Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices174
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
MSP
#12
MATH ERROR NOTICES: Although the IRS Has Made Some
Improvements, Math Error Notices Continue to Be Unclear and
Confusing, Thereby Undermining Taxpayer Rights and Increasing
Taxpayer Burden
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS
Ken Corbin, Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division
Mary Beth Murphy, Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division
TAXPAYER RIGHTS IMPACTED
1
The Right to Be Informed
The Right to Quality Service
The Right to Pay No More Than the Correct Amount of Tax
The Right to Challenge the IRS’s Position and Be Heard
The Right to Appeal an IRS Decision in an Independent Forum
The Right to Privacy
The Right to a Fair and Just Tax System
DEFINITION OF PROBLEM
Math error authority was originally intended to give the IRS the ability to summarily correct mistakes
that could be fixed just by looking at the face of a taxpayer’s return.
2
At the IRS’s behest, Congress
has since expanded the definition of math error to include a host of other items.
3
Concerned with
the consequences to taxpayer rights from the expansion of math error authority, Congress directed
that, when the IRS makes an adjustment to a taxpayer’s return, it must give an explanation of the
adjustment.
4
The explanation of the adjustment in the math error notice is critical to the taxpayer’s
ability to challenge the adjustment and preserve the right to petition the United States Tax Court (Tax
Court), before paying the tax, by timely requesting abatement.
5
In calendar years (CYs) 2015-2017, the
IRS issued approximately two million math error notices each year.
6
However, the IRS does not track
the abatement rates of math errors.
7
Despite the congressional directive, math error notices, sent to explain the math error adjustments the
IRS made to the taxpayer’s return, remain confusing and lack clarity. The National Taxpayer Advocate
1
See Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TBOR), www.TaxpayerAdvocate.irs.gov/taxpayer-rights. The rights contained in the TBOR are
also codified in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). See IRC § 7803(a)(3).
2
The Revenue Act of 1926, Pub. L. 69-20 § 274(f) (1926) (codified at IRC §§ 6213(b), (g)).
3
See IRC § 6213(g) (lists all current definitions of mathematical or clerical errors).
4
S. Rep. No. 94-938, at 375 (1976); H. Rep. No. at 289 (1976).
5
IRC § 6213(b).
6
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018) (number of math error notices issued from 2015-2017 (2015:
1,953,360; 2016: 1,851,621; 2017: 2,318,399)).
7
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018).
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 175
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
has expressed concerns about the lack of clarity in math error notices since her 2004 Annual Report
to Congress.
8
Although the IRS has improved its explanations on some math error notices, in many
cases the notices remain unclear and complex. This makes it difficult for taxpayers to determine what,
specifically, the IRS corrected on their return and whether they should accept the adjustment or request
a correction, as well as the consequences of inaction. Further, because the IRS does not measure the
reversal rates of math error assessments,
9
it has no way of knowing the extent to which it is issuing
accurate assessments and forgoes valuable data that could be used to identify which math error notices
should be revised for additional clarity.
As a result, the National Taxpayer Advocate remains concerned that:
The IRS is using its math error authority to summarily resolve increasingly complex issues that go
beyond those considered by and allowed by Congress.
Confusing math error notices affect millions of taxpayers a year and the IRS does not measure
math error abatement rates to determine which notices need revisions due to high reversal rates.
Despite revisions, many math error notices continue to inadequately inform taxpayers of their
appeal rights, the consequences of inaction, and the specific nature of the purported error.
The IRS has failed to use historical data to make simple corrections to taxpayer returns, and
instead issues summary assessments and math error notices that are later abated.
ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM
Background
The IRS must generally issue a statutory notice of deficiency (SNOD) before assessing tax adjustments
on taxpayers who had errors on their tax returns, which led to them paying less tax than they owed.
10
This notice of deficiency gives taxpayers 90 days to petition the Tax Court for a judicial review of
an IRS assessment before paying the tax.
11
However, the IRS has the authority to assess a tax for
mathematical errors (e.g., 2 + 2 = 5) or clerical errors (e.g., writing 12 for an entry on the return instead
of 21, or leaving an entry blank).
12
This means that, unless taxpayers request an abatement (a reduction
or elimination of the deficiency the IRS claims the taxpayer owes) within 60 days from the date on the
math error notice, the IRS may proceed with collection of the tax without issuing a SNOD under the
normal deficiency procedure.
13
In other words, a SNOD is the ticket to the Tax Court; if taxpayers do
not request an abatement when they receive a math error notice, they do not receive that ticket.
The IRS Is Using its Math Error Authority to Summarily Resolve Increasingly Complex
Issues That Go Beyond Those Considered by and Allowed by Congress
In 1976, Congress set new rules around the IRS’s math error authority, expanding the errors the IRS
could summarily assess to include “clerical errors.”
14
Congress sought to improve taxpayer rights around
8
See National Taxpayer Advocate 2014 Annual Report to Congress 163-171; National Taxpayer Advocate 2011 Annual Report
to Congress 74-92; National Taxpayer Advocate 2011 Annual Report to Congress 524-530; National Taxpayer Advocate
2004 Annual Report to Congress 163-179.
9
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018).
10
IRC § 6213(a).
11
Id.
12
IRC §§ 6213(b), (g).
13
IRC § 6213(b)(2)(A).
14
Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455.
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices176
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
math errors, providing abatement remedies for taxpayers to contest math errors before paying the tax
and that the taxpayer “must be given an explanation of the asserted error.”
15
Congress, concerned with
the IRS’s use of math error authority where its use was not authorized by statute, also sought to clarify
limits to the IRS’s authority, noting that the summary assessment procedure should not be used to
merely resolve an uncertainty against the taxpayer.
16
Congress provided extensive examples describing
how it envisioned the IRS’s expanded summary assessment authority to work. For instance:
[L]ine 6b of the Form 1040 requires the taxpayer to list, “First names of your dependent
children who lived with you” and then to enter the number of those dependent children in a
column for personal exemptions. If a taxpayer lists three names on line 6b but then enters “4”
in the column, it is not clear whether the taxpayer miscounted (in which case the taxpayer
should have written “3” in the column), or whether the taxpayer erroneously omitted the
name of one of the dependent children (in which case the taxpayer’s column-entry of “4”
would be correct). In this case, the Service should, of course, take steps to determine which
entry is correct, and the taxpayer has the obligation of showing that he or she is entitled to
the number of exemptions claimed. However, this summary assessment procedure is not to
be used where the Service is merely resolving an uncertainty against the taxpayer.
17
Despite this congressional direction, the IRS’s use of math error authority to summarily resolve
increasingly complex issues goes beyond those considered by and allowed by Congress.
18
If the IRS uses
its math error authority to address these more complex issues that may require additional fact-finding,
like correctable error and post-processing, the IRS’s assessments are more likely to be erroneous.
19
Notice unclarity and shorter math error deadlines, along with the expansion of math error authority,
increases the risk of incorrect assessments and erosion of taxpayer rights, such as the right to be informed,
the right to pay no more than the correct amount of tax, and the right to appeal an IRS decision in an
independent forum. Despite this, the Department of Treasury has encouraged the expansion of IRS
math error authority because it is cost efficient and simpler than regular deficiency procedures.
20
15
General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 372 (1976).
