Unscrupulous return preparers may alter taxpayer tax data without the taxpayer’s knowledge or consent (for example, by falsifying dependent information, expenses, deductions, credits, income, refund amount, etc.) and/or misdirect a portion or all of the refund for their personal benefit. Taxpayers may become aware of misconduct through taxpayer initiated contact (Toll-Free, Field Assistance, Taxpayer Advocate Service, etc.) or through IRS enforcement investigative processes (Revenue Agent (RA) or Tax Compliance Officer (TCO) contact, Automated Underreporter (AUR) correspondence, campus examination correspondence, Revenue Officer (RO) contact, Criminal Investigation (CI) inquiries, etc.).

The policy statement relating to RPM can be found in IRM 1.2.1.16.1, Policy Statement 25-2, Return Preparer Misconduct.

IRC 6201 provides the IRS authority to assess taxes imposed by Title 26. IRC 6402 authorizes the IRS to make credits and refunds.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TBOR) lists rights that already existed in the tax code, putting them in simple language and grouping them into 10 fundamental rights. Employees are responsible for being familiar with and acting in accord with taxpayer rights. See IRC 7803(a)(3), Execution of Duties in Accord with Taxpayer Rights. For additional information about the TBOR, see https://www.irs.gov/Taxpayer-Bill-of-Rights.

The Taxpayer Advocate Service is an independent organization within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), led by the National Taxpayer Advocate, that helps taxpayers and protects taxpayer rights. TAS offers free help to taxpayers when a tax problem is causing a financial difficulty, when they’ve tried and been unable to resolve their issue with the IRS, or when they believe an IRS system, process, or procedure just isn't working as it should. TAS strives to ensure that every taxpayer is treated fairly and knows and understands their rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. TAS has at least one taxpayer advocate office located in every state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

IDTVA employees specialized in RPM are responsible for the evaluation and resolution of RPM complaints.

IDTVA employees are required to use the mandated Integrated Automation Technologies (IAT) tools per IRM 21.2.2.4.4.14, Integrated Automation Technologies.

Key RPM terminology used throughout this guidance is defined below.

Preparer Misconduct: Return preparer misconduct generally involves the orchestrated preparation and filing of false income tax returns (in either paper or electronic form), including Form 1040-X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, by unscrupulous preparers without the taxpayer’s knowledge or consent. Preparers may change direct deposit information or claim tax benefits improperly. Examples of improper claims for tax benefits include:

Return Preparer Definitions: The preparer definitions below are for the purposes of this guidance only.

RPM Complaint: Taxpayers alleging preparer misconduct are required to provide Form 14157-A, Tax Return Preparer Fraud or Misconduct Affidavit, signed under penalties of perjury and Form 14157, Return Preparer Complaint, along with additional required documentation to support their allegations.

Complete Complaint: Sufficient documentation is provided, and the preparer information is considered verified and valid.

Acceptance of Complaint: Acceptance of an RPM complaint is dependent upon the receipt of sufficient documentation, verification of the preparer, the facts and circumstances of each complaint gathered from the taxpayer’s documentation and account research. When a complaint is accepted, the IRS determines the type of relief the taxpayer is entitled to receive.

Actual Return or Return As Intended To Be Filed: The taxpayer’s tax return submitted with the RPM complaint reflecting the return unaltered by the preparer and as intended to be filed.

Relief/Resolution: Relief and resolution is based upon the specific category defined in (10) and may consist of a combination of the following:

Refunds: Terminology used to describe the refund portion include:

RPM Categories: RPM complaints have been categorized into four (4) basic fact patterns. Within each of the 4 categories, different procedures may apply depending upon the specific facts and circumstances, such as whether there is a signing preparer or a non-signing preparer (ghost), and/or the method of refund issuance (e.g., refund anticipation check (RAC), split refund, paper check). These facts and circumstances, the specific documentation requirements for each category, verification requirements and account information determine the treatment stream and whether the taxpayer is entitled to a refund, or a portion of the refund misdirected by the preparer.

Refer to the table below for a list of acronyms used throughout this guidance.

Employees are responsible for familiarizing themselves with and utilizing all linked/referenced IRMs, as appropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, sections within the following:

IRM 25.24.1, Return Preparer Misconduct Victim Assistance - General Overview, should be used in conjunction with specific functional RPM guidance.

Taxpayers claiming to be victims of RPM must submit a complaint, affidavit and other required documentation to the IRS to request relief. Policy Statement P-21-3 applies, and interim letters are systemically generated through CII. Refer to IRM 21.3.3.4.2.2, Interim Responses, for additional information.

