part7-34

7.20.5.1
(08-14-2007)
Overview of Review Procedures

These procedures discuss the role and responsibilities of EO Determinations Quality Assurance (Quality Assurance) with respect
to procedures for reviewing EO Determinations cases.
Quality Assurance advises the Manager, EO Determinations, of areas needing attention and makes recommendations and/or implements
programs to effectuate improvements in technical and procedural aspects of determination cases. Quality Assurance reviews
determination cases to ensure:
1. Technical accuracy;
2. Adherence to written procedures;
3. Uniform and impartial treatment of exempt organizations interests while protecting the Governments interest; and
4. Identification of unfavorable patterns or trends, problem areas, unique issues, and new or novel techniques developed by determination
  specialists.
Quality Assurance provides analytic support to the Manager, EO Determinations, to measure, report, and recommend improvements
in quality within the EO Determination program. This aspect is principally performed by Quality Assurance’s review of cases
as part of the Tax Exempt Quality Measurement System (TEQMS) program (see IRM 7.20.5.4(2)). Quality Assurance also reviews
EO Determination cases through saturation and special reviews (see IRM 7.20.5.4(5)).
Quality Assurance processes determination cases that are forwarded as mandatory review cases (see IRM 7.20.5.4(3)).
1. Quality Assurance forwards cases requiring Appeals’ consideration to Appeals.
2. Quality Assurance mails favorable or adverse letters on cases it has reviewed and approved
3. Quality Assurance returns cases requiring additional information to specialists with a Reviewers Memorandum (Form 5456).
Quality Assurance provides assistance to EO Determination specialists and managers by providing training on technical and
procedural matters and by issuing Review Bulletins, which are incorporated into the manual as appropriate. See Exhibits 7.20.5-4
and 7.20.5-5 for current Review Bulletins.
Quality Assurance provides informal advice based on requests from EO Determination specialists and managers regarding procedural
and technical issues.
Quality Assurance performs its duties through its review staff.
Quality Assurance reports significant trends, problem areas, quality measurements findings, and cases not upheld by Appeals
to the Director, EO Rulings and Agreements.

7.20.5.2
(08-14-2007)
Quality Assurance Reviewer Duties

Quality Assurances responsibilities include:
1. Reviewing the determination cases obtained through mandatory review, saturation review, special reviews, or managers discretion
  review (see IRM 7.20.5.4).
2. Informing management in order to evaluate the technical and procedural effectiveness and efficiency of EO Determination personnel.
3. Performing TEQMS reviews.
4. Performing Group reviews.
5. Preparing Reviewer’s Memorandum (Form 5456) after reviewing a case file if significant items of information should be brought
  to the attention of the specialist and the manager. Reviewer’s Memorandum on TEQMS cases may be returned in certain limited
  situations described in Training Text 4319-0002 (Rev. 11-2003).
6. Responding to requests for comment on the technical and procedural accuracy of proposed new or revised form letters, standardized
  work papers, and written procedures.
7. Issuing directions on significant developments on various technical and procedural matters in the form of Review Bulletins.
8. Coordinating EO Critical Initiatives and Significant Cases/Projects with EO Technical, EO Technical Guidance & Quality Assurance,
  EO Determinations, and other appropriate functions.
A Quality Assurance reviewer will also:
1. Analyze processing cycle from the submission date of the application to the closure date.
2. Evaluate time spent on cases.
3. Ensure work papers are fully documented, well organized, brief and concise, yet cover all substantive issues raised by the
  case and document the specialists actions taken to support the conclusions reached.
4. Ensure adequacy of determinations (i.e., agreed and unagreed issues properly developed and both the Governments position
  and the taxpayers position clearly stated with proper references and citations).
5. Identify and report on unique issues.
6. Confirm group manager involvement in appropriate situations (e.g., in situations that reflect poor case control on the specialists
  part, the group manager should become involved and should participate in directing and influencing the prompt closing of the
  case; in unagreed cases, the group manager must include a statement in the report that he/she agrees with the specialists
  position. Adverse Foundation Follow-up cases that receive ” no support”
  during the advance ruling period are not subject to this requirement.
7. Adhere to Service policies and procedures.
When evaluating whether an appropriate amount of time was spent on a case, the reviewer will consider the following factors:
1. Complexity of the case and related issues.
2. Grade of case vs. grade of specialist.
3. Duration of the case: the case should be worked in an expeditious manner. The reviewer should note any long and unexplained
  periods between contacts with the organization or its representative(s).
Reviewers will ensure that the case file contains, but is not limited to, the following:
1. All necessary determination letters with appropriate caveats and attachments;
2. Properly executed Forms 5464, 6038, 2363-A, and 5060 when appropriate;
3. Special processing instructions: Form 3198-A (TE/GE Special Handling Notice);
4. All EDS (Exempt Organizations Determination System) and/or applicable processing system documents properly and completely
  filled out; and
5. Properly completed Form 5666 (EP/EO Information Report) if applicable.

