the one word that changed the irs

and why the irs now needs a new mission statement.

by 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间

ten years ago, the internal revenue service changed a word in its mission statement.

more: what’s the real impact of irs audits? | tough lessons from tax season | why shouldn’t all tax practitioners need licenses? | data divers profile taxpayer filing styles | fixing the tax system: accountants sound off | 2 ways the eitc error rate is high | who’d like a friend in the irs?
exclusively for pro members. log in here or 2022世界杯足球排名 today.

before: “provide america’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.”

after: “provide america’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.”

the change was made without public discussion. it just appeared: subtle and quiet but deep and disturbing.

what’s the difference? attitude and approach.

nina e. olson, america’s national tax advocate, objects to the change. as she explains in an annual tax advocacy service document known as the purple book, changing “applying” to “enforc[ing]” has “significant consequences” in a tax system that is extensively based on voluntary compliance, which itself is based on the goodwill of the taxpayer.

“if a tax agency views its primary mission as enforcing the tax law, it is likely to design its procedures and focus its resources on taking action against the relatively small number of taxpayers it views as noncompliant,” olson writes. “by so doing, it may neglect to provide sufficient service and support to maintain and strengthen voluntary compliance among the overwhelming majority of taxpayers who are fully or substantially compliant, and thereby risk lower levels of compliance on their part.”

from helping to threatening

in other words, the change of a word shifted the irs’s mission from helping to threatening. it’s a different message about irs priorities and the guiding principles around which it develops strategic plans. it’s a whole different attitude toward the taxpayer, a whole different approach to collecting the funds that the united states needs to function as a nation.

the language in the former mission statement resulted from the irs restructuring and reform act of 1998. the act directed the irs “to place a greater emphasis on serving the public and meeting the taxpayers’ needs.”

but the irs was able to sustain the new missionary attitude on service for only a decade. in 2009, it shifted the mission toward enforcement. for that reason, olson would like to see congress itself revise and codify a new mission statement to make it more taxpayer-friendly.

55 recommendations

the purple book (its color an intentionally bipartisan blend of red and blue) is a compilation of recommended legislation that the tas feels congress should enact to strengthen taxpayer rights and improve tax administration. the 2019 edition lists no fewer than 55 recommendations ranging from strategic to specific. each proposal is backed up with an explanation of existing law and the reasons justifying the recommended change.

the section that includes the need for a change in mission statement also recommends codifying the taxpayer’s bill of rights.

to review, the tbor appears in the internal revenue code, as follows:

the right to:

1. 1. 1. be informed
      2. quality service
      3. pay no more than the correct amount of tax
      4. challenge the position of the internal revenue service and be heard
      5. appeal a decision of the internal revenue service in an independent forum
      6. finality
      7. privacy
      8. confidentiality
      9. retain representation
      10. a fair and just tax system

these rights are already codified, of course, but to find them, one must find irc § 7803(a)(3). the purple book recommends that something as crucial as a bill of rights should appear in the neighborhood of page one, not buried in the 2,600 other pages of the code. such a shift to prominence, however, would take an act of congress, and that is what the taxpayer advocate is proposing.

translating concept to practice

mere prominence may not be enough. irs agents – all of them – need to understand the concept of taxpayer rights and how to put them into practice. olson says that current irs training materials incorporate taxpayer rights information inconsistently and insufficiently.

it cannot be assumed that the irs will train and motivate its agents adequately with regard to taxpayer rights. apparently, such training and motivation must be given the force of law. the purple book position:

“a statutory training and evaluation requirement would ensure that agency management places appropriate emphasis on promoting employee awareness of, and compliance with, taxpayer rights, and that employees have the knowledge and incentives to consider the impact of their actions on the taxpayers with whom they are working.”

olson would not leave the irs to devise a program of training and evaluation. rather, she would have the office of the national taxpayer advocate take on the responsibility. she recommends that the first section of the irc include not only the bill of rights but a mandate that, “… the national taxpayer advocate shall develop annual training regarding taxpayer rights, including the role of the office of the taxpayer advocate, and the commissioner shall establish procedures to ensure that all officers and employees of the internal revenue service receive such annual training.”

she would also have the irc require the irs commissioner to “establish procedures to ensure that annual performance evaluations of all officers and employees of the internal revenue service address compliance with taxpayer rights.”

the taxpayer bill of rights really does deserve prominence and promulgation. it should establish the conceptual guidelines of the irs mission. it should be respected and applied. it implies an attitude and approach that do much – and could do more – to nurture a better relationship between taxpayers and tax collectors. if that takes an act of congress, then maybe congress should act.

posted on may 9, 2019