The Return Preparer Office (RPO) may also send Form 14157-A, Tax Return Preparer Fraud or Misconduct Affidavit, or Form 14157, Return Preparer Complaint, or its equivalent, without the Form 14157-A to IDTVA when there is indication that the taxpayer is requesting account resolution. RPO does not make account determinations. Do not reject these cases. IDTVA continues with resolution of these cases. Refer to IRM 25.24.2.3.1.1, RPO Receipts Case Batching, for procedures on intake of these receipts.

RPM complaints can also be received from non-specialized functions identifying IDTVA criteria. Follow the table below if a case is referred in error.

If a CII case is assigned to all zeros, research to locate a TIN for the taxpayer. See IRM 2.3.60, Command Codes NAMES, NAMEE, NAMEI, NAMEB, FINDS, FINDE, and TPIIP, for information to query national files of name and address data for research purposes. If a TIN cannot be located and there is sufficient mailing information on the complaint, issue correspondence to the taxpayer requesting the taxpayer’s TIN and any other required RPM documentation. If no response is received, issue a 5956C letter to tell the taxpayer no action can be taken since we have no record of a response being received. If correspondence cannot be issued then leave a CII case note stating insufficient information to issue correspondence and close the case no action.

If a CII case is scanned as an RPM case in error and it does not fit any other case type, review case to determine whether an interim letter generated. If a closing letter is required, send a Letter 544C or equivalent, advising taxpayer that an interim letter was issued in error and to disregard.

If a Form 3949-A, Information Referral, is received that clearly relates to an RPM issue and the taxpayer used the wrong form, continue with normal RPM case assignment.

If a CII case is scanned as RPM from a 3rd party informing on a taxpayer, consider this an informant case. If a closing letter is required, send a Letter 544C or equivalent, advising taxpayer that an interim letter was issued in error and to disregard. Informant cases (generally Form 3949-A) are worked in Ogden. Review where case originated to determine whether the case should be referred to Ogden. Route to IRS, Attention: Entity, Mail Stop 6273, 1973 N Rulon Blvd., Ogden, UT 84404, after sending closing letter. If Form 14157-A was included, indicate in remarks on CII reroute, Not RPM - Informant Correspondence.

If a complaint is received for an EIN alleging preparer misconduct, elevate to ITVA HQ (copy IDTVA P&A POC) for coordination with BMF.

Refer to IRM 25.23.4.19, Requesting Translations of Certain Languages , for translation services guidance.

All RPM allegations that come into an IDTVA Specialty Function team must be controlled on CII.

All correspondence should be researched on IDRS and CII to determine whether there are existing open CII cases.

Any new correspondence received on an open RPM CII case must be associated with the existing open case. Complete a CII Association sheet and send to ICT.

Prior to sending a case to ICT for batching:

If a Form 14394, Identity Theft/RPM Case Collection Alert, or Form 13794, Request for Release or Partial Release of Federal Tax Lien, is sent to Automated Collection System Support (ACSS) or Collection Advisory, include a copy of the completed form with the other documents being sent to ICT for imaging.

The IDTVA Specialty Function team receiving correspondence completes the IDTVA RPM Batch Sheet for each piece of correspondence. This form and its instructions can be found under Specialty Only heading on the IDTVA Hub.

Make sure that the Image Control Team Batch Cover Sheet contains all necessary information so the case can be accurately controlled.

Any cases that were previously closed and re-opened must be updated to the correct case type, category code and program code immediately after re-opening the case. Cases should only be re-opened if worked and closed in the same day.

RPM complaints meeting IDTVA Specialty Function criteria are scanned to the Correspondence Imaging Inventory (CII) with Doc Type COMP RPM. The Category Code is IDII and program code 710-85431.

RPM complaints meeting IDTVA-A criteria are scanned to CII with Doc Type Return Preparer Misconduct, Category Code RPMC, and Program Code 710-85440.

All RPM cases are required to have a CII control. If multiple years are listed in the RPM complaint, the Image Control Team (ICT) creates the case for the earliest year identified. Review the RPM complaint to identify all years impacted. A new CII case must be created for each year listed in the RPM complaint. Use the same "IRS Received Date" as the existing related RPM case containing the complaint. Link the newly created CII case to the related RPM case containing the complaint.

All RPM cases should be treated as priority; however, some cases require immediate attention.