7.20.5.3
(08-14-2007)
Technical Case Review

Overall, the reviewer must ensure that relevant facts have been developed, and that law, regulations, published rulings, and
court cases adequately support findings.
The reviewer should be satisfied that the specialist has:
1. Obtained all pertinent facts regarding technical issues, both favorable and unfavorable; and
2. Explained clearly and concisely the position of the Service when an adverse determination is proposed.
The Service aims to resolve unagreed cases at the lowest possible level. The reviewer should ascertain that the specialist
has made a reasonable effort to effect an agreement. The reviewer may pursue the following questions:
1. Did the specialist contact the organization (preferably by telephone) to discuss the basis for the tentative adverse issue,
  any alternatives to the adverse action, the organization’s appeal rights, and the consequences of the adverse action?
2. To what extent was the group manager involved?
On adverse Foundation Follow-up cases, the reviewer should confirm that the specialist:
1. Considered all alternatives to private foundation status, such as IRC 509(a)(3);
2. Explained termination procedures to determine if the organization terminated during or shortly after its advance ruling period.
  Explained IRC 507 termination procedures when appropriate;
3. Considered whether reclassification as a private foundation created a need for advance approval of grant-making procedures
  under IRC 4945(g), and took appropriate steps to serve the customer’s needs; and
4. Considered whether the organization could qualify as a private operating foundation and took appropriate steps to serve the
  customer’s needs.
On proposed denial letters, the reviewer should confirm that the specialist:
1. Thoroughly considered and documented the possibilities for classification under other subsections.
2. In appropriate instances, offered the customer an opportunity to amend organizational documents and proposed operations to
  qualify under the organizational and operational tests for exempt status.