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
For a discussion on the IRS’s expanded use of math error authority for “correctable errors,” see Nina E. Olson, Why
Correctible Error Authority Raises Significant Taxpayer Rights Concerns – Part 1, NTA Blog (Aug. 9, 2017), https://
taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/why-correctible-authority-error-raises-significant-taxpayer-rights-concerns-part-1; Nina E.
Olson, Correctible Error Authority Part 2: Why Correctible Error Authority Creates More Problems Than It Resolves, NTA Blog
(Aug. 16, 2017), https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/correctible-error-authority-part-2-why-correctible-error-authority-
creates-more-problems-than-it-resolves?category=Tax%20News. For a discussion on the IRS’s use of post-processing with
math errors, see Most Serious Problem: Post-Processing Math Error Authority: The IRS Has Failed to Exercise Self-Restraint in
Its Use of Math Error Authority, Thereby Harming Taxpayers, supra.
19
See National Taxpayer Advocate Purple Book: Compilation of Legislative Recommendations to Strengthen Taxpayer Rights and
Improve Tax Administration 44-45 (Continue to Limit the IRS’s Use of “Math Error Authority” to Clear-cut Categories Specified by
Statute) (Dec. 2017); National Taxpayer Advocate 2014 Annual Report to Congress 163-171 (Most Serious Problem: Math
Error Notices: The IRS Does Not Clearly Explain Math Error Adjustments, Making It Difficult for Taxpayers to Understand and
Exercise Their Rights).
20
Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2017 Revenue Proposals, 225-226
(Feb. 2016), https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/General-Explanations-FY2017.pdf. See also
National Taxpayer Advocate Purple Book: Compilation of Legislative Recommendations to Strengthen Taxpayer Rights and
Improve Tax Administration 44-45 (Continue to Limit the IRS’s Use of “Math Error Authority” to Clear-cut Categories Specified by
Statute) (Dec. 2017).
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 177
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
The IRS Use of Math Error Authority Affects Millions of Taxpayers Annually, and
Confusing Notices May Disproportionately Affect Low Income Taxpayers
For CYs 2015-2017, the IRS issued approximately two million math error notices each year.
21
Figure
1.12.1 shows the five most common types of math error notices the IRS issued in CYs 2015-2017.
22
In addition to these standard notices, the IRS issued around 20,000 non-standard math error notices
annually over the same three-year period.
23
FIGURE 1.12.1
24
Most Common Math Errors, Calendar Years 2015-2017
CY 2015
563,189
Changed Return
Based on Information
Provided (558)
Social Security
(131)
Tax Error (209)
Dependent TIN
Invalid (605)
Dividend/Capital
Gains Rate (211)
261,958
179,997
186,963
173,314
175,245
190,438
165,102
150,638
156,318
147,721
146,526
157,666
131,900
119,186
CY 2016
CY 2017
Math error notices lacking in clarity may disproportionately harm low income taxpayers who more often
have limited English proficiency, limited computer access, lower literacy rates, lower education levels,
and disabilities.
25
Some math error notices may especially affect low income taxpayers. For example,
the median income of those with Earned Income Credit (EIC) and Individual Taxpayer Identification
Number (ITIN) math errors is lower than for other common math errors.
21
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018) (number of math error notices issued from 2015-17 (2015:
1,953,360; 2016: 1,851,621; 2017: 2,318,399)).
22
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018). The five most common math error notices issued from 2015-
2017 were, by taxpayer notice code (TPNC): TPNC 558 (We changed the refund amount or the amount you owe on your tax
return based on the information you provided in response to our previous correspondence); TPNC 131 (We changed the
amount of taxable social security benefits on page 1 of your tax return because there was an error in the computation of the
taxable amount); TPNC 209 (We changed the amount of tax shown on your return. The amount entered was incorrect based
on your taxable income and filing status); TPNC 605 (Each dependent listed on your tax return must have a valid Social
Security number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). For one or more of your dependents the last
name doesn’t match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration…); TPNC 211 (We changed
the amount of tax shown on your return. The tax rates on Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains are generally lower than the
standard rates. It appears your tax was not computed using these rates or the amount of tax was computed incorrectly).
23
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018) (Nonstandard notices are those errors not assigned a TPNC, and
the IRS must write these notices individually depending on the circumstances. From calendar years (CY) 2015-2017, the
IRS issued 58,792 nonstandard math error notices; 2015: 16,232; 2016: 23,925; 2017: 18,635).
24
Id. We are uncertain of the exact reason for the TPNC 558 spike between CYs 2016 and 2017, but it may have been
caused by the IRS using TPNC 558 for a temporary tax issue instead of creating a new code and reprogramming its notices
for a short-term issue.
25
National Taxpayer Advocate 2009 Annual Report to Congress 110 (Most Serious Problem: Beyond EITC: The Needs of Low
Income Taxpayers Are Not Being Adequately Met).
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices178
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
FIGURE 1.12.2
26
Median Income by Selected Math Errors, Calendar Year 2017
EIC Amount Changed
Credit(s) Disallowed, ITIN Expired
No Exemption, ITIN Expired
Change Based on Response to
Previous Correspondence
Dependent ITIN Expired
Change in Refund or Amount Owed
Incorrect Tax Amount
Standard Deduction Changed
Dependent TIN Invalid
Taxable Social Security Benefits
First Time Homebuyer Credit
Payment Changed
Dividend/Capital Gains Rate
$13,238
$25,194
$25,772
$28,213
$33,802
$39,454
$40,074
$42,751
$45,653
$51,089
$69,972
$85,488
ME Code Description Median TPI Count
285 EIC Amount Changed $13,238 75,957
817 Credit(s) Disallowed, ITIN Expired $25,194 75,199
642 No Exemption, ITIN Expired $25,772 70,021
558 Change Based on Response to Previous Correspondence $28,213 556,113
644 Dependent ITIN Expired $33,802 80,426
299 Change in Refund or Amount Owed $39,454 87,025
209 Incorrect Tax Amount $40,074 153,058
192 Standard Deduction Changed $42,751 80,263
605 Dependent TIN Invalid $45,653 144,263
131 Taxable Social Security Benefits $51,089 181,298
649 First-Time Homebuyer Credit Payment Changed $69,972 50,967
211 Dividend/Capital Gains Rate $85,488 131,871
However, when TAS asked the IRS directly if it tracks or reports the income demographics for various
math error notice recipients, the IRS replied that it, “does not track, report, or collect this data,” which
keeps the IRS from making adjustments to its notices based on income demographics.
27
The IRS Office
26
Calculation by TAS Research. Median Total Positive Income and counts for taxpayers with presence of Taxpayer Notice
Codes, CY 2017. IRS, Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW), Individual Returns Transaction File (IRTF) (data retrieved
Oct. 30, 2018).
27
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018).
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 179
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
of Chief Counsel is given an opportunity to review each math error notice revision and taxpayer notice
code (TPNC) language for legal sufficiency,
28
although legally sufficient notices may still lack clarity
and be difficult for taxpayers, especially low income taxpayers, to understand.
The IRS Conducts Math Error Notice Revisions Piecemeal, and Math Error Notices
Continue to Lack Clarity, Despite Revisions
Below are two examples of math error notices that lack clarity and do not ensure that taxpayer rights are
being adequately protected. Example 1 discusses a TPNC, a standard math error explanation coded into
notices and sent to taxpayers.
