Appeals is the only administrative function of the IRS with authority to consider settlements of tax controversies and has the primary responsibility to resolve these disputes without litigation to the maximum extent possible through an administrative settlement of the matter. Appeals’ mission is to resolve federal tax controversies without litigation on a basis which is fair and impartial to both the government and the taxpayer, promotes a consistent application and interpretation of, and voluntary compliance with, the federal tax laws, and enhances public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the IRS. See IRC 7803(e)(3), Purposes and Duties of Office.

Appeals accomplishes this mission by considering protested and Tax Court cases, holding conferences, and negotiating settlements in a manner which ensures Appeals employees act in accordance with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TBOR) in every interaction with taxpayers. See IRC 7803(a)(3), Execution of Duties in Accord with Taxpayer Rights, and IRM 8.1.1.2, Accomplishing the Appeals Mission. All Appeals managers are accountable for supporting Appeals’ mission and core values and for managing their employees’ activities. Managers are expected to motivate their employees and establish a positive work climate.

Settlement Authority in Protested and Tax Court Cases - The authority to settle protested and Tax Court cases is delegated to Appeals team managers (ATMs) and Appeals team case leaders (ATCLs) as to their respective cases. This does not include the authority to set aside a closing agreement. See IRM 1.2.2.9.1, Delegation Order 8-1 (formerly DO-60, Rev. 7), Appeals Functions - Settlement of Cases Docketed in the United States Tax Court, and IRM 1.2.2.9.8, Delegation Order 8-8 (Rev. 1) (formerly DO-66, Rev. 15), Authority of Appeals in Protested and Tax Court Cases.

Authority to Enter into Closing Agreement - The authority to enter into and approve a written agreement with any person relating to the internal revenue tax liability for such person (or of the person or estate for whom he or she acts) for a taxable period or periods ended prior to the date of the agreement and related specific items affecting other taxable periods. This does not include the authority to set aside any closing agreement. See IRM 1.2.2.9.3, Delegation Order 8-3 (formerly DO-97, Rev. 34), Closing Agreements Concerning Internal Revenue Tax Liability. This authority is delegated to the following for cases under their jurisdiction (but excluding cases docketed before the United States Tax Court):

Authority to Execute Consent to Extend Period of Limitation on Taxpayer Suits Under IRC 6532 - Delegated to Directors, Appeals Operating Units (Appeals Area Directors). See IRM 1.2.2.9.4, Delegation Order 8-4 (formerly DO 171, Rev. 2), Authority of Appeals Under 26 CFR 301.6511 and 26 CFR 301.6532, and IRM 8.7.7.3.3, Form 907, Agreement to Extend the Time to Bring Suit.

Authority to Administer Dispute Resolution Procedures under IRC 7123 - Redelegated by the Chief, Appeals, as identified in IRM 1.2.2.9.9, Delegation Order 8-9, Authority of Appeals to Administer Dispute Resolution Procedures, and IRM 8.26, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program.

Authority to Designate Appeals Coordinated Issues - Delegated to the Director, Specialized Examination Programs and Referrals (SEPR). See IRM 1.2.2.9.6, Delegation Order 8-6 (formerly DO-179, Rev. 2), Coordination of Certain Issues Before Approval of Settlement or Other Disposition in Appeals. The Director, SEPR is authorized to make the final determination as to the disposition of the Appeals coordinated issue (ACI) in any case involving an ACI if the coordinating official has not concurred and the ATM cannot resolve the dispute. See IRM 1.2.2.9.8, Delegation Order 8-8 (Rev. 1) (formerly DO-66, Rev. 15), Authority of Appeals in Protested and Tax Court Cases, and IRM 8.7.3, Domestic and International Operations Programs.

Authority to Decide Appeals of Participation Denial and Sanctions in the IRS e-File Program - Delegated to ATMs to make final agency decisions. See IRM 1.2.2.9.5, Delegation Order 8-5, Authority to Decide Appeals of Participation Denial and Sanctions in the Internal Revenue Service.