7.20.5.4
(03-07-2008)
Cases Subject to Review

The types of cases subject to review include:
- TEQMS review
- Mandatory review
- Managers discretion review
- Saturation or special review
TEQMS is a set of guidelines for selecting cases subject to sample review. The guidelines set forth in the TEQMS Training
Text are designated to measure the quality of work. In TEQMS, a statistically valid sample of EO determination cases is reviewed.
The cases are evaluated by use of a check sheet to determine whether certain predetermined standards are satisfied. At the
end of each quarter, a TEQMS Report of trends and other findings is prepared.
Mandatory review is a review of open (or “unclosed”
) cases that are required to be reviewed by Quality Assurance. The EO Determinations groups use Form 3198-A to forward
these cases before they are closed on EDS or the applicable processing system. The following cases are subject to mandatory
review:
1. All private and public schools:
  • Located in Mississippi and Louisiana, including “charter schools”
  and home schools. With respect to cases involving a private school, it is vital that the reviewer confirms compliance
  with all aspects of Rev. Proc. 75-50 (to determine whether such school has a racially discriminatory policy). The reviewer
  is also responsible for updating the Forms 3198-A for private elementary and high schools located in Mississippi and Louisiana
  for Post Review in EO Technical after the case is closed on EDS or the applicable processing system. See IRM 7.21.3.8 for
  a discussion of determinations subject to Post Review by EO Technical.
  • Previously denied recognition of exemption.
  • That are a successor to a for-profit organization (for example, checked “Yes”
  to Form 1023, Part VII, Line 1).
  • That engage services from a management services organization.
  • That provide management services to one or more charter schools.
2. Cases subject to IRC 6110 disclosure (amendment cases involving IRC 4945(g) advance approval of individual grants).
3. All proposed denials, failure to establish denials, and certain adverse foundation status determinations (except adverse Foundation
  Follow-up determinations involving organizations with less than $125,000 in gross receipts).
4. Impact cases (controversial issue involved, or if the outcome of the case may cause widespread adverse publicity for the Service,
  etc.). Examples of impact cases include controversial church organizations, radical environmental causes, cases involving
  terrorist countries, and cases where the IRS has received third-party contacts requesting that the applicant be denied exemption.
5. Health care organizations that are integrated delivery systems; hospitals at which physician practices or physician facilities
  (e.g., MRI, ambulatory surgery center) have been purchased or where compensation is based on net profits or earnings; hospital
  management service organizations; preferred provider organizations; physician hospital organizations; and managed care purchasing
  organizations (i.e., established by hospitals, employers, insurance companies, physician groups, and community groups to set
  health care rates and enroll participating employers).
6. Technical advice requests. (On EO determinations, technical advice is usually limited to cases in which the customer has specifically
  requested it on a proposed adverse case. See Rev. Proc. 2007–5 (updated annually) for more information on technical advice.)
7. Previously revoked organizations.
8. Farmers cooperatives.
9. Credit counseling.
10. Partnership cases.
11. Religious and apostolic organizations (IRC 501(d)).
12. Exempt operating foundations.
13. Foreign organizations (not including those formed in U.S. possessions).
14. Limited liability companies (LLCs).
15. “War related”
  cases including applicants involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the War on Terror, and Johnny Micheal Spann Patriot Trusts.
  Applicants that provide assistance to victims of the war are also included.
16. Group ruling cases. These include cases in which we decline to issue a group ruling (i.e., declination letter). When an individual
  exemption for the central organization is being approved along with the group ruling for the subordinates, both cases are
  subject to mandatory review.
17. All cases in which an applicants request for relief pursuant to Reg. 301.9100-1 is not granted. This only applies if the
  applicant does not accept exemption under IRC 501(c)(4) for the period prior to the effective date of exemption.
18. EO Technical referrals pursuant to IRM 7.20.1.3.4, except the following:
  • Applications under IRC 501(c)(14) from state-chartered credit unions, cooperatives, and mutual savings banks
  • Applications under IRC 501(c)(15) from small insurance companies and associations
  • Applications under IRC 501(c)(25) from title holding organizations
  • Applications under IRC 501(c)(26) from membership organizations
  • Applications under IRC 501(c)(27) from membership organizations
19. Touch-and-Go (TAG) cases identified as abusive.
20. Conservation easements.
21. IRC 4945(f) ruling requests.
22. IRC 4942(g) set-asides.
23. Voluntary requests for private foundation status.
24. Applications that present sensitive political issues, including the following types of activities:
  • Voter registration
  • Inaugural and convention host committees
  • Post-election transition teams (to assist the elected official prior to officially assuming the elected position)
  • Voter guides
  • Voter polling
  • Voter education
  • Other activities that may appear to support or oppose candidates for public office
25. Small voluntary employees beneficiary associations (i.e., IRC 501(c)(9) organizations with 20 or fewer members entitled to
  receive benefits).
26. Other cases selected for review by the Manager, EO Quality Assurance.
Manager’s discretion cases are subject to mandatory review based on a referral by a group manager who believes that a case
may have a significant impact. The manager routes the case (still open at the group level) to mandatory review with an explanation
as to why the case needs to be reviewed. Quality Assurance should provide an advisory memorandum (Form 5456) on their analysis
to the group manager.
Saturation or special review refers to a review that can be handled either as a mandatory review or as a Post Review. Saturation
review means that cases of a certain category (e.g., applications, Foundation Follow-ups) and within a certain time period
are selected for review (e.g., applications closed within the last two months). Special review means that cases that present
a certain issue (e.g., applications from scientific research organizations) are selected for review.
Group review refers to a review of cases for a particular group.

7.20.5.5
(08-14-2007)
General Case Review Procedures

This section contains general case review procedures for managers, reviewers, and specialists within EO Determinations. Included
within these procedures are:
- Case inventories in Quality Assurance
- Minor errors found in review
- Disagreements between reviewers and specialists
If the reviewer agrees with the specialists recommendations on a mandatory review case, then the case is closed at the Quality
Assurance level. If the reviewer disagrees with the specialist, then:
- If the disagreement is minor, the case may be closed at the Quality Assurance level.
- If the disagreement is more than minor, the reviewer will send the case back to the group with a Reviewer’s Memorandum—EP/EO
  (Form 5456).
Reviewers use Form 5456, Reviewer’s Memorandums, to inform managers of their findings. The following types of memorandums
are issued:
- Inquiry memos are issued when a significant error is detected and the case must be returned to the specialist for correction.
- Advisory memos are issued if only insignificant errors that do not affect the outcome of the case are found.
- No-error memos are issued to address an error that was not caused by the specialist or to return a protest or an appeals decision.
- Commendatory memos are issued to congratulate the specialist for doing an excellent job.

7.20.5.5.1
(08-14-2007)
EO Case Review

Minor errors are sometimes found in determination cases. The reviewer may return a case file to the group manager with appropriate
instructions for correction. However, a reviewer may send an advisory memorandum to a group manager to explain the errors
without returning the case.
There are situations where there are disagreements between the reviewer and a specialist, and the case file needs to be sent
back to the specialist.

7.20.5.5.2
(08-14-2007)
Memorandums to Group Managers/Specialists

There are two three-part forms used to assist reviewers in preparing memorandums and to help specialists respond to them:
1. Form 5456 (Reviewers Memorandum—EP/EO)
2. Form 5457 (Response to Reviewers Memorandum—EP/EO)
When returning a case file to a group manager:
1. Complete the identifying information on the Form 5456, and
2. Attach a computer-generated explanation of the issue, or problem, and suggested revisions, citing precedent.
Complete Form 5456 as follows:
1. Check “Inquiry”
  block; and
2. Complete Items 1, 2, 4 through 9, 12 and 13.
Before the case is sent back to the specialist through the group manager, the review needs the approval of the Manager, Quality
Assurance, who signifies approval by completing item 14. Upon approval, the original and a copy of Form 5456 will be returned
with the case file to the specialists group manager. Quality Assurance and Review will keep a copy for control.
The group manager will consider the Reviewers Memorandum.
1. If the group manager disagrees with the Reviewers Memorandum, the group manager should discuss the memorandum with the Manager,
  Quality Assurance. If they cannot agree, they should meet with the Manager, EO Determinations, to try to resolve the issue,
  consult with EO Technical, or raise the concern to the Director, EO Rulings and Agreements.
2. If the group manager agrees with the reviewer, the group manager should complete item 3 of Form 5456. The white and yellow
  copies of Form 5456 will then be forwarded to the specialist. The group manager will maintain appropriate controls. The group
  manager may pull the copy of Form 5456 for control, but both the original and copies must be returned to Quality Assurance
  after the specialist completes action.
Upon receipt of a Form 5456, the specialist will reactivate the case on the time sheet, take appropriate actions to resolve
the issues, and prepare Form 5457 as follows:
1. Complete items 1 through 6 on Form 5457, using Form 886-A or computer-generated attachment if additional space is required.
2. In completing item 5 of Form 5457, key the responses to the order of the reviewers comments on Form 5456.
3. If an item cited by the reviewer results in a change to the determination letter, input forms, etc., that is explained in
  the work papers, another explanation on Form 5457 is not necessary. Noting the appropriate page in the work papers where the
  item is explained will suffice.
4. If an item cited does not result in a change to the determination letter, the input forms, etc., the explanation will be shown
  on Form 5457.
After the specialist makes the agreed upon changes, the group manager will approve the action taken by the specialist by completing
item 7 of Form 5457. After approval, the case file and all copies of Forms 5456, 5457, 886-A, and other attachments will be
resubmitted to Quality Assurance.
Upon review and approval of the action taken by the specialist, the reviewer will complete items 8 through 10 of Form 5457
and, if necessary, advise the Manager, Quality Assurance, about the proposed classification of the memorandum for purposes
of the quarterly report on the quality of mandatory review cases.
After the reviewer completes items 8 through 10 of Form 5457, the Manager, Quality Assurance, will complete item 11.
After the final review and acceptance of the case by Quality Assurance, the reviewer will distribute Forms 5456, 5457, and
886-A (original copies only) as follows:
1. Original—Administrative File
2. First copy—Group Managers File
3. Second copy—Review File

7.20.5.5.3
(08-14-2007)
Cases Requiring Further Development in the Groups

Quality Assurance may return a case to the initiating specialist, through the group manager, with an inquiry memorandum suggesting
or requiring the specialist to reconsider an issue.
1. If the specialist disagrees with Quality Assurances position, the specialist should discuss his or her disagreement with
  the group manager.
2. If the group manager agrees with Quality Assurances position, the specialist will adopt that position in further dealings
  with the organization. The specialist should not discuss any internal disputes with the applicant, interested parties, or
  authorized representatives.
If the group manager agrees with the specialist’s position, the specialist should document on Form 5457 his or her reasons
for disagreeing with Quality Assurance’s position. The group manager will advise the Manager, Quality Assurance, of the disagreement,
either through discussion or by approving Form 5457.
1. If, as a result of this exchange of views, the group manager concludes that the reviewers position is proper, the specialist
  will adopt such position.
2. If the group manager and the Manager, Quality Assurance, cannot agree, See IRM 7.20.5.5.3. for procedures on how to proceed.

7.20.5.6
(08-14-2007)
Processing Adverse Letters

Quality Assurance reviewers should thoroughly review all proposed adverse cases before the 30-day letter is mailed to ensure
technical and procedural accuracy.
Specialists prepare the appropriate proposed adverse determination letter and redacted copy of the proposed adverse determination
letter. A denial checklist is provided in Exhibit 7.20.5-1 and the following letters are available in Exhibits 7.20.5-2 and
7.20.5-3.
- Letter 4036 should be prepared for proposed denial of exemption under IRC 501(c)(3).
- Letter 4034 should be prepared for proposed denial of exemption under other than IRC 501(c)(3).
The proposed adverse determination letter must follow the format shown in Exhibit 7.20.5-2 and include the following:
- A legend of the letters, etc, that are used in the determination letter as substitutes for information that is exempt from
  public disclosure under IRC 6110 (e.g., names, addresses, locations, and other identifying information).
- The Uniform Issue List (UIL) Index on the first page.
- Add “Enclosure, Publication 892″
  on the last page.
The redacted copy of the proposed adverse determination letter should be prepared as follows:
- Delete redactable information from the legend.
- Remove the applicant’s name, mailing address, and employer identification from the letter.
The specialist will complete Form 3198-A by checking the ” Mandatory Review”
box and identifying the case as a proposed adverse determination and specifying the type of case in the fill-in space
provided. For example, adverse determination – conservation easements. The case will be submitted to the group manager for
review. If the group manager concludes that the proposed adverse letter is correct, the case should be submitted to Quality
Assurance.
In general, if the reviewer agrees that the letter is correct, the case should be submitted to the Manager, Quality Assurance,
for final approval before mailing the letter to the taxpayer.
The group secretary in Quality Assurance will mail the adverse letter after appropriate approval. In general, the letters
should be mailed via certified mail.
In the 30-day protest period, cases will be held in a central location in Quality Assurance pending a response from the taxpayer.
If there is no protest from the taxpayer, the case will be returned to the reviewer for closing. The reviewer will consider
if any follow-up action, such as preparation of a referral to EO Examination, is appropriate. The reviewer will close the
case as follows:
- Prepare the final adverse determination letter. Letter 4038 should be prepared for denials under IRC 501(c)(3). Letter 4040
  should be prepared for denials under other than IRC 501(c)(3).
- Prepare Notice 437.
- Prepare the redacted copy of the proposed and final adverse determination letters.
- Close the case status 02 on EDS or the applicable processing system, and forward to the TE/GE Processing Office.
Note:

IRC 7428 requires an organization seeking initial or continuing recognition of exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) to exhaust its
administrative remedies by taking timely, reasonable steps to secure a determination prior to filing for declaratory judgment.
If an organization fails to protest an EO determination adverse letter, there has been a failure to exhaust administrative
remedies available within the IRS, and the case cannot go to court under declaratory judgment procedures.