29
Example 2 discusses the entirety of a math error notice, the CP11.
Example 1: “We changed the refund amount or the amount you owe on your tax return based on the
information you provided in response to our previous correspondence.”
30
A notice with this TPNC is sent to taxpayers after the IRS has already contacted the taxpayer for
additional information and the taxpayer has responded. The letter requesting additional information
for processing is the 12C letter, on which TPNC 558 is sometimes included.
31
Math error notices have
a standard layout and the IRS inserts pre-worded paragraphs into certain parts of the notices that fit the
circumstances of the taxpayer. If the IRS made a change to a taxpayer’s return based on information the
taxpayer provided previously, the taxpayer is sent a notice with this TPNC explanation. However, this
explanation lacks clarity and specificity. It does not explicitly describe the issue. Neither does it detail
what correspondence the notice is referring to. This provides little clarity when a taxpayer may have had
more than one correspondence with the IRS, especially if the taxpayer had multiple questionable items
on their tax return. What if the taxpayer made several calls to the IRS, or sent several letters? What
specific piece of information is the IRS referring to? The TPNC does not explain whether the IRS
accepted or rejected the information the taxpayer provided.
While some notices do cite the line on the return that the IRS changed,
32
they often provide an
inadequate explanation to the taxpayer of the full nature of the issue with his or her return or previous
correspondence. As noted earlier, when Congress expanded summary assessment authority for math
errors in 1976, it explicitly instructed the IRS that “the taxpayer must be given an explanation of the
asserted error.”
33
Congress also provided examples describing how it envisioned the IRS’s expanded
summary assessment authority would work.
34
Thus, to be consistent with the examples in the legislative
history, the IRS should cite the specific issues and correspondence it is referring to, along with the line
numbers and description of what was adjusted, and the amount of increase or decrease in taxable income
and tax.
The IRS has recently revised some math error notices (e.g., the CP11). While we commend the IRS for
these efforts, the newly revised notices still lack clarity in some areas and can be further improved.
28
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018).
29
See Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 3.12.220.1.24 (Jan. 1, 2016).
30
TPNC 558.
31
IRS, Letter 12C, Individual Return Incomplete for Processing: Forms 1040, 1040A or 1040EZ (Jan. 2, 2018).
32
For example, IRS, Letter 12C, Individual Return Incomplete for Processing: Forms 1040, 1040A or 1040EZ (Jan. 2, 2018).
33
General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 372 (1976).
34
See General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 372-374 (1976) (for the examples Congress
gave on how to handle math error issues for arithmetic errors, use of tables, inconsistent entries, omissions of supporting
schedules, and exceeding statutory limits).
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices180
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
FIGURE 1.12.3, Example 2: The 2017 and 2018 CP11 (“Math Error Balance Due of $5 or More”)
½ȦƅǦĽ¬ȦiȦđƳjİ©ǧĨkǂĒŜľȦŝĿȦȏŞǨȦA.7KȦUşƎıȦ
8/I0ȦȄüēýȦó¾ǃƴȦDŽþ¿ȦôĩĪŠȅĔõȦlƏÀmȦšȦȐŢǩƐȦ
ƑÁřPȦ
ȡ cnȋȦTţIJƇǪDžodžĕŤŀ
gÂȦÿpŁöÃȦȑťǫƒȦƓÄLJǬƭŚȦLjŦȦŧƮƯÅljȦĀĖƵȦÆƔƕŨư,
QƶȦqȦƖÇƷǭNJȦũǮȦŪȆÈȦ
$
$" $$$$#$
$!$
drȌȦūǯȦŬȇÉ®Ȧ
]sÊłNjƸȦȒŭǰȦijt¯ËȦ
VuhėDZƗÌ%njŮ&ƈvȓȦƉÍŃwīǣȠȦ
WńƘÎƹǍȦāx÷ÏƺȦ
RĴůDzŅǎȦ°dzÐȦȔȦYyƙĂȦ ?GȦB19MȦ
<G. T
ST!CT =
=H/"TI#T
("4:
5=
=
=
>26T$OD0MT:P8%DT
0=$1,7 %8=;6=
-&TT?,TT
_ÑȂĘÒȈȦǏăęƻȦņŰǐĚÓȦzұȦűĵƊ{ƚȦŲȦ¡Ą|øÔƼȦǑųȦǒąÕȦěňòƄƛĶ}ǓĜŴʼnȦŵŊȦȕŶǴƜȦǔ~ȍȦƝÖǕǵƱś(Ȧ
XðȦȖŷǶȦùƞȦȉĝǖĆȦǗć×Ȧ¢ĈŋúØƽȦȊÙȦķ²ÚȦ
Ȣ ^ȗȦǘĉÛȦĸǷŌȦ³ǸÜȦŸñ
'
ȘȦZƟ£ĊȦ@H ȦC2:N!ȦǙŹȦȃĞ´Ȧµ¶ğǚĠźōĬȦƋÝŎĭǤȦŏ·
ġŐƠÞƾǛȦ¤ċûßƿ)
2-9*.<)'=3/=#!&+==
@J3'T
AK4(TL)T
B57T*QE1NT;R9+FT
ȣ [ĦàȦșŻǹơȦ¥Č¦ħȦżƢȦĹŽȚȦžƣ¸áƤȦƌțĮâȦǜſȦǝčãȦfőĢ¹Ȧ`äǀȦeƥåǁǺƲ*
Ȥ ģǞæȦȜƀǻƦȦaªĥįȦbç«ȁƧĤǥȦŒǼĺèƨȦ-ȦĎéȦǟȎȦȝȦD3;L"ȦœºȦǠďêȦƆƩȦ
ŔǽĻëƪȦ<4J5ȦƁŕȦȞƂǾƫȦƍìǡȦȥŖ»íŗ§î+Ȧ
SļƃǿŘǢȦ¼ȀïȦȟȦ\Ƭ¨ĐȦ=F#ȦE6>OȦ
Wřīǩ®Á®Ȧ®ǩÁȦ®nÁȦñşƎȦƇnȐıÁřȦ
ǩȦřşāĕř÷ȦñşƎȦ
1®nȐȦnƇƇÁnīȦ
®Án®īĕřÁ,
Includes due by date, but not
loss of prepayment appeal
date.
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 181
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
No information about
appeal rights or the 60-day
deadline.
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices182
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
The notice now includes
the lines on the return
where the errors occurred,
which assists with
taxpa
y
er understandin
g
.
The explanation of the error is not
provided until page 3, instead of on
page 1 as a vital piece of information,
which studies show will make it less
likely taxpayers will read it.