Authority of Appeals in Termination Assessments of Income Tax, Jeopardy Assessments and Jeopardy Levies - Delegated to ATM and ATCLs as to their respective cases. See IRM 1.2.2.9.7, Delegation Order 8-7 (formerly DO-160, Rev. 6), Authority of Appeals in Termination Assessments of Income Tax, Jeopardy Assessments and Jeopardy Levies.

Authorities do not include authority to:

The Chief, Appeals, reports to the Commissioner of IRS and is responsible for planning, managing, directing, and executing nationwide activities for Appeals. The Chief/Deputy Chief, Appeals, has functional responsibility for all Headquarter operations in Appeals, including the following and their staff:

Appeals’ operations executive directors are responsible for providing operational support in meeting the Appeals Strategic Business Plan in a manner consistent with Appeals’ mission and vision statements. The operations directors supervise and are responsible for activities of Appeals area directors, senior operations advisors, and technical advisors.

Appeals area directors report to their operations executive director for planning, organizing, directing, and evaluating activities associated with the hearing, negotiation, and settlement of taxpayer appeals.

ATMs reports to their area director and have full accountability for their overall team success in delivering and balancing customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, and business results. ATMs plan, organize, lead, and evaluate their team of ATEs and appropriately support personnel engaged in the hearing, negotiation, and settlement of taxpayer appeals. For non-ATCL cases, the ATM approves case settlements, ensuring team member settlements and team objectives comply with Appeals vision and values.

The Director, Case Support, is responsible for performing all case processing actions, from intake and assignment to closing cases out of Appeals, providing shared administrative services to Appeals personnel, and performing redaction of case files requested under the Taxpayer First Act. The Case Support function combines Account and Processing Support (APS) and the Shared Team of Administrative and Redaction Support (STARS).

The Director, Operations Support, is responsible for providing technical and procedural guidance, coordinating with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), overseeing the Appeals internal management document (IMD) program, developing and implementing alternative dispute resolution programs (ADR), providing trend and data analyses, planning expertise, detailed summary reports and assistance, conducting quality reviews of cases, providing guidance on human capital issues, planning and executing Appeals budget, supporting Appeals information technology needs, and developing and delivering training and implementing knowledge management strategies.

Communications is responsible for facilitating effective communication with Appeals employees and other internal and external stakeholders. For more information, visit Appeals Communications webpage.

All managers are responsible for:

For internal control responsibilities, see IRM 1.4.2, Monitoring and Improving Internal Control.

This IRM section focuses on Appeals’ case-related management roles.

The Director, PPQA, provides trends and data analyses and detailed summary reports for Appeals. The systems and reports shown below are available to authorized Appeals users depending on their position description, access level, and responsibilities.

There are a series of reports available within ACDS from the Main Reports Menu.

The table lists commonly used acronyms and their definitions:

IRM 1.4, Resource Guide for Managers, and IRM Part 6, Human Resources Management, contain information on several employee-related matters, including those listed below:

Employees can find helpful information on performance management, leadership development, and various other topics on the following intranet sites:

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 accordance 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.

In accordance with IRM 25.30.2.3, Statement of Commitment, Appeals will work collaboratively with the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to enhance the taxpayer experience. For more information, see IRM 25.30.2, Service Level Agreement between the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and the Taxpayer Advocate Service.

Managers obtain and ensure a high level of compliance with program objectives and policies through communication, review, and follow-up on:

The executive and management levels address this as follows:

ATMs are responsible for promptly assigning work units. At the time of assignment, the ATM determines:

The ATE will complete the statute verification and send the appropriate initial contact letter within the time frames shown below:

For more information on initial case actions, see the following:

APS is responsible for controlling and processing work units in Appeals and Counsel’s jurisdiction. See IRM 8.20, Account and Processing Support (APS), and IRM 8.1.3.11 , Account and Processing Support (APS). Each employee is responsible for controlling assigned inventory and monitoring work units while in process. Basic management tools available are workload reviews and live case reviews.

In addition, Appeals managers should utilize trial status requests and trial calendars in order to achieve Appeals' objectives under Rev. Proc. 2016-22 for cases docketed in the United States Tax Court.