IDTVA Specialty Function priority codes are listed below. When sending a case to ICT for CII batching, certain cases require a priority code to be noted on the batch sheet, per the chart below.

It may be necessary to update the priority code of a case as it is being processed.

IDTVA Specialty Function cases must be worked in priority order due to agreements with the referring functions (AUR and Exam).

Refer RPM cases involving allegations against a return preparer to the Return Preparer Office (RPO) when the claim is received in IDTVA or as early as possible. Refer only the cases received for the current processing year or any of the prior 3 years. This includes:

If any of the scenarios below apply, do not notify the RPO. Leave an appropriate case note.

If no exceptions apply, Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) and Correspondence Exam Technicians (CETs):

If the case is being sent to RPO per paragraph 3 above, inform the taxpayer you forwarded the information to RPO. Taxpayer notification is not required if case meets any criteria in paragraph 2 above.

In a typical RPM case, there is a single point of contact for a taxpayer when allegations of RPM involve multiple years.

Employees are required to perform Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) research to determine whether reroute/reassignment criteria exists and determine:

When multiple years are involved and at least one year has Compliance involvement, all years are worked by IDTVA Specialty Function.

Accounts showing another function or team is responsible for resolution should be routed/reassigned per IRM 25.24.1.4.1, Routing Information - Paper.

Send an 86C letter if required per IRM 21.3.3.4.2.1, Use of 86C Letter - Referring Taxpayer Inquiry/Forms to Another Office.

The next sections provide guidance for accounts with specific miscellaneous issues.

In certain instances, it is necessary to refer the complaint information to a specific function as notification of an existing RPM complaint and to confirm with that function that there are no implications when resolving the complaint in IDTVA. If the RPM complaint or account condition involves any of the following, the employee must follow the guidance in the specific subsection for referral.

Complete research must be performed to determine the appropriate actions to take on a case. The employee must review the documentation provided by the taxpayer along with the account information from CII, Account Management Services (AMS), and IDRS etc. to assist with a determination. Compare the tax return as taxpayer intended it to be filed with the posted information to determine if the taxpayer complaint is supported. Perform complete IDRS research to confirm a tax return was filed or the taxpayer does not have a filing requirement. Research should include but is not limited to the use of command codes TXMOD to review posted information; RTVUE, TRDBV and/or access of EUP to review MeF original tax return information; IRPTR to review income information, etc.

Employees reviewing RPM claims involving compliance issues must also (when applicable):

CII case notes are used to clearly identify research completed, analysis of documentation, determination and action completed. Case documentation must include sufficient information to support the determination and information used to justify the determination.

If in telephone contact with the taxpayer, leave a CII case note with the pertinent information to the case. For example, if taxpayer clarifies what was stated in the documentation or confirms the receipt of a refund, this should be included in the case notes.

Case notes should include any pertinent information from the Exam/AUR case information available from AIMS, CEAS, and/or AUR. Refer to IRM 25.23.2.3.4, Required Case and History Notes, and IRM 4.19.13.6, Workpapers for All Cases, for additional guidelines.

RPM complaints alleging the unauthorized filing of a Form 1040-X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, must be reviewed to ensure the complaint involves a 1040-X and not another scenario. Complete research should be performed to ensure the taxpayer statements are supported by the account conditions.

If information is consistent with the taxpayer allegations, then follow chart below for resolution.

The resolution of RPM complaints with allegations regarding the unauthorized filing of an amended return or an authorized filing of an amended return that was altered, follows the same path as the resolution of normal RPM procedures involving the original return. However, the category determination and required documentation would be applied to the amended return information. For example:

When restitution is ordered by a Court, it must be determined whether the order reflects restitution payments be paid to the IRS (Criminal restitution) or to the taxpayer (civil restitution) directly. The following subsections provide guidance.

RPM complaints involving accounts that contain RIVO indicators may be worked by IDTVA in certain circumstances. Complete research must be performed.

If the RICS/RIVO reroute conditions are not met, IDTVA follows the procedures below for the resolution of the RPM complaint. Refer to IRM 25.24.2.3.6, Reroute/Reassignment Criteria, for routing conditions.

Follow No Consideration procedures (5956C) in IRM 25.24.2.4, RPM Criteria Not Met, only when:

Follow normal RPM procedures when:

RPM specific letters have been implemented for use when working RPM complaints/claims.

Letter 5955C, Return Preparer Misconduct – Case Incomplete for Processing Request, is used when requesting information from the taxpayer.