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 183
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices184
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
!$$
"$#$
,-$-
!'-(-
"-*%)- +&-
--#--
»śҩÁ̸Ŝҩ̹ŝ̶ТȌGŞ)ҩčѾҩɌÂѩҩРCҩĖǷÃ̺Ǩşҩ4ʈ̻ŠͽҩSǸšʉҩѿ˜Уҩł˝ҩʊ=ςҩ̤ÄҀҩҁ˞"̼ҩɡȽÅĎȍɍȎσ҂ҩ˟ʋҩRȏɶŢrҩ
¦ţʌŤ̽Æɢ҃ҩѪťҩėÇɣĹФɎÈτŦҩ5ʍŧ̾+;υҩǜͱɷҩ+ҩŃ"ŨҩÉ-ҩˠҩ҄ˡХ̿ҩ̀ũφЦͲҩ\́ǩÊ͂ńɏŪͿҩ>Ǖҩ
Ѷχʎˢʏ_ҩЧʐψɐҩ҅ˣШҩ̥Ë҆ҩωǹūҩÌɸˤЩʑϊҩ҇˥Ъҩ˦ѫŬҩȐʒҩЫ;ɤҩȑʓĺɥЬŅȒʔǪҩÍĘę̓Эŭņҩȓʕ!ŮϋҩʖŇҩ
Îʗ҈ҩ̦ůʘÏСҩĚǺHǫŰ΄ҩ 'όű,΅ύҩʙҩΆɹŲҩ̧ųʚώȔŴ·ҩÐěĻͳЮŵΈҩǝʹ˧ɺҩҩ*ÑϏŶҩѬŷҩʛȕǖ҉ҩҊ˨Яҩ˩Ǘҩ
ϐǻŸҩEŹÒɑϑҋҩаʜϒɒҩϓҩȖΉҩ̨Óňҩȗʝҩǘбɓɦ~ҩ¨ʞź̈́ŻΊϔҩʟҩ˪ϕǼżͅҩ̩ŽʠÔϖȘžcҩΌвĜǽҩÕLҩǣČȾɧг͆ſҩϗ˫ҩǞȿɨƀҩÖҩϘ×ѷҩ
͇ƁϙдH
ҩϚØ͈ϛΎҩǟ͵ˬɻҩϜǾƂҩʼnеƃҩÙϝƄҩ˭ҩƅѸϞʡŊƆҩжƇҩŋ,ҩ?ҩ2ƈҩ͉ƉϟзK˘sҩ©ʢϠƊ͊ƋΏOҩ
͋ÚϡƌΐҩÛ͌ƍҩ
ѠÜ͍4Ýďɔ-ҩÞҩßҌҩĝǿʣǬƎҩ̷иà͎ϢƏͶҍ$ҩҡ«ʤϣƐͷ˙áҩ³ƑѡƒʥйƓҩˮŌƔҩΑĞϤșʦҩ`ҩ
¼ƕҩ<кɕ ȚFɖҎҩV˯л͏ҩмʧ̪âțōҩϥãѹdҩ̫ƖʨɗϦȜƗΒeҩäʩŎҩȝʪϧƘƙΓPҩ]ϨȀƚҩåɼ˰нʫOҩŏоƛaҩĐҏҩϩȁƜҩ5ʬϪƝ͐ƞL!ҩ
IæϫƟҩǤğϬ@JҩAҩƠ͑ɽʭơҩϭȂƢҩȞʮ ƣ͒ƤΔϮҩŐпƥ$ҩ
Ң º6ΕȟϯҩѭѮѯȠ͓ΖtǭѢĠ̬ҩ&
ң ¾˱рҩɾçҐҩǙʯőҩϰȃƦҩ1̢ɘBѰȡʰǮҩFсəɀļèϱȢ˲MҩȄɚ̭ǚт
¯уđɩɁġ(ϲȣ˳ʱҩfҩ¿˴фKҩ´ǯȅϳΗҩéΘҩêҩ¶Ѻ̮ëґ.ҩ
°хĒɪɂĢ(ϴȤ˵ʲҩҩ·Ƨҩ¡˶ɫƨģϵȥ˷ʳҩ±ͼĤƩNΙҩ
Ҥ ¤˸͔ҩ϶ìѻҩǥD͕MgҩȦʴΚϷџĥϸ7˹ʵΛhҩíʶŒҩEцēɬɃĦîQȧ˺ʷΜ#ҩѣ8ΝȨϹҩSѴuȩ͖Ξvǰ>Ѥҩҩħïɭ
&kl¸½m¥®µҩ^nopbw
ҥ ¢ȪœҩV˻чҩƪq1ɄYƫҩҒ˼ш͗ҩðUҩ͘Ƭщ˚ҩ £ɛĨϺJBʸȫĩñɮғҩɅ*ҩƭϻъͺΟҩò͙ƮҩƯΠΡҩɯɆɋưɜҔҩϼ˽ҩȆѥ.ҩɿóϽ
͚ͻ͛ҩ͜/ΣыɝQ8ʹDZҩȬʺҩʻ˾Ͼ9ĪƱΤҩΥьīȇҩôΦҩϿ6Χҩ˿ʼƲxҩ ªЀZΨҩǠƳҩЁ̀ҩɇɰҩXэ͝ҩЂѼƴΩҩɞĬЃ́ɈĽõɱ;ҕ
§̂ҩ̃ҩTѲTy͞ΪzDzѦƵǡɲɳ/ҩ̜ҩȭʽǢ̝ʀöЄȰʾҩ÷ʿҩȯˀΫЅ͟юĭІȰ̅ά%
Ҧ ²øҖȱˁdzҩ̞˛Ȳ˂ƶҩȳέҩĮ̆˃ѧƷ7Ƹ˄Ї#ҩήƹįяƺҩù˅ŔҩƻˆίѐGƼΰҩЈ:ʁƽɟҗҩ͠İƾ̯Rҩ̇0ҩҘ̈ё͡ҩ̰úWНҩ¹̟
̱ûҙҩҚ̉ђIҩЉüUƿαҩ̊ˇɠȴˈҩ̋͢ҩ0Aͣҩʂ̌ҩȵǦ=ʃýЊȶ̍ˉҩǴҩ ̎ҩѳѵɉͤβ%ǵ̏Ѩ̲þXʄǀˊЋγ
ҧ À̐ѓҩıÿˋҩIJ̑ˌЌĀijЍҩєδҩĔқҩʅāɊɴҩ!ҩЎȈǁҩŕ)ǂεζҩĂҩЏ2ҩА̳̒ҩ̓ǛҩБȉȷηҩˍ̔ВĴǃ{ҩҩθѕͥDŽҩГ̕ҩ:ˎľɵіŖDž
ҜCїͦҩι̖Ŀ9ăҩκdžĵјͧȸОҠҩˏљʆĕLJͨiҩȊҩĄѽҩҝąͩjҩːŗҩДȋҩ̣ͪʇҩˑњ<LjͫҩҞ̗ћҩĆͬljҩѱͭȹЕȺ˒Ƕ
̘"П
Ҩ ¬NJNj̴ҩЖ3Ȼλҩ˓̙Ķnjҩǧ@ͮҩW?ќͯҩǍŁ̡ͰŘμ|
'ҩҟDѝҩ˔ǎǏřҩćνξȼοЗĈ˕ķǐҩ̵ǑĉπǒҩŚ̚˖[Иҩ3ǓNЙĊКǔҩЛ̛ҩŀ̠˗МċĸPҩўρ}
Nothing about right to
appeal. No mention of
TAS or LITCs, unlike 2018
CP11.
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 185
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Atlanta, GA 39901-0010
Notice CP11
Notice date February 24, 2018
Social security number nnn-nn-nnnn
y
x
Make your check or money order payable to the United States Treasury.
x
Write your social security number (nnn-nn-nnnn), the tax year (2017), and the form
number (1040) on your payment.