The AARS manager is responsible for controlling AARS inventory. The AARS manager’s closing actions do not include entering an ACAPDATE on ACDS.

The ACDS proxy module provides managers with a means to delegate access to their ACDS accounts to acting managers. See IRM 1.11.4, Servicewide Delegation Order Process, for rules and the authority for designating acting supervisory officials.

A proxy has full managerial access to ACDS and all actions taken by the proxy will be recorded as those having been completed by the manager. ACDS does not record the proxy’s name on these actions. However, ACDS lists all proxies assigned.

An ACDS proxy manager's guide was prepared by Appeals and should be utilized to answer general, functional questions about the proxy program. Access this guide from the Appeals intranet home page > Systems and Technology > ACDS page > Resources > Manager Proxy User Guide.

The following managers will have permissions to assign a proxy on ACDS. The bulleted positions below identify the proxy population appropriate for each manager:

Business Systems Planning (BSP) account administrators have global access and permission to assign a proxy on ACDS when a manager is not available to make the assignment.

The following limitations apply:

Actions of the proxy will be restricted as follows:

The following question and answer scenarios discuss the most routine situations encountered where a proxy is involved:

ATMs should ensure that their employees properly adhere to IRC 7521(b)(2), Right of Consultation, and IRC 7521(c), Representatives Holding Power of Attorney, pertaining to the taxpayer's right to consultation and power of attorney authorization. ATMs should include this item in case reviews to ensure ATEs are involving representatives in all case actions. Taxpayers are afforded the right to designate a qualified representative to act on their behalf when interacting with the IRS. IRS employees are required to stop an interview if the taxpayer requests to consult with a representative and may not bypass a representative without supervisory approval. See IRM 8.6.1.5.3, Right of Consultation with Representative, and IRM 8.6.1.5.3.3, Bypass of a Representative, on the ATM’s role where a recognized representative has unreasonably delayed or hindered the appeal process.

The ATM should also ensure that employees adhere to the requirements of IRC 6304 , Fair Tax Collection Practices, in their communications with taxpayers in connection with the collection of any unpaid tax. See IRM1.4.28.5.2, Restricted Contact with Taxpayer.

A taxpayer's right to representation is protected under the fair tax collection practices found in IRC Section 6304(a)(2). Without prior consent of the taxpayer given directly to an employee, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, the employee is prohibited from communicating with a taxpayer in connection with the collection of any unpaid tax, if the employee knows the taxpayer is represented by any person authorized to practice before the IRS with respect to such unpaid tax. Contact is also prohibited if the employee has knowledge of, or can readily determine the authorized representative’s name and address, unless the authorized representative fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication or consents to direct communication with the taxpayer. See IRM 8.6.1.5.3.3, Bypass of a Representative.

During a case review or upon receiving a complaint from a taxpayer, managers may identify a potential violation of the restrictions under IRC Section 6304. The manager must report potential employee violations of IRC Section 6304 to the area director by the close of the next business day following the identification of the potential violation. If the area director concurs, the area director will report the violation to Labor Relations (LR) by the close of the next business day following the notification of the alleged violation. If the violation is confirmed, the area director will work with a LR Specialist to determine the next appropriate action.

Workload reviews, when combined with live/closed case reviews, are the best tools available to a manager when evaluating case management practices and work habits of Appeals personnel.

Managers will do a minimum of one workload review per year; preferably at mid-year, which will focus on case management issues such as imminent statutes, overage cases, significant time on case and cases with no conference or no activity for an extended period of time. This review should also help you identify exemplary casework, good workload management skills and employee strengths. The review can also confirm workload issues, calendar management skills and areas of training needs for the manager’s employee and team.

More frequent reviews are necessary when serious performance deficiencies and a need for development are identified.

Generally, the tools in conducting a workload review are the CAR, time report, the Appeals case summary cards, copy of the prior workload review report, if any, discussion with the employee and live case reviews.