Letter 5956C, Return Preparer Misconduct (RPM) –Resolution Closing Letter, is used as the closing letter based on the applicable treatment stream. The letter is broken down into sections based on allowable claims, no consideration, partial disallowance, and full disallowance.

Multiple years can be included on one letter unless separate and distinct determinations are made. For example, 2 years involved and one case is a no consideration and one is disallowed.

If Spanish language RPM complaints/claims are received, a reply must be issued using the Spanish version of the appropriate C letter. Refer to IRM 25.23.4.19, Requesting Translations of Certain Languages , for translation services guidance.

For all categories, when a complaint is determined incomplete, issue correspondence requesting the missing documentation. Tell the taxpayer to provide the requested information within 30 days. Suspend the case for 40 days awaiting the taxpayer response (70 days for overseas taxpayers). If no response is received or insufficient information is provided, then disallow or partially disallow the claim.

For all categories, if case is considered incomplete, initiate a refund trace if no trace has been previously performed. Refer to IRM 25.24.2.5.3.4, Refund Trace Requirements, for additional information.

If the Assessment Statute Expiration Date (ASED) is imminent (90 days) and the taxpayer’s actual return is included with the complaint but there are other missing elements, take into consideration certain factors and timeframes in order to ensure the ASED is protected. Timely follow-up is required on these suspense cases.

Correspond using Letter 5955C, Return Preparer Misconduct – Case Incomplete for Processing Request.

Capture letter on CII per IRM 21.5.1.5.1, CII General Guidelines.

Leave a case note on CII indicating the letter that was sent and the list of the information requested.

Update CII data to turn off Auto Interim Letter since correspondence has been sent to taxpayer requesting information.

Suspend case on CII for 40 days (70 days for overseas taxpayers).

Monitor for response. Refer to IRM 25.24.2.6.3, Taxpayer Responses, if a reply is received or the suspense period expires.

Follow the table below when taxpayer responses are received.

Responses received on suspended cases should retain the original IRS received date.

Responses received on previously closed cases should use the IRS received date of the new information and treated as a new complaint.

For allowable or partially allowable Category 1-3 claims, the original return is considered a nullity and the return as intended to be filed presented by the taxpayer with the RPM complaint is the taxpayer’s return of record. If the RPM complaint is received after the ASED based on the originally filed return has expired, the complaint must still be considered. If the claim is allowable or partially allowable the ASED must be updated to reflect the receipt of the taxpayer’s return as intended to be filed. If the ASED based on the taxpayer’s return as intended to be filed has expired, refer to IRM 25.24.2.7.1.1, Extended ASED Expired on Allowable RPM Claims, for additional guidance.

For disallowed claims, if adjustment action is required (for example: the actual return is treated as an amended return) and the ASED is imminent, input prompt assessment following normal procedures. Refer to IRM 25.6.1.5, Basic Guide for Processing Cases with Statute of Limitations Issues, for additional information. If the complaint is received after the ASED has expired, no tax assessment or credit decrease can be input. Refer to IRM 25.24.2.11.1, Disallowance, for additional information.

Normal RSED procedures or aspects of RSED procedures are to be followed whenever possible.

Category 1 and 3 cases are not solely considered a claim for refund. Since these complaints also involve an allegation that the original return was not authorized (Cat 1) or tax data was altered (Cat 3), the adjustment aspect still needs to be considered.

In Category 4 cases the original return is valid and is considered the claim for refund. There are no adjustments to be made. The taxpayer is asking the IRS to replace the refund alleged to have been stolen by the preparer. The refund claim on the original return is required to be filed on or prior to the RSED before a Category 4 complaint may be allowed. If a Category 4 complaint is received within the time frame allowable to perform a refund trace and the original return was filed timely, continue resolution of the RPM claim and allow the refund based on the completeness of the RPM claim, and the timeliness of the original return. If the original return was filed after the RSED expired, the account would show that statutes applied the overpayment to Excess collections and issued a 105C letter. In this scenario, send a no consideration 5956C letter advising taxpayer there is no evidence of preparer misconduct and explain why the original refund was not issued.

The FTP penalty should be considered when:

When Category 1 and Category 2 claims are allowed, the original return is considered a nullity and the taxpayer’s return submitted with the complaint is considered the return of record. ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡

The January 2016 programming changes allow the computer to recognize the need to charge the FTP penalty from the RDD on a subsequent adjustment with the use of new Item Reference Number (IRN) 871 and priority code (PC) 2. The IRN 871 and PC 2 allows systemic calculation/re-calculation of the FTP penalty, if applicable. Two adjustments (complete back-out of the nullified return and subsequent adjustment to reflect the taxpayer’s return as intended to be filed) are required if the correction to the taxpayer’s return as intended to be filed result in a balance due, or if any of the tax due on the correct return was paid after the original return due date without regard to extensions.