Notice CP11
Tax year 2017
Notice date February 24, 2018
Social security number nnn-nn-nnnn
To contact us Phone 1-NNN-NNN-
NNNN
Y
our caller ID nnnn
Page 1 of 7
0000 0000000 0000000000 0000000 0000
s018999546711s
JOHN AND MARY SMITH
123 N HARRIS ST
HARVARD, TX 12345
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
AUSTIN, TX 73301-0023
s018999546711s
Amount due by
March 16, 2018
$362.73
John and Mary Smith
123 N Harris Street
Harvard, TX 12345
Payment
Continued on back…
Changes to your 2017 Form 1040
Amount due: $362.73
We found miscalculations on your 2017
Form 1040, which affect the following areas
of your return:
x Child Tax Credit
x Earned Income Tax Credit
We changed your return to correct these
errors. As a result, you owe $362.73.
Billing Summary
Tax you owed $1,828.00
Shared responsibility payment 2.00
Payments you made -1,624.00
Failure-to-file penalty 135.00
Interest charges 21.73
Amount due by March 16, 2018
$362.73
What you need to do
immediately
Review this notice and compare our changes to the information on your
tax return
If you agree with the changes we made
x Pay the amount due of $362.73 by March 16, 2018, to avoid
additional penalty and interest charges.
x Pay online or mail a check or money order with the attached payment
stub. You can pay online now at www.irs.gov/payments.
Actual deadline date
for payment is
included, but no
mention of 60-day
deadline to request
abatement.
Large, bold font on
first page draws
attention to need to
pa
y
.
First page is designed like a bill, with
amount due and due by date before any
mention of appeal rights or deadlines.
s
0189995
4
6
7
11
s
JO
HN AND MARY
S
MITH
12
3
N HARRI
S
S
T
HARVARD, TX
123
45
John and Mary Smith
123 N Harris Street
Harvard, TX
123
45
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices186
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
[Back of payment stub]
Notice CP11
Tax year 2017
Notice date February 24, 2018
Social security number nnn-nn-nnnn
Page 2 of 7
What you need to do immediately –
continued
If you disagree with the amount due
Call us at [1-800-xxx-xxxx] to review your account with a representative.
Be sure to have your account information available when you call.
x If you contact us in writing within 60 days of the date of this notice,
we will reverse the change we made to your account. However, if
you are unable to provide us additional information that justifies the
reversal and we believe the reversal is in error, we will forward your
case for audit. This step gives you formal appeal rights, including the
right to appeal our decision in court before you have to pay the
additional tax. After we forward your case, the audit staff will contact
you within 5 to 6 weeks to fully explain the audit process and your
rights. If you do not contact us within the 60-day period, you will lose
your right to appeal our decision before payment of tax.
x
If you do not contact us within 60 days, the change will
not be
reversed and you must pay the additional tax. You may then file a
claim for refund. You must submit the claim within 3 years of the
date you filed the tax return, or within 2 years of the date of your last
payment for this tax.
We’ll assume you agree with the information in this notice if we don’t
hear from you.
Though 60 days mentioned,
does not include the actual
deadline date like "amount
due b
y
" on pa
g
e 1.
Smaller font and non-bold,
deemphasizes this section on
appeal rights compared to the
"if you agree" and payment
information above.
Improvement from previous
math error notices by
including the taxpayer's
appeal rights and 60-day
deadline.
Appeal rights are on page 2 of a 7-
page notice, and research shows
that many people do not even read
the second page. Such important
information should be on the first
page.
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 187
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
Notice CP11
Tax year 2017
Notice date February 24, 2018
Social security number nnn-nn-nnnn
Page 3 of 7
Payment options
Pay now electronically
We offer free payment options to securely pay your tax bill directly from
your checking or savings account. When you pay online or with your
mobile device, you can:
• Receive instant confirmation of your payment
• Schedule payments in advance
• Reschedule or cancel a payment before the due date
You can also pay by debit or credit card for a small fee. To see all of our
payment options, visit www.irs.gov/payments.
Payment plans
If you can’t pay the full amount you owe, pay as much as you can now
and make arrangements to pay your remaining balance. Visit
www.irs.gov/paymentplan for more information on installment
agreements and online payment agreements. You can also call us at 1-
800-829-8374 to discuss your options.
Offer in Compromise
An offer in compromise allows you to settle your tax debt for less than
the full amount you owe. If we accept your offer, you can pay with either
a lump sum cash payment plan or periodic payment plan. To see if you
qualify, use the Offer in Compromise Pre-Qualifier tool on our website.
For more information, visit www.irs.gov/offers.
Account balance and payment history
For information on how to obtain your current account balance or
payment history, go to www.irs.gov/payments.
If you already paid your balance in full within the past 21 days or made
payment arrangements, please disregard this notice.
If you think we made a mistake, call 1-800-829-8374 to review your
account.
If we don’t hear from you
Pay $362.73 by March 16, 2018, to avoid additional penalty and interest
charges.
Payment options are
included and emphasized
before the notice explains
the specific nature of the
math error.
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices188
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
Notice CP11
Tax year 2017
Notice date February 24, 2018
Social security number nnn-nn-nnnn
Page 4 of 7
Changes to your 2017 tax
return
We changed your information because:
x
We didn’t allow part or all of your child tax credit and/or additional
child tax credit on page 2 of your tax return. One or more of your
children exceeds the age limitation
x
We changed the amount claimed as Earned Income Credit (EIC) on
your tax return. The amount claimed as EIC was figured or entered
incorrectly on your tax return.
Your tax calculations
Description Your calculation IRS calculation
Adjusted gross income,
line 37
$13,829.00 $13,829.00
Taxable income, line 43 $0.00 $0.00
Shared responsibility
payment
$0.00 $2.00
Total tax, line 63 $1,828.00 $1,828.00
Your payments and credits
Description IRS calculations
Income tax withheld, line 64 $0
Estimated tax payments, line 65 0
Other credits, line 66 1,624.00
Other payments line 74 0
Total pa
y
ments and credits $1,624.00
Penalties
We are required by law to charge any applicable penalties
Failure-to-file
Description Amount
Total failure-to-file $135.00
We assess a 5% monthly penalty for filing your return late for each
month or part of a month the return is late, for up to 5 months.
When a penalty for paying late applies for the same month, the amount
of the penalty for filing late for that month is reduced by the amount of
the penalty for paying late for that month. The penalty for paying late is
½% for each month or part of a month.
We base the monthly penalty for filing late on the tax required to be
shown on the return that you didn’t pay by the original return due date,
without regard to extensions. We base the monthly penalty for paying
late on the net unpaid tax at the beginning of each penalty month
folowing the payment due date for that tax.
When an income tax return is more than 60 days late, the minimum
penalty is $210 or 100% of the tax required to be shown on the return
that you didn’t pay on time, whichever is less.
(Internal Revenue Code Section 6651)
Was it one? Was it more
than one? What is the age
limitation? More specific
information should be
included so that the
taxpayer will know if the
adjustment was correct
and the nature of the error.
Including the line number
and the differences in
calculations is an
improvement over previous
notices.