The primary objective of a workload review is for the manager to gain a specific understanding of the status of each work unit in an employee's inventory. Workload reviews, when properly conducted, involve a substantial amount of time. This will be time well spent as it gives the manager insight into each employee's work habits, case management practices, technical abilities and identifies areas where training and development are needed. It provides managerial insight as to the exact status of each employee's inventory and gives the manager a basis for frequent but quick follow-up. Strengths and weaknesses in performance are clearly identified with specific examples. A workload review also offers an opportunity to give specific guidance and direction with respect to specific management practices and technical abilities.

A workload review enables the manager to evaluate and give feedback on how well an employee is managing inventory by appraisal of the following factors:

In addition to the above, a workload review enables the manager to make judgments concerning an employee's:

A workload review also offers an opportunity for:

Following a workload review, the manager should promptly give the employee their written analysis and summary. Cite specific instances of exemplary performance or weaknesses in performance. Clearly state guidance and direction. Set out any agreements between you and the employee with respect to specific action, target dates and overall performance.

Have the employee acknowledge receipt of the memorandum or any other document summarizing the results of the workload review by initialing the manager's copy.

The initial preparation for the workload review can be done in advance. This includes a worksheet listing all work units in the employee's inventory, setting out the following information for each work unit:

The information required in paragraph (1) above is obtainable from the employee's most recent time report and the ACDS case inventory screen. Obtain additional information for the workload review from the "Diagnostic and Balanced Measures" (D&BAM) database, ACDS statute listings and AdHoc reports. Make sure the work sheet provides space for the manager to make notes during the live case review.

The worksheet described in paragraph (1) above could be the foundation, at the conclusion of the workload review, for the memorandum to the employee. Set out any brief discussions of each work unit reviewed, including the information itemized.

Whenever possible, a manager may use ACDS to document reviews. The manager can then use ACDS to document and share workload and live case reviews and conference observations with their employees.

A live case review is a review conducted by a manager before the employee submits a work unit for approval, but generally after the employee has had an opportunity to make significant progress with the work unit.

A closed case review is a review conducted by a manager after the employee has submitted a work unit for approval. See IRM 1.4.28.8.2, Closed Case Work Reviews.

The following lists the minimum number of live (open) and/or closed case reviews required each year by employee grade level. The mix of reviews conducted annually is at the discretion of the manager.

The grade (case difficulty) of the case selected for these reviews should be the same as the grade level of the employee being reviewed. See case grading exhibits at the end of this IRM starting with Exhibit 1.4.28-1.

Where there are observed deficiencies in case work performance, whether related to timeliness or decision quality, the manager will review additional cases beyond the required number noted above sufficient to impact improvements or to support rating reductions.

The scope of these evaluative reviews will be limited to a simple affirmation next to each performance standard that it has been met. Additional supporting narrative will only be required when a standard is not met, or when it has been exceeded.

A thorough live case review gives a manager an in-depth view of the employee’s work habits that cannot be obtained during normal review of the case file at closing. A live review during the time a work unit is in process also saves review time at closing.

The use of ACDS to document workload and case reviews (open and closed) is encouraged.

If ACDS is not used to document the review, prepare a memorandum briefly setting out the following with respect to each work unit reviewed:

Have the employee acknowledge receipt of the memorandum or other document summarizing the results of the live case review by initializing the manager's copy. This can be done electronically if ACDS is used for the live or closed case review.

The AARS ATM performs a priority review in place of a live case review based on inventory prioritization needs and cases requiring special attention. For additional information, see IRM 1.4.28.5.6, AARS ATM Priority Review.

The AARS ATM performs priority reviews which also serve as a modified workload review based on the following guidelines:

The AARS ATM provides written documentation of the items reviewed and includes the following information:

The AARS ATM will provide the employee with the written priority review within 15 workdays of completing the review.

The AARS ATM will set a meeting date and time to discuss the priority review document with the employee and, upon conclusion of the meeting, request the employee sign the document which then becomes part of the employee performance file (EPF).

Periodically, the AARS ATM will observe a live customer service call to review the AARS employee’s preparation for the call and performance during the call. Factors to observe include:

The AARS ATM will provide the employee with written documentation of the live call review within 15 workdays. The documentation is written in relation to the applicable CJEs and aspects and once signed by the employee becomes part of the EPF.

