Search
American Rescue Plan Act: Accuracy of Advance Child Tax Credit Periodic Payments
As detailed previously, we provided the Director, Return Integrity and Compliance Services, Wage and Investment Division, with notifications and files detailing erroneous payments we identified and recommended that the IRS evaluate the discrepancies to identify why the payments were made to prevent additional periodic payments to ineligible taxpayers. In addition, we recommended that the IRS add a stop payment transaction code to taxpayer accounts to prevent them from receiving additional improper advance Child Tax Credit payments.
On August 9, 2021, we notified the Director, Return Integrity and Compliance Services, Wage and Investment Division, of our concerns related to eligible taxpayers who did not receive their advance Child Tax Credit payments. We recommended that the IRS evaluate the discrepancies to identify why periodic payments were not made to eligible taxpayers.
On June 29, 2021, we notified the Director, Return Integrity and Compliance Services, Wage and Investment Division, that the messaging provided on the IRS’s eligibility assistant tool and the presentation of information related to the advance Child Tax Credit payments on IRS.gov may be confusing to taxpayers. For example, the link to “Get Answers on the Advance Child Tax Credit” that is located on the IRS.gov main page takes taxpayers to the Advance Child Tax Credit Payments in 2021 web page; however, the links to get the questions and answers is at the bottom of the screen. We recommended that the IRS consider revising the messaging and presentation of information on its platforms to make it clear for taxpayers.
On January 28, 2022, we notified the Director, Return Integrity and Compliance Services, Wage and Investment Division, that we identified 2.2 million taxpayers who had their direct deposit information updated by the IRS between August 23 and October 5, 2021. We recommended that the IRS conduct an outreach effort to inform taxpayers of the possibility that their advance payments may have been sent to payroll allotment accounts. This outreach effort could include sending a separate letter to the impacted taxpayers.
The Director, Return Integrity and Compliance Services, Wage and Investment Division, should develop and implement processes and procedures to include data validation on incoming files from third-party sources prior to their use.
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Go Viral: Inspectors General on Curing the Disease
The Greatest Theft of American Tax Dollars: Unchecked Unemployment Fraud
American Rescue Plan Act: Implementation of Advance Recovery Rebate Credit Payments
The Commissioner, Large Business and International Division, should coordinate with the territories to share information that will enable the territories to recover duplicate payments that the territories have issued, to the extent permitted under the relevant territory’s domestic law.
If Congress enacts additional stimulus payments, the Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should consider additional programming changes to prevent ineligible individuals from receiving advance payments, including individuals claimed as dependents or dependents claimed on multiple returns, nonresident individuals, individuals who had a filing status or filing partner change, deceased individuals, and individuals affected by the mentioned related programming errors.
Additional Actions Are Needed to Reduce Accounts Management Function Inventories to Below Pre‑Pandemic Levels
Ensure that all sites understand and begin immediately stamping the ICT received date after correspondence screening is completed, and that individual and business documents are screened with equal importance.
Coordinate with the Information Technology organization to explore adding Taxpayer Relations inventories into the CII, so that all Accounts Management inventory is located in the same inventory management system.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should establish time frames for and a process to measure correspondence screening timeliness at each site.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should rescind the requirement that only the TEs and the CSRs perform correspondencescreening and encourage all sites to use mail clerks, after providing them with adequate training.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should ensure prompt completion of the ICT review to determine if additional scanners will be purchased.
Discontinue correspondence screening via telework and ensure at all sites that screening must be conducted in the same IRS facility where documents are being scanned by the ICT.
Identify and address the cause of Accounts Management function employees incorrectly routing cases to other IRS functions and work with other IRS functions to update their Internal Revenue Manuals to make it clear that incorrectly routed documents should be returned to the originating employee.
We recommended that management take steps to hire as many mail clerks as possible.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should establish goals for each of the Accounts Management function’s inventory types and develop a plan for addressing those goals to ensure a timely return to pre-pandemic inventory levels.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment, should prioritize funding and implementation of automated processing of Forms 1040-X to increase efficiencies and reduce taxpayer burden.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should implement temporary solutions for the processing of Forms 1040-X to reduce the backlogs, reduce taxpayer burden, and save IRS resources until an automated solution is implemented.
Coordinate with the Information Technology organization to prevent generating transcripts for manual refunds less than $100 and adjust the frequency that some transcripts are generated to help management get through the inventory more efficiently.
Temporarily relieve employees in the Accounts Management function from having to complete paperwork for barred statutes, so they can focus on eliminating the backlogged inventory and prevent future barred statutes.