Explanation of error does not appear until page 4.
Taxpayers must read through many pages to find this
critical information. Appeal rights come before, but the
error the taxpayer may appeal does not appear until this
pa
g
e. Most people won't even read this far.
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 189
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
Notice CP11
Tax year 2017
Notice date February 24, 2018
Social security number nnn-nn-nnnn
Page 5 of 7
Removal or reduction of
penalties
We understand that circumstances—such as a serious illness or injury,
a family member’s death, or loss of financial records due to natural
disaster—may make it difficult for you to meet your taxpayer
responsibility in a timely manner.
We can generally process your request for penalty removal or reduction
quicker if you contact us at the number listed above with the following
information:
• Identify which penalty charges you would like us to reconsider (e.g.,
2016 late filing penalty).
• For each penalty charge, explain why you believe it should be
reconsidered.
If you write us, include a signed statement and supporting
documentation for penalty abatement request.
We’ll review your statement and let you know whether we accept your
explanation as reasonable cause to reduce or remove the penalty
charge(s).
Removal of penalties due to
erroneous written advice from
the IRS
If you were penalized based on written advice from the IRS, we will
remove the penalty if you meet the following criteria:
• You wrote us asking for written advice on a specific issue
• You gave us adequate and accurate information
• You received written advice from us
• You reasonably relied on our written advice and were penalized based
on that advice
To request removal of penalties based on erroneous written advice from
us, submit a completed Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement
(Form 843) to the address shown above. For a copy of the form, go to
www.irs.gov or call 1-800-TAX –FORM (1-800-843-8374).
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices190
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
Interest charges
We are required by law to charge interest on unpaid tax from the date
the tax return was due to the due date the tax is paid in full. The interest
is charged as long as there is an unpaid amount due, including
penalties, if applicable. (Internal Revenue Code section 6601)
Description
A
mount
Total interest $21.73
The table below shows the rates used to calculate the interest on your
unpaid amount due. For a detailed calculation of your interest, call 1-
800-829-8374.
Period Interest rate
Beginning October 1, 2017 3%
We multiply your unpaid tax, penalties, and interest (the amount due)
by the interest rate factor to determine the interest due.
Notice CP11
Tax year 2017
Notice date February 24, 2018
Social security number nnn-nn-nnnn
Page 6 of 7
Additional interest charges
If the amount you owe is $100,000 or more, please make sure that we
receive your payment within 10 work days from the date of your notice.
If the amount you owe is less than $100,000, please make sure that we
receive your payment within 21 calendar days from the date of your
notice. If we don’t receive full payment within these time frames, the law
requires us to charge interest until you pay the full amount you owe.
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 191
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
Notice CP11
Tax year 2017
Notice date February 24, 2018
Social security number nnn-nn-nnnn
Page 7 of 7
Additional information
x
Visit www.irs.gov/cp11
x You may find the following publications helpful:
– Publication 1, Your Rights as a Taxpayer
– Publication 594, The Collection Process
x
For tax forms, instructions, and publications, visit
www.irs.gov/formspubs or call 1-800-TAX-FORM (1-800-829-3676).
x
Did you e-file your tax return? Electronically filed returns are less
likely to have math errors resulting in notices such as this one. It’s
free to file your taxes electronically. Go to www.irs.gov/efile for
information and instructions.
x
Paying online is convenient, secure, and ensures timely receipt of
your payment. To pay your taxes online or for more information, go to
www.irs.gov/payments.
x
You can contact us by mail at the address at the top of the first page
of this notice. Be sure to include your social security number and the
tax year and form number you are writing about.
x
Keep this notice for your records..
The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) is an independent organization
within the IRS that can help protect taxpayer rights. TAS can offer you
help if your tax problem is causing a hardship, or you’ve tried but
haven’t been able to resolve your problem with the IRS. If you qualify
for TAS assistance, which is always free, TAS will do everything
possible to help you. Visit www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov or call 1-877-
777-4778.
Assistance can be obtained from individuals and organizations that are
independent from the IRS. The Directory of Federal Tax Return
Preparers with credentials recognized by the IRS can be found at
http://irs.treasury.gov/rpo/rpo.jsf. IRS Publication 4134 provides a listing
of Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs) and is available at
www.irs.gov. Also, see the LITC page at
www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/litcmap. Assistance may also be
available from a referral system operated by a state bar association, a
state or local society of accountants or enrolled agents or another
nonprofit tax professional organization. The decision to obtain
assistance from any of these individuals and organizations will not
result in the IRS giving preferential treatment in the handling of the
issue, dispute or problem. You don’t need to seek assistance to contact
us. We will be pleased to deal with you directly and help you resolve
your situation.
We’re required to send a copy of this notice to both you and your
spouse. Each copy contains the information you are authorized to
receive. Please note: Only pay the amount due once.
x
If you need assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
The IRS should be
commended for including
information about TAS and
LITCs that can assist
taxpayers with
understanding the math
error notice and their rights.
However, this is on page 7.
Taxpayers may learn of
their right to appeal earlier
in the notice, but dismiss it
as too costly before reading
this information.
Information about taxpayer
rights is included, but it is
relegated to the last page of
the notice. This shows the
importance the IRS places
on taxpayer rights.
Collection is on the first
page, while rights are on the
last.
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices192
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
The new draft 2018 CP11 addresses some past TAS recommendations, such as including the exact
tax return line where the math error occurred.
35
It also contains a portion on the taxpayer’s rights,
and reference to TAS and Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITC), including that they could assist the
taxpayer, though this is buried on page seven of the notice.
Notwithstanding these somewhat positive changes, there are still several areas that could be improved
to ensure clarity. For example, while the notice does include language advising that a taxpayer must
contact the IRS to protest the change made within 60 days to retain the right to appeal pre-tax (which
the 2017 CP11, currently in use, does not have), it does not include the date of the deadline itself.
Including the date of the deadline would ensure that taxpayers are not confused about the date by which
they must file to retain their appeal rights. Added clarity with a listed deadline date may be especially
beneficial considering that the taxpayers in question may have made mathematical or clerical errors on
their tax forms, so adding 60 days to the notice date may lead them to calculate an inaccurate filing
date. This language should be on the first page to ensure taxpayers read it.
Another improvement that the IRS should make is with the placement of the proposed errors on the
notice. The 2017 CP11 is five pages long and the 2018 CP11 is seven pages long, and neither discuss
the specifics of the actual error committed by the taxpayer until the third and fourth page, respectively.
Payment options are displayed before an explanation of the math error and the return line the error was
committed on, emphasizing payment over the specifics of the proposed error. As discussed below, the
way the forms are presented, and choices are displayed, impacts how taxpayers view and interpret the
forms, potentially steering them away from exercising their rights to challenge the IRS’s decision.
36
Further, with respect to the 2018 CP11, the taxpayer’s appeal rights or deadlines are not mentioned on
the first page, which is designed like a bill, prioritizing the amount owed and payment due date. The
right to challenge the IRS’s position and be heard, by requesting deficiency procedures, is de-emphasized.
On the second page, the “what you need to do immediately” section is continued, in smaller and non-
bold font, different than how it is on the first page. This, along with its placement on the second page,
de-emphasizes the appeal rights section of the form, which contains a wall of text that taxpayers may
merely scan over. The “what you need to do immediately—continued” heading should be similarly
as big and bold as it is on the first page, and the appeal information should be broken down into more
35
See, e.g., National Taxpayer Advocate 2011 Annual Report to Congress 74-92 (Most Serious Problem: Expansion of Math
Error Authority and Lack of Notice Clarity Create Unnecessary Burden and Jeopardize Taxpayer Rights).
36
See, e.g., IRS, Behavioral Insights Toolkit 21 (2017) (discussing “choice architecture,” how the way choices are structured
can influence a taxpayer’s decision making); see Literature Review: Improving Notices Using Psychological, Cognitive, and
Behavioral Science Insights, infra.
The way the forms are presented, and choices are displayed, impacts
how taxpayers view and interpret the forms, potentially steering them
away from exercising their rights to challenge the IRS’s decision …. The
structure of these notices actively discourages abatement requests and
places obstacles into taxpayers’ efforts to learn about and use their rights.
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 193
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
manageable segments
37
to ensure that taxpayers are drawn to the information about their appeal rights
and read through it, ideally on the first page itself.
The explanation of the math error the taxpayer committed is on the fourth page, so, though they are
informed of their appeal rights in the 2018 CP11, taxpayers don’t know what to protest until page
four of the notice. Taxpayers are not informed that they have rights or that they could qualify for free
assistance until page seven of the notice. Few taxpayers are likely to read through these text-heavy seven
pages to reach this important information. The structure of these notices actively discourages abatement
requests and places obstacles into taxpayers’ efforts to learn about and use their rights.
Compared to the 2017 CP11, the 2018 CP11 is better. However, the CP11 could still be further
improved, as discussed below. If taxpayers do not understand that they can challenge the IRS’s change
to their return (and must do so within 60 days) because a notice is unclear, they may pay more tax than
they owe. Unclear notices may also prevent taxpayers from understanding that they will lose the right
to prepayment judicial review in Tax Court, before paying the assessment, if they don’t respond to the
math error notice by the 60-day deadline. Math error notices are not collection notices, they are notices
to inform taxpayers that the IRS has made some adjustments to their tax return and assessed a tax
against them. These notices must inform taxpayers that they have the right to dispute the assessed tax
within 60 days, which will give them an opportunity to petition the Tax Court. They must also inform
taxpayers that there are resources available to help them, namely TAS and LITCs. All this important
information should be on the first page of the notice. Also on the first page, the IRS can include
language that, if the taxpayer agrees with the change, information on how to pay is available on the next
page of the notice. This informs taxpayers of their rights and deadlines and directs them through the
necessary steps of the math error process.
In its response to the National Taxpayer Advocate’s 2014 Math Error Notice Most Serious Problem
recommendations, the IRS decided to not take action recommended by the National Taxpayer
Advocate to organize a team, which would include TAS, to review all current explanations of math
error adjustments, and rewrite, where necessary, to ensure that the congressional directive for clarity is
met.
38
The IRS instead cited its own process to create and revise taxpayer correspondence as sufficient.
The IRS did take action on creating IRM guidelines for crafting math error explanations that do not
have an applicable TPNC (non-standard notices).
39
The IRS postponed action on updating math error
notices to clearly disclose that taxpayers may request abatement without providing an explanation or
substantiating documentation until “resources will allow.”
40
The IRS has not conducted any studies to explore math error notice clarity in the past five years.
41
TAS
requested that the IRS measure the abatement rates for math error assessments by notice number or
TPNC in 2011.
42
The IRS has not developed a system to measure math error reversal rates for math
37
See Literature Review: Improving Notices Using Psychological, Cognitive, and Behavioral Science Insights (discussing the
psychological concept of “chunking,” that the human brain can only consciously retain roughly four chunks of different
information at one time), infra.
38
National Taxpayer Advocate Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Objectives Report to Congress vol. 2 58-60 (IRS and TAS Responses:
Most Serious Problem: Math Error Notices: The IRS Does Not Clearly Explain Math Error Adjustments, Making it Difficult for
Taxpayers to Understand and Exercise Their Rights).
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018).
42
See National Taxpayer Advocate 2011 Annual Report to Congress 74-92 (Most Serious Problem: Expansion of Math Error
Authority and Lack of Notice Clarity Create Unnecessary Burden and Jeopardize Taxpayer Rights).
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices194
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
error assessments by notice number or TPNC,
43
which limits the ability of the IRS or TAS to analyze if
there are problems with over-selection or clarity of particular math error notices.
The IRS’s Failure to Use Historical Data to Correct Taxpayer Returns Unnecessarily
Burdens Taxpayers and Wastes IRS Resources
The IRS places the burden on taxpayers for errors that the IRS could solve using internal data, instead of
denying credits that taxpayers actually qualify for and using valuable IRS time and resources answering
responses to math error notices that the IRS should not have sent.
44
For example, TAS found, in its
2011 study on math error authority and dependent TINs, that 55 percent of these types of errors were
abated, and 56 percent of the abatements could have been identified by the IRS with internal data.
45
Additionally, a TAS study found that, in a sample of cases where taxpayers had a missing or incorrect
dependent TIN math error and received no refund, 41 percent of the cases that received no adjustment
could have been corrected, and all the refunds allowed, by the IRS examining its own records.
46
Another 11 percent of these cases could have been at least partially corrected by historical data.
47
This
translates to more than 40,000 taxpayers who may have not received refunds that they were entitled to.
48
These taxpayers lost an average of $1,274.
49
There is no legal prohibition against the IRS using historical data and making these types of corrections
without burdening taxpayers with math error notices.
50
In fact, the IRS directs employees to perform
research and make changes to perfect a taxpayer’s return before contacting the taxpayer for additional
information.
51
The IRS could similarly direct its employees to search historical return information and
make those changes that benefit taxpayers, such as correcting a dependent TIN to allow for a refund.
The IRS should also measure abatement rates and review them to identify and correct potential math
error problems like those it has had before.
43
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018).
44
National Taxpayer Advocate 2011 Annual Report to Congress vol. 2 114-144 (Research Study: Math Errors Committed on
Individual Tax Returns: A Review of Math Errors Issued for Claimed Dependents).
45
Id. a t 117.
46
Id. at 120.
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Id.
50
Email from Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (NTA Program) (Nov. 14, 2018) (on file with TAS).
51
See, e.g., IRM 3.12.3.4.3.3 (Jan. 1, 2019) (this IRM section instructs IRS employees to search the taxpayer’s return and
attachments, as well as perform Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) research, to correct missing or incorrect TINs
before contacting the taxpayer for additional information).
The IRS has not developed a system to measure math error reversal rates
for math error assessments by notice number or Taxpayer Notice Code
(TPNC), which limits the ability of the IRS or TAS to analyze if there are
problems with over-selection or clarity of particular math error notices.
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 195
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
The IRS has stated that it reviews TPNC descriptive paragraphs annually.
52
However, in reviewing
the top ten most frequent math error notices TPNC descriptive paragraphs from CYs 2015-2017, there
were no discernible changes in language.
53
As demonstrated by Example 1, these descriptive paragraphs
remain confusing, using language that does not always clearly direct the taxpayer to the problem with
their return.
New Laws and Research-Based TAS-Designed Notices Can Guide the IRS In Making
Clearer Notices
Executive Order 13707 and associated guidance recognized that behavioral science insights could
benefit the American people and provided instructions to federal agencies how to use and implement the
available behavioral science research.
54
Recently introduced legislation in the House of Representatives
would require federal agencies to provide greater notice clarity.
55
The legislation would require notices
that agencies send to individuals to contain:
(1) the action item;
(2) information on whether a response is required, optional, or not required;
(3) the deadline, if applicable;
(4) how to complete the action item; and
(5) the agency’s contact information.
56
All the above items would need to be in a clearly marked section at the top of the first page of the
notice.
57
The 2018 CP11, although an improvement over past IRS math error notices, would be
inadequate under this legislation because the required items are spread over multiple pages, and the exact
date of the deadline to retain appeal rights is not included.
TAS is currently working on new notice designs that would enhance clarity and taxpayer rights. The
language of IRS notices should be framed in the language of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. For example, a
sample notice could read:
You have the right to challenge the IRS and be heard. So, if you disagree with the
adjustment we’ve made to your return, you must call or write us and ask us to reverse the
change to your return. This is a request to abate the tax and you must do so within 60 days
of the date of this notice, by [last day to request abatement]. If you do this, we will then
contact you for more information, and if we still believe your tax return is incorrect, we will
52
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018) (“annually, the Business Operating Division’s (BOD) Subject Matter
Experts (SME) review existing TPNCs. The SMEs submit requests to the Office of Taxpayer Correspondence (OTC) to revise
existing TPNCs or develop new TPNCs, as appropriate. The OTC works with the SMEs to develop language that is compliant
with the Plain Language Act, IRS Style Guide, and the Gregg Reference Manual.” The OTC then secures business approval
for technical accuracy, obtains approval from Counsel for statutory compliance, and sends to TAS for review and feedback);
IRS response to TAS fact check (Nov. 26, 2018) (“Each year, the IRS makes numerous changes to the verbiage of existing
TPNCs, deletes obsolete TPNCs, and creates new TPNCs.”).
53
IRS response to TAS information request (Aug. 22, 2018).
54
Exec. Order No. 13707, 3 C.F.R. § 13707 (Sept. 15, 2015); Executive Office of the President, Memorandum from John
P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
Implementation Guidance for Executive Order 13707: Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People
(Sept. 15, 2016).
55
Too Long Didn’t Read Act of 2018, H.R. 5321, 115th Cong. (2018).
56
Id.
57
Id.
Most Serious Problems — Math Error Notices196
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case Advocacy Appendices
keep the change we made. If you disagree with our decision, you will have the chance to
challenge our decision by petitioning the United States Tax Court without having to pay the
tax first.
TAS is working on suggested updated notices that take current research on how humans best perceive
and understand writing and using those principles to design new notices based on researched best
practices.
58
One such practice is the concept of framing, a behavioral science concept that, by framing
information in a particular way, can influence how people respond to it.
59
The framing in the IRS math error notices appears to be framing them like a bill, with the amount owed
and payment information featured first and prominently. However, framing a notice in the context of
taxpayer rights could be beneficial to taxpayers to help them understand their rights and what they can
and must do in response to a notice; for a math error notice, either paying what they owe or petitioning
the change to their return.
Another concept is the idea that making things even incrementally more difficult will reduce action.
For example, in a study on Medicare notices, researchers found that simply making information
available (through a web link or telephone number) was much less successful than actually including the
information itself on the notice.
60
This means that the IRS should strive to create fewer steps and make
each process easier for taxpayers to increase their likelihood to engage and understand. One way the
IRS could do this with regards to notices is to include an abatement form within the notice package, so
that if a taxpayer would like to request abatement, they do not need to go through as many steps, such
as calling the IRS, but can instead simply fill out a mostly pre-populated form and return it. The IRS
should work with TAS and follow its researched suggestions to improve notice clarity and prevent the
infringement of taxpayer rights.
CONCLUSION
Math error authority has its place as an effective tool to correct unambiguous errors. While the IRS
has improved some explanations on some math error notices, these revisions remain short of providing
clear, concise, and visually prominent information for taxpayers to determine what, specifically, the
IRS corrected on their return and whether they should accept the adjustment or request a correction,
as well as the consequences of inaction. Most importantly, the notices do not clearly frame the steps to
be taken in the language of taxpayer rights—specifically, the right to challenge the IRS and be heard, and
the right to appeal to an independent forum. Framing notices in the context of a taxpayer’s rights may
make taxpayers pay more attention to the notices. Moreover, the IRS does not measure the reversal rates
of math error assessments and, as a result, cannot determine the extent to which it is issuing accurate
assessments and forgoes valuable data that could be used both in identifying which math error notices
should be revised for added clarity and in using historical data to eliminate the need for issuing math
error notices that are later abated.
58
See Literature Review: Improving Notices Using Psychological, Cognitive, and Behavioral Science Insights, infra; see also IRS,
Behavioral Insights Toolkit (2017).
59
Deloitte Consulting LLP, Using the Nudge in Tax Compliance: Leveraging Behavioral Insights to Boost Tax Revenue 9 (2017);
see also Literature Review: Improving Notices Using Psychological, Cognitive, and Behavioral Science Insights, infra.
60
Jeffrey R. Kling et. al., Comparison Friction: Experimental Evidence from Medicare Drug Plans, 127 Q. J. ecoN. 199, 200-201
(2012); see also Literature Review: Improving Notices Using Psychological, Cognitive, and Behavioral Science Insights, infra.
Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2018 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 197
Legislative
Recommendations
Most Serious
Problems
Most Litigated
Issues
Case AdvocacyAppendices
RECOMMENDATIONS
The National Taxpayer recommends that the IRS:
1. Measure the abatement rates of its math errors and use the data to assess which math errors are
most problematic and which notices need to be revised for clarity.
2. On all math error notices, cite to the actual line on the return that the IRS is changing, and
the reason why the IRS is making the change (e.g., “you claimed 6 dependents on line x, but
multiplied the dependency exemption by 7 on line y”).
3. Emphasize the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and specific taxpayer rights on math error notices by
including the taxpayer’s right to challenge the IRS and be heard, and the right to appeal, the specific
deadline date the taxpayer must respond by, and the loss of their right to make a prepayment
petition of the IRS’s change to their return to the Tax Court, if the taxpayer does not respond by
the date in the notice.
4. Further emphasize the steps that taxpayers may take (pay or file to petition) on the first page of
its math error notices, so that taxpayers are clear on what their options are in response to notices.
The section heading that discusses appeal options should be similarly as big and bold as the
section heading discussing payment.
5. Place the explanation of the math error on the first page of the notice, not the third or
fourth, so that taxpayers see and read the explanation before they read about the numerous
payment options, which nudges them to pay and not question the purported error or if they
should appeal. Page one should also include the deadline date to appeal, and what taxpayers lose
if they do not appeal, as well as information about the TBOR, TAS, and LITCs.
6. Work directly with TAS on notice redesign to ensure notice clarity and adequate inclusion
of taxpayer rights on math error notices.
7. Use internal data to make corrections to returns that benefit taxpayers, instead of burdening
taxpayers with unnecessary math error assessments that are later abated.