The ATM must make a review of sufficient depth to assure the correctness of the action proposed. Judgment must be exercised, however, in determining the scope of the review activity. ATMs are expected to know their staff and adapt the depth of review to what is actually needed. For example, close review is needed for new employees, those with identified performance deficiencies, and employees going into new areas of marked increased difficulty. Some work of all employees should be comprehensively reviewed on a random basis. Tailor the degree of review to the ability of the employee and the characteristics of the specific case.

A comprehensive review includes technical and procedural accuracy as well as case management practice and adherence to Appeals' objectives and policy statements. Documents to be inspected in a comprehensive review include:

Additional information regarding possible material to be reviewed is provided in this IRM.

Notify the employee in writing when exemplary performance or a deficiency in performance is identified during a case review. Place copies of such documentation in the EPF.

Generally the ATM reviews cases submitted by employees under the ATM’s supervision. However, in rare instances, such as when the ATM’s workload is very heavy, selected cases may be assigned to an ATE for preliminary review. The ATM remains responsible for the correctness of the conclusion.

Review functions are necessary to ensure accuracy in transmittal memoranda, supporting statements, and related materials. Such a review could range from verification of format, caption data and grammar to soundness of determination of tax liability. Many of these functions can, and should, be handled by clerical personnel.

It is important that review of cases occur promptly upon submission by the employee. This is a continuation of the attitude of experience and good case management expected of Appeals employees. If it is an agreed case, proposed assessment or overassessment, it is incumbent upon the IRS to have the tax assessed and to process refunds for overassessments as promptly as possible in order to stop the accrual of interest. See IRM 8.2.1.10.1, Expedite Processing for Certain Large Dollar Cases, and IRM 8.7.7.14, Expedite Closing of Large Dollar Examination-Sourced Overpayment Cases.

For agreed collection cases, prompt case review is very important for timely processing installment agreements, offers in compromise, updates to currently not collectible (CNC) status, and input of account adjustments.

Prompt review of unagreed collection type cases is also critically important to ensure the timely issuance of determination letters so that cases can be resolved as soon as possible and returned to Collection for enforcement actions, if appropriate.

For AARS case review guidance, see IRM 1.4.28.5.6, AARS ATM Priority Review.

Prepare closed case evaluations on a random or systematic basis (every xth case), consistent with area policy and the ATE’s performance and experience level. Specific cases will also be selected for review as determined by the ATM.

Once the ATM approves the "recommended disposition" of a case selected for evaluation, the ATM may utilize ACDS to prepare the closed case review. The ACDS format allows rating of individual aspects of each CJE and provides space for narrative for each aspect.

When the ATM does not approve a settlement recommendation in certain pre-90-day, 90-day and agreed 90-day income tax cases, the taxpayer may be entitled to a conference with the ATM. See IRM 8.2.1.9.2, Reviewing Official's Rejection of Settlement Proposal.

Case evaluations must address specific facets of the performance, tying the description and evaluation of the performance to the aspects of the ATE’s position. See IRM 8.6.2, Appeals Case Memo Procedures.

Written case reviews must be shared with the employee according to the provisions of the IRS/NTEU contract.

For additional information, see IRM 1.4.28.8.3, AARS ATM Closed Case Review.

The AARS ATM will perform a random review of closed cases. Items to review include:

The AARS ATM will provide the employee with written documentation of the closed case review within 15 workdays. The documentation is provided in relation to the CJEs and aspects and once signed by the employee becomes part of the EPF.

ATEs are authorized to sign, in their own names, certain correspondence such as scheduling conferences, transmittal or agreement forms, forwarding consent forms, etc. Routine correspondence authorized to be signed by ATEs in their own names need not be reviewed by or for managers. "Spot check" these for quality after mailing.

Review correspondence prepared for signature of a manager to ensure it is courteous, clear, concise, and is promptly handled.

Area directors should personally review replies to certain types of correspondence, such as congressional letters, taxpayer complaint letters, dissenting memoranda and Headquarters' inquiries.

In general, limit your review of settlement computations, notices of deficiency, and Rule 155 computations prepared by TCS to verifying correctness of legal applications. Examine statements involving unusual audit features for technical accuracy and from time to time randomly select samples for more intensive review. Unusually difficult or complicated settlement computations and notices may occasionally need comprehensive review.

Maintain an evaluation of TCS's work in the employee’s EPF.

Appeals has developed specific case grading criteria for assigning TCS work. Access this case grading guide by clicking on “Procedures and Resources” on Appeals’ SEPR TCS intranet page. The exhibit is not all inclusive:

The grade (case difficulty) of the case selected for these reviews should be the same as the grade level of the employee being reviewed.

Shared Team of Administrative & Redaction Support (STARS) employees provide administrative and redaction support to all areas of the Appeals organization. STARS teams include case processors, administrative support assistants, administrative officers, and case redaction specialists (government information specialists). STARS team managers are first level supervisors responsible for directing and reviewing their employees’ work, planning, scheduling and coordinating work operations, planning and carrying out the training and development of employees, and evaluating employees’ work performance. STARS area managers are the second level managers, who report to the STARS director.

Case processors and administrative support assistants are responsible for their local office duties (for example: receiving/distributing mail, mailing correspondence and cases, photocopying/faxing documents, answering the door, greeting and escorting visitors, maintaining the office supply inventory, overnighting checks, monitoring shred/burn bins, and supporting the maintenance of office equipment. Other administrative support duties are equitably distributed among team members by STARS managers and lead case processors through a SharePoint-based assignment system.

Case redaction specialists are responsible for reviewing and redacting taxpayer case file documents to be released to taxpayers, as requested by the ATE.

Visit Appeals’ STARS intranet page for more information on the STARS employees’ duties and responsibilities, along with guidance for requesting STARS’ services.

These guidelines do not supersede the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) classification standards. Position classification factors such as supervision and guidance cannot be measured by these guidelines.

Appeals employees may be assigned some work units above their grade level for developmental purposes. Such experience is considered to be at the higher level if normal supervision is given. However, when assignments above the grade level of the employee are completed under closer than normal supervision, the assignment is considered to be consistent with the employee's grade. The assignment of higher or lower grade work units does not affect the grade level of an employee's position if it is for short periods to provide developmental opportunities or to meet specific operational needs. See IRM 6.511.1.6.4.5, Assignment of Higher Graded Work.

Grade levels of positions are not based solely on grade levels of work units assigned; other factors are considered, such as degree of supervision received and personal contacts.

Appeals managers are responsible for:

Position classifiers are responsible for:

If the ATM decides that a systemically assigned grade level should be lowered, the ATM will make an entry in the activity record and document the reasons for the lower grade level. In accordance with the National Agreement between the IRS and NTEU, the manager will also send an email to the employee assigned the case informing him/her of the reasons for the lower grade level. See Article 25 - Workload Management, Section 1, of this agreement in Document 11678.

Workload reviews, when combined with live/closed case reviews, are the best tools available to a manager when evaluating case management practices and work habits of APS personnel.

A workload review does not replace the formal mid-year review requirement.

PTMs will do a minimum of one workload review per year; preferably at mid-year, which will focus on the following:

In addition to devoting undivided time to each employee, the workload review will help identify exemplary casework, good workload management skills, and employee strengths. The workload review can also confirm the cause for inventory management issues, identify skill gaps and training needs, and provide awareness of time management practices that are beneficial or detrimental towards accomplishment of the team’s goals and objectives.

More frequent reviews are necessary when serious performance deficiencies and a need for development are identified.

Tools for conducting a workload review are as follows:

The primary objective of a workload review is for the manager to gain a specific understanding of the status of each work unit in an employee's inventory. Workload reviews, when properly conducted, involve a substantial amount of time. This is time well spent as it gives the manager insight into each employee's work habits, inventory management practices, technical abilities and identifies areas where training and development are needed. It provides managerial insight as to the exact status of each employee's inventory as well as an opportunity to openly discuss both challenges and opportunities towards accomplishing the employee’s work-related goals. When strengths and weaknesses are clearly identified with specific examples, a workload review is beneficial to the manager, the employee and the organization because we all have the same customer. A workload review also provides the manager with an opportunity to both learn from and share with the employee while identifying potential best practices that can be shared with other team members or other APS teams.

A workload review enables the manager to evaluate and give feedback as to how well an employee is managing inventory and taxpayer account adjustments by appraisal of the following factors:

A workload review helps the manager identify whether the employee:

In addition to the above, a workload review enables the manager to make judgments concerning an employee's:

A workload review also offers an opportunity for:

The workload review must include specific instances where the employee’s CJEs and performance aspects are reflected in the work products reviewed and that they clearly state guidance and direction. The workload review must also set out agreements between the manager and employee with respect to specific actions, target dates and overall performance.

Within 15 business days of the conclusion of the workload review, the manager will provide the employee with the workload review analysis and summary. The employee will initial and date the document (as "received" ), and the manager will sign and date the document. The employee receives one copy, and the manager inserts the original into the EPF.

The initial preparation for the workload review can be done in advance. The PEAS IVL includes all cases currently assigned to the employee and can be used to identify specific cases chosen for review. Each selected case should involve the same level of review; and if one or more items do not apply, enter "not applicable" as appropriate. The workload review items must be documented in writing with page numbers included (e.g. 1 of 3, 2 of 3, etc.) An example of workload review items for each inventory case follows:

Additional (non-case) items that may also be included in a workload review:

The workload review document described in (1) above serves as the foundation for preparing the employee’s performance memorandum and for documenting the employee’s mid-year and annual performance appraisals.

Since a CLP is formatted to align goals and development opportunities with CJEs and performance aspects, the manager may also document in the workload review the invitation for the employee to prepare or update the CLP.

The PTM, or designee, must review the selected case in sufficient depth to identify and document the accuracy and timeliness of the employee’s actions taken for the case. The live case review covers performance actions taken by the employee from the date assigned to the date submitted for review. Tailor the degree of review to the employee’s ability and the characteristics of the case.

A comprehensive review includes technical and procedural accuracy, as well as case management practice and adherence to applicable IRM procedures. Documents to be inspected in a live case review include:

A live case review can be requested by the employee, Lead TE, or PTM for a particular case.

Live case reviews will include performance-related documentation associated with the applicable CJE(s) and aspect(s) of the employee’s position. Upon conclusion of the review, share and discuss the performance documentation with the employee, who initials the document to verify receipt. One copy is given to the employee, and one is placed in the EPF.

A live case review can be completed by the PTM, designated Lead TE, or employee’s OJI as appropriate. The PTM retains responsibility for the correctness of the review documentation for including it in the EPF.

The PTM, or designee, must review the selected case in sufficient depth to identify and document the accuracy and timeliness of the employee’s actions taken for the case. The closed case review covers the performance actions taken by the employee, from the date assigned to the date closed on PEAS. The manager is expected to know the staff and adapt the depth of review, as needed. For example, close review is needed for new employees, those with identified performance deficiencies, and employees going into new areas of marked increased difficulty. Some employees’ work should be comprehensively reviewed on a random basis. Tailor the degree of review to the employee’s ability and the characteristics of the specific case.

A comprehensive review includes technical and procedural accuracy, as well as case management practice and adherence to applicable IRM procedure(s). Documents to be inspected in a closed case review include:

A closed case review can be requested by the employee, Lead TE, or PTM for a particular case.

Closed case reviews will include performance-related documentation associated with the applicable CJE(s) and aspect(s) of the employee’s position. Upon conclusion of the review, share and discuss the performance documentation with the employee, who initials the document to verify receipt. One copy is given to the employee, and one is placed in the EPF.

A closed case review can be completed by the PTM, designated Lead TE, or employee’s OJI as appropriate. The PTM retains responsibility for the correctness of the review documentation and for including it in the EPF.

APS leadership employs a wide variety of reports and methods for gauging inventory size, inventory management, and time management for each Appeals office, APS office, APS area, and nationally.