Compute the IRN 871 amount (tax shown) on the return as intended to be filed, which is the amount of tax the taxpayer figured they owe, minus any taxpayer computed refundable and prepaid credits. The IRN 871 amount is included on the adjustment to reflect the taxpayer’s actual return and tells the computer the tax the taxpayer expected to owe on their return and the amount of tax that is assessed the FTP penalty from the due date of the return. The computer systemically recognizes any payments, credit elects, withholding and cancellations of any refunds (TC 841/TC700) when computing the FTP penalty. Follow the guidance in IRM 20.1.2.2.6.2, Incorrect Tax Shown Recorded, for computing the IRN 871 and IRM 20.1.2.2.6.3, Wrong Return Posted First, for additional information.

The PC 2 allows the computer to recognize the need to compute the FTP penalty back to the RDD for the lesser of the IRN 871 amount or the “tax assessed” on the return and tells the computer to ignore any prior tax or credit in the module, and to treat the TC 29X/30X as if it were the TC 150 original return transaction when computing the FTP penalty. This is the reason the original return considered a nullity needs to be completely backed out.

The FTF penalty should be considered when:

The FTF penalty needs to be computed manually and included with the adjustment to the account. The computer cannot systemically generate the penalty if the altered return (TC 150) is timely.

The chart below illustrates when FTF penalty may be applied:

Determine if the complaint is complete.

If a complaint is considered incomplete refer to IRM 25.24.2.6.2, Incomplete Complaints, for additional information. Suspend the case for 40 days (70 days for overseas taxpayers). If a reply is received or the suspense period ends, refer to IRM 25.24.2.6.3, Taxpayer Responses.

Verify the preparer information. Refer to IRM 25.24.2.5.3.3, Verification of the Preparer, for additional information.

For Category 1, ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ cases, a refund trace is required when the claim is disallowed. This is necessary to determine the appropriate handling of the actual return provided with the complaint.

However, if a refund trace was previously performed and the trace information is currently available on a ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ refund, utilize the information to verify the receipt or non-receipt of a refund and to determine the amount, if any, of an additional refund that may be issued.

If the complaint is considered complete and all required documentation, including 3rd party documentation (if applicable) is present and the preparer information is considered verified, then the complaint is accepted.

The IRS determines the type of relief to which the taxpayer is entitled, and for an allowed claim, considers the original return a nullity and the actual return presented by the taxpayer (unaltered by the preparer) as the taxpayer’s return of record.

For Category 1 cases, ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ information regarding fees paid to the preparer, this amount would be considered part of the preparer portion of the refund. If the taxpayer did not authorize the filing of the tax return, the taxpayer would not be held responsible.

Follow the CAT 1 treatment stream for accepted complaints scenarios and charts below to determine the next actions required.

Determine if the complaint is complete.

If the complaint is considered incomplete, refer to IRM 25.24.2.6.2, Incomplete Complaints, for additional information. Suspend the case for 40 days (70 days for overseas taxpayers). If a reply is received or the suspense period ends, refer to IRM 25.24.2.6.3, Taxpayer Responses.

Verify the preparer information. Refer to IRM 25.24.2.5.3.3, Verification of the Preparer, for additional information.

For Category 2, ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ cases, a refund trace is required when the claim is disallowed. This is necessary to determine the appropriate handling of the actual return provided with the complaint.

However, if a refund trace was previously performed and the trace information is currently available on a ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ refund, utilize the information to verify the receipt or non-receipt of a refund and to determine the amount, if any, of an erroneous refund received by the taxpayer.

If the complaint is considered complete and all required documentation, including 3rd party documentation (if applicable) is present and the preparer information is considered verified, then the complaint is accepted.

The IRS determines the type of relief to which the taxpayer is entitled, and for an allowed claim, considers the original return a nullity and the actual return presented by the taxpayer (unaltered by the preparer) as the taxpayer’s return of record.

≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ information regarding fees paid to the preparer that were deducted from the original refund, it must be taken into account when determining preparer portion of refund and any additional refund amounts. The fee amount would not be considered a part of the preparer portion of the refund due to misconduct. However, when the fee is paid by other methods of payment (cash, personal check, unknown), do not take it into account.

