# Prop. Treas. Reg. ยง 801.5: Business results measures. Proposed regulation, not in force. REG-119192-98, 64 FR 457, published 1999-01-05 . Accordingly, 26 CFR Chapter I is proposed to be amended by adding part 801 to Subchapter H to read as follows: (a) In general. The business results measures will consist of numerical scores determined under the Quality Measures and the Quantity Measures described elsewhere in this section. (b) Quality measures. The quality measure will be determined on the basis of a review by a specially dedicated staff within the IRS of a statistically valid sample of work items handled by certain functions or organizational units determined by the Commissioner or his delegate such as the following: (1) Examination and collection units and Automated Collection System units (ACS). The quality review of the handling of cases involving particular [[Page 464]] taxpayers will focus on such factors as whether IRS personnel devoted an appropriate amount of time to a matter, properly analyzed the issues presented, developed the facts regarding those issues, correctly applied the law to the facts, and complied with statutory, regulatory and IRS procedures, including timeliness, adequacy of notifications and required contacts with taxpayers. (2) Toll-free telephone sites. The quality review of telephone services will focus on such factors as whether IRS personnel provided accurate tax law and account information. (3) Other workunits. The quality review of other workunits will be determined according to criteria prescribed by the Commissioner or his delegate. (c) Quantity measures. The quantity measures will consist of outcome-neutral production and resource data, such as the number of cases closed, work items completed, hours expended and similar inventory, workload and staffing information, that does not contain information regarding the tax enforcement result reached in any case involving particular taxpayers. (d) Definitions--(1) Tax enforcement result. A tax enforcement result is the outcome produced by an IRS employee's exercise of judgment recommending or determining whether or how the IRS should pursue enforcement of the tax law with respect to any assessed or unassessed tax. (i) Examples of data containing information regarding tax enforcement results. The following are examples of data containing information regarding tax enforcement results: number of liens filed; number of levies served; number of seizures executed; dollars assessed; dollars collected; full pay rate; no change rate; and number of fraud referrals. (ii) Examples of data that do not contain information regarding tax enforcement results. The following are examples of data that do not contain information regarding tax enforcement results: number of cases closed; time per case; direct examination time/out of office time; cycle time; number or percentage of overage cases; inventory information; toll-free level of access; talk time; and data derived from a quality review or from a review of an employee's or a workunit's work on a case, such as the number or percentage of cases in which correct examination adjustments were proposed or appropriate lien determinations were made. (iii) Records of tax enforcement results. Records of tax enforcement results are data, statistics, compilations of information or other numerical or quantitative recordations of the tax enforcement results reached in one or more cases, but does not include information, including the tax enforcement result, regarding an individual case to the extent the information is derived from a review of an employee's or a workunit's work on individual cases. (e) Permitted uses of records of tax enforcement results. Records of tax enforcement results may be used for purposes such as forecasting, financial planning, resource management, and the formulation of case selection criteria. (f) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this section: Example 1. In conducting a performance evaluation, a supervisor may take into consideration information showing that the employee had failed to propose an appropriate adjustment to tax liability in one of the cases the employee examined, provided that information is derived from a review of the work done on the case. All information derived from such a review of individual cases handled by an employee, including time expended, issues raised, and enforcement outcomes reached may be considered in setting goals or evaluating the employee. Example 2. A supervisor may not establish a goal for proposed adjustments in a future examination, even though the goal was derived from analyses of previously-handled cases, because such enforcement goals are not based upon an analysis of the newly- assigned case. Example 3. A headquarters unit may use records of tax enforcement results to develop methodologies and algorithms for use in selecting tax returns to audit.