Desk Review of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ (Massachusetts) Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) should follow-up with Massachusetts management to confirm if the $21,342 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 Massachusetts' management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previous charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Massachusetts 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, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type, if support is not provided.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $91,646,107 of fringe benefits and bonus payments ineligible costs charge to the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Additionally, Treasury OIG should request that Massachusetts management perform an assessment to determine if there were any additional one-time bonus payments not related to hazardous duty included within its Aggregate Payments to Individuals claims and identify those for repayment to Treasury, as applicable. Further, based on Massachusetts management'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, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts perform an assessment to determine whether there was any additional advertising and marketing costs charged to CRF within its Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type and identify those for reversal and repayment to Treasury, as applicable. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Massachusetts' management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $1,500,000 of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. Based on Massachusetts management'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, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $25,527 of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on Massachusetts management'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, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with Massachusetts management to confirm if the $107,824 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 Massachusetts' management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previous charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Massachusetts 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, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $59,225 of ineligible costs charged to the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on Massachusetts management'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, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $114,940 of ineligible costs charge to the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on Massachusetts' responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and Massachusetts' ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management perform an assessment over whether there were any additional indirect costs or negotiated rates claimed within its Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 and Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types, and to identify those costs for repayment to Treasury, as applicable.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $70,625,069 of ineligible costs charge to the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Additionally, Treasury OIG should request that Massachusetts management perform an assessment to determine if there were any additional one-time bonus payments not related to hazardous duty included within its Aggregate Payments to Individuals claims and identify those for repayment to Treasury, as applicable. Further, based on Massachusetts management'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, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Treasury OIG should request that Massachusetts management perform an assessment to determine if there were any additional one-time bonus payments not related to hazardous duty included within its Aggregate Payments to Individuals claims and identify those for repayment to Treasury, as applicable. Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $991 of ineligible costs charge to the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on Massachusetts management'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, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
American Rescue Plan Act: Assessment of the Expanded Child and Dependent Care and Earned Income Tax Credits
On February 17, 2022, we notified the Director, Submission Processing, Wage and Investment Division, of our concern with three business rules and recommended that IRS management update the business rule programming to identify and evaluate returns for both refundable and nonrefundable CDCC claims.
Ensure that programming is updated for Processing Year 2023 to identify taxpayers who reported an obviously invalid care provider TIN on Form 2441.
Develop a tool or programming for Error Resolution to ensure that tax returns claiming prior year expenses are systemically identified to determine if the maximum CDCC had been claimed in the prior year, before processing the return and potentially releasing erroneous refunds.
Work with the Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Policy, to advance legislation to treat a tax return as filed only when it is accepted. This would remove the legal risks associated with rejecting tax returns with conditions that indicate the taxpayer is ineligible for refundable credits claimed on the return.
If legislation is enacted, develop programming to reject e-filed returns meeting certain conditions, such as those noted in this report.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should ensure that the compliance filter criteria for identifying individuals claiming self-only EITC who are not eligible for work is updated to include the *************************.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should establish processes to compare subsequent legislative changes with compliance filterprogramming to identify and make necessary changes, as needed.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should review the 774,559 returns with self-only EITC from potentially ineligible ******** and take actions needed to recover credits that are determined to be erroneous.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should complete examinations for all 61 tax returns we identified to ensure taxpayers receive the correct CDCC amounts.
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.
Management Took Actions to Address Erroneous Employee Retention Credit Claims; However, Some Questionable Claims Still Need to Be Addressed
On February 28, 2024, we alerted the ERC Team Lead of our concern and recommended that the IRS review the 997 tax returns we identified and consider them for post-refund compliance review to recover potentially erroneous ERC paid.
On February 28, 2024, we alerted the ERC Team Lead of our concern and recommended that the IRS review the 139,993 and 44,930 Tax Years 2020 and 2021 returns and consider them for post-refund compliance to recover any potentially erroneous ERC paid.
The Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, should ensure that the 923 entities we identified receive a disallowance letter to prevent erroneous ERC claims from being paid.
The Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, should ensure that any subsequent analysis to identify businesses for recapture letters uses accurate wage data and takes into consideration lessons learned from the Tax Year 2020 recapture letters.
Delays Continue to Result in Businesses Not Receiving Pandemic Relief Benefits
On November 22, 2021, we notified the Director, Customer Account Services, Wage and Investment Division, that IRS employees were erroneously suspending Forms 941-X when the amended employment tax return did not include an adjustment to the amount of deferred Social Security tax. We recommended that the Accounts Management function immediately review the Forms 941-X that are identified in the suspense inventory as an adjustment to the amount of deferred Social Security tax to ensure that they are categorized properly.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should evaluate the current inventory of backlogged claims related to pandemic relief and develop specific plans to prioritize claims and develop timelines to process backlogged claims.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should review the 928 business entities identified that do not appear to qualify as an RSB and take actions needed to recover the ERCs that are determined to be erroneous.
The Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, should identify all fourth quarter Tax Year 2021 paper-filed Forms 941 processed prior to when the programming was implemented and identify amended employment tax returns receiving the ERC for which there was no indication that the business was an RSB and take actions needed to recover the ERCs that are determined to be erroneous.
On May 13, 2021, we notified the Director, Examination, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, about the inconsistent referral criteria and recommended that the IRS update referral criteria to include Forms 941-X with refundable credits.
On November 23, 2021, we alerted the Director, Customer Account Services, Wage and Investment Division, that Forms 941-X were not being referred to Examination as required and recommended that the Accounts Management function provide additional guidance to its employees to reinforce established CAT-A referral criteria.
The Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, should review the 41 Form 941-X claims identified with a nonrefundable COVID-19 related employer credit that meet CAT-A referral criteria and take actions needed to recover credits that are determined to be erroneous.
Provide additional training to employees as it relates to referring Forms 941-X to Examination for review.
Submit a request for the development of a systemic process to identify Form 941-X claims that meet referral criteria and alert the Accounts Management employee when processing these claims of the need to refer the return to Examination.