Follow the CAT 2 treatment stream for accepted complaints scenarios and charts below to determine the next actions required.

Determine if the complaint is complete.

If the complaint is considered incomplete refer to IRM 25.24.2.6.2, Incomplete Complaints, for additional information. Suspend the case for 40 days (70 days for overseas taxpayers). If a reply is received or the suspense period ends, refer to IRM 25.24.2.6.3, Taxpayer Responses.

Verify the preparer information. Refer to IRM 25.24.2.5.3.3, Verification of the Preparer, for additional information.

For Category 3, ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ cases, a refund trace is required and used to verify whether a refund was issued in the taxpayer’s name. Utilize the trace information to verify the receipt or non-receipt of a refund and to determine the refund amount, if any, that may be issued.

If the complaint is considered complete and all required documentation, including 3rd party documentation (if applicable) is present and the preparer information is considered verified then the complaint is accepted.

The IRS determines the type of relief to which the taxpayer is entitled, and for an allowed claim, considers the original return a nullity and the actual return presented by the taxpayer (unaltered by the preparer) as the taxpayer’s return of record.

≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ information regarding fees paid to the preparer that were deducted from the original refund, it must be taken into account when determining preparer portion of refund and any additional refund amounts. The fee amount would not be considered a part of the preparer portion of the refund due to misconduct. However, when the fee is paid by other methods of payment (cash, personal check, unknown), do not take it into account.

Follow the CAT 3 treatment stream for accepted complaints scenarios and charts below to determine the next actions required.

Determine if the complaint is complete.

If the complaint is considered incomplete, refer to IRM 25.24.2.6.2, Incomplete Complaints, for additional information. Suspend the case for 40 days (70 days for overseas taxpayers). If a reply is received or the suspense period ends, refer to IRM 25.24.2.6.3, Taxpayer Responses.

Verify the preparer information. Refer to IRM 25.24.2.5.3.3, Verification of the Preparer, for additional information.

For Category 4, ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ cases, a refund trace is required and used to verify whether a refund was issued in the taxpayer’s name. Utilize the trace information to verify the receipt or non-receipt of a refund and to determine the amount, if any, of an additional refund that may be issued.

If the complaint is considered complete and all required documentation, including 3rd party documentation (if applicable) is present and the preparer information is considered verified, then the complaint is accepted.

The IRS determines the type of relief the taxpayer is entitled. For Category 4 cases the original return is considered valid and not considered a nullity.

≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ information regarding fees paid to the preparer that were deducted from the original refund, it must be taken into account when determining preparer portion of refund and any additional refund amounts. The fee amount would not be considered a part of the preparer portion of the refund due to misconduct. However, when the fee is paid by other methods of payment (cash, personal check, unknown), do not take it into account.

Follow the CAT 4 treatment stream for accepted complaints scenarios and charts below to determine the next actions required.

Open AUR cases are considered a priority and must be worked within 120 days of receipt in IDTVA. If a case cannot be closed within 120 days, contact must be made with the appropriate AUR IDT Coordinators to request additional time. This is in addition to leaving a case note on the AUR system. If contact is not made within 120 days, AUR will close the case using process code 17.

The AUR issues on the account must be reviewed and taken into consideration. The handling of the account may differ depending on whether the case is an open AUR or closed AUR case. Follow the applicable subsection for guidance.

The Exam issues on the account must be reviewed and taken into consideration when addressing the RPM issue. The handling of the account may differ depending on whether the case is an open Exam or closed Exam. Per current Exam policy AIMS will be closed disposal code (DC) 12 or 37 prior to routing RPM complaints to IDTVA Specialty Function; however, there may be exceptions and open AIMS cases will be received. Follow the applicable subsection for guidance.

Upon receipt of new inventory, cases must be researched to determine whether AIMS is open (L freeze). If AIMs is open, Exam must be contacted to request AIMS be closed unless the case will be resolved within 5 days of assignment. A listing of functional coordinators can be found on SERP under Job Aids Compliance SBSE campus point of contact (POC) or for TS campus Exam contact the AIMS coordinator found on SERP under Who/Where tab Exam Contact List, AIMS/ERCS Staff by User Location.

A case open in Field Exam is referred to Field Exam in accordance with IRM 25.24.1.4.1, Routing Information - Paper.

If the RPM claim is disallowed and the case was closed by Exam as a DC 12 or 37, prior to the routing of the RPM allegation to IDTVA Specialty Function, return the claim to Exam provided there are ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡. These cases can be identified as follows: