing Centers to lockbox sites. This evaluation should also assess the feasibility of directing payments received by field office employees to lockbox sites for processing.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should evaluate the feasibility to direct additional types of payments from Tax Processing Centers to lockbox sites. This evaluation should also assess the feasibility of directing payments received by field office employees to lockbox sites for processing.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should evaluate the feasibility to direct additional types of payments from Tax Processing Centers to lockbox sites. This evaluation should also assess the feasibility of directing payments received by field office employees to lockbox sites for processing.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should evaluate the feasibility to direct additional types of payments from Tax Processing Centers to lockbox sites. This evaluation should also assess the feasibility of directing payments received by field office employees to lockbox sites for processing.
Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery | Quarterly Report to Congress
COVID-19 Pandemic EIDL and PPP Loan Fraud Landscape
Desk Review of the State of New Jersey’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury OIG should follow-up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $98,000,000 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $12,674,130 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $3,438,886 noted as unsupported reconciliation errors questioned costs (Other Matter) within the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $210,000 noted as unsupported reconciliation errors questioned costs (Other Matter) within the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Direct Payment greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $72,008,351 noted as unsupported reconciliation errors questioned costs (Other Matter) within the Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of following up with New Jersey to obtain expenditure support with sufficient expenditure level detail such as vendor names needed to support CRF amounts claimed.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $339,154,192 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Aggregate Payments to Individual types can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previous charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance for the $124,331,510 of ineligible costs charged to the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $137,077,969 noted as unsupported reconciliation errors questioned costs (Other Matter) within the Aggregate Payments to Individual payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up procedures to obtain expenditure support with sufficient expenditure level detail needed to support CRF amounts claimed.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $187,176 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $18,260,445 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $35,889 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up procedures to determine if there were other instances of unsupported balances within the remaining portion of the selected grant balance.
Castro recommends that Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $250,398 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Castro recommends that Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up procedures to determine if there were other instances of unsupported balances within the remaining portion of the selected grant balance.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $19,931,910 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $10,068,090 noted as ineligible expenditures within the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $9,410,681 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG follow up with New Jersey's management to confirm if the $205,520,362 noted as other unsupported expenditures within the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that New Jersey management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up procedures to determine if there were other instances of unsupported questioned costs within the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment population. Further, based on New Jersey's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of requesting that New Jersey perform an assessment to determine if all the potential fraudulent transactions were removed from New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA)'s CRF claimed amounts.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of following up with New Jersey to obtain the missing NJEDA populations questioned as other matters and, utilizing the listing of potential fraudulent transactions provided by NJEDA, determine if the $1,007,050 potential fraudulent amounts were properly reversed.