7.20.5.6.1
(08-14-2007)
Response to Adverse Letter

If a protest is received, the reviewer will carefully consider its effect. The reviewer may choose to contact the taxpayer
for clarification of certain points in the protest. If the protest raises facts or arguments not previously considered by
the specialist, the reviewer should prepare a ” no error”
review memorandum to transmit the case to the specialist for further consideration.
If the protest does not present new facts or arguments, the reviewer may prepare the case for transmittal to the appropriate
Appeals office. Cases sent to Appeals should be routed through the Manager, Quality Assurance, for final approval.
1. The Quality Assurance secretary will update the case to the proper Appeals status code on EDS or the applicable processing
  system, and send the case to Appeals on a Form 3210.
2. The reviewer will notify the organization in writing when a case is transferred to Appeals.

7.20.5.6.2
(08-14-2007)
Adverse Letters Returned from Appeals

The Quality Assurance and Appeals process is outlined in Exhibit 7.20.5-6.
Adverse letters upheld by Appeals will be routed back to the reviewer for a final review. At that point, the reviewer should:
1. Consider any appropriate follow-up action before closing the case, including preparing or processing referrals to EO Examination.
2. Confirm that the proper steps have been taken to update the Master File and EDS or the applicable processing system.
3. Send an information copy of the Appeals statement to the specialist who originated the case.
Proposed adverse cases that are not upheld in Appeals will also be routed back to the reviewer. The reviewer should confirm
that Appeals issued the correct approval letter.
1. If Appeals does not uphold an IRC 501(c)(3) denial, it will usually not address foundation status. In that event, the reviewer
  should return the case to the specialist with a “no error”
  memorandum for a supplemental determination letter on foundation status. If the case does not have to be sent back to
  the specialist, the reviewer should provide the specialist an information copy of the Appeals statement.
2. Before the final closing of cases not upheld by Appeals, the reviewer will confirm that the proper steps have been taken for
  correct establishment on Master File and EDS or the applicable processing system.
Reviewers should carefully review the case summaries prepared by Appeals. Any novel legal analyses or procedures used to settle
the case should be shared with the specialists. The Manager, Quality Assurance, will consult with the Manager, EO Determinations,
and decide how to share the information. The discussion may include contacting the Director, EO Rulings and Agreements, to
include representatives from EO Technical and TEGE Counsel in the discussion.
The Manager, Quality Assurance, will report to the Director, EO Rulings and Agreements, about cases in which Appeals has not
upheld a determination made by EO Determinations.

7.20.5.7
(08-14-2007)
Cases Returned from Post Review

One or more Quality Assurance reviewers should be assigned to receive, coordinate, and process Mississippi and Louisiana private
school cases that are returned from EO Technical after Post Review.
The reviewer will analyze any comments made by EO Technical to decide whether any of the cases should be returned to the specialist
for further action. Any returned cases should be transmitted with a “no error”
memorandum. The group manager and specialist will decide if the case should be reopened on EDS and/or the applicable processing
system. Based on the Post Review memorandum, a case can be re-opened for additional development, referred to EO Technical
as a request for technical advice if the organization disagrees with the comments made by EO Technical, or referred to EO
Examination. See Rev. Proc. 90-27, 1990-1 C.B. 514, and IRM 7.20.1.4.
The EO reviewer will also decide whether the comments made by EO Technical should be shared with the specialists in general.
In reaching this decision, the reviewer will consult with the Manager, Quality Assurance. If a decision is reached to share
the information, the Manager, Quality Assurance, will also decide how to share the information by consulting the Manager,
EO Determinations.

7.20.5.8
(08-14-2007)
User Fee Disputes

The Manager, Quality Assurance, has the final authority to resolve disputes involving refunds or waivers of user fees.
The cases are processed as follows:
1. Specialists should summarize the facts and law relative to the user fee dispute on a memorandum to the Manager, Quality Assurance.
  See IRM 7.20.2.2.4 for procedures.
2. The case will be expeditiously routed through the group manager to the Quality Assurance secretary, who will assign the user
  fee matter to the first available reviewer.
3. The reviewer will analyze the issue and set out his/her position in an attachment to the specialist’s memorandum.
4. The case will then be submitted to the Manager, Quality Assurance, for final review.
5. If the Manager, Quality Assurance, agrees with the reviewer’s recommendation, the reviewer will return the case to the specialist
  for further processing.
6. Although organizations have no right of appeal regarding user fee decisions, when specialists involved in the case advise
  an organization about the decision, they should provide an explanation if the decision is adverse.