Replenishment of Cases Assigned to Examiners

July 27, 1965 REVENUE MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 30-65 SUBJECT : Replenishment of Cases Assigned to Examiners TO : All Regional Directors, Chief Revenue Officers and Others Concerned In order to avoid confusion in the replenishment of cases, to effect a more equitable distribution of tax cases for investigation and to give incentive to those examiners to submit the required quota of reports of investigation monthly, the following procedure in the replenishment of cases assigned to examiners is hereby promulgated for the guidance of all concerned: 1. No replenishment of cases should be made to those examiners who have pending cases and dockets in excess of twenty (20). cdll 2. Since dockets assigned either for original investigation or for reinvestigation are to be issued the corresponding authority to investigate, the dockets should be included in determining the number of pending cases in the hands of the examiners. Cases reported by examiners but are returned either by the Group Supervisor, Chief Revenue Officer or the Regional Director should be considered as still outstanding in the hands of examiners. 3. The replenishment of cases should be made at the end of every month only after determining the number of outstanding cases in the hands of examiners. 4. The number of cases to be replenished should not exceed the number of cases reported during the month less the number of cases returned to the examiner and dockets referred to the examiner during the month so that after every replenishment the total number of cases will always be twenty. As an example, an examiner has twenty (20) cases at the beginning of the month. He reported ten (10) cases but received in turn two dockets and five cases previously reported which were returned by the Group Supervisor for defects in the report. The number of cases to be replenished will amount to three which is arrived by deducting from the ten (10) cases reported, the two (2) dockets received and the five (5) cases reported making a total of seven (7) cases received thereby leaving a difference of three (3) cases for replenishment. In this connection, the Chief Revenue Officer and/or Group Supervisor concerned shall see to it that they keep an accurate record of cases assigned, reported and returned in such a manner that at any day of the month the number of cases pending in the hands of the examiners under them can be determined immediately. It has been observed by this Office and as reported in the audit made by the Inspection Division, that cases returned to examiners either by the Group Supervisor, Chief Revenue Officer or the Regional Director for defects in the report are frequently not returned by the examiners. Records are not usually kept by the Chief Revenue Officer and/or Group Supervisor nor is there a system of call up instituted so that in the distribution of returns, examiners who have many pending cases are given the same number of cases as the other examiners who have less number of pending cases thereby giving a premium to those examiners who are not working diligently. This situation should be remedied in order to effectively implement this procedure of replenishment as well as any future distribution of returns. 5. Returns for replenishment coming from the regional office should be in numerical order and in accordance with the classification of the returns. The number of returns to be replenished to each class of examiners should be predetermined, and the Regional Office should forward to the Chief Revenue Officer the exact number of returns for replenishment. 6. The examiners who are entitled to replenishment should be grouped into their respective classes that is into Classes A, B and C examiners. 7. The procedure for replenishment should be as follows: The examiners who have already been grouped into their respective classes should be listed with the examiner with the least number for replenishment at the top and examiners with the most number for replenishment at the bottom. Thus, if Examiners A, B, C D and E need replenishment of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 returns, respectively, they will be arranged in the said order. Since the least number of returns to be replenished is that of Examiner A which amount to two (2), ten (10) returns without being selected but in their numerical order will be taken from the bunch of returns received from the regional office. The ten (10) returns will be grouped into five (5) bundles with two (2) returns in each bundle. The five (5) examiners will be asked to pick a bundle so that after this first distribution A will have been replenished in full whereas Examiners B, C, D and E will still have balances as follows: B 3 - 2= 1 C 4 - 2= 2 D 5 - 2= 3 E 6 - 2= 4 For the next distribution only B, C, D and E will participate and since the lowest number that need replenishment is that of B which is one (1), only four (4) returns will be taken out of the bunch and distributed to the four (4) examiners. After the second distribution only three (3) examiners will need further replenishment and the same procedure should be followed down the line by replenishing on the basis of the lowest number of cases for replenishment among the remaining examiners. Thus, after the second replenishment the balances will be as follows: C 2 - 1=1 D 3 - 1=2 E 4 - 1=3 After the third distribution C will have been fully replenished and D will have a balance of 2 - 1 = 1 and E 3 - 1 = 2. In the fifth distribution only D and E will participate after which only E will remain with one return for replenishment. He will be given one to complete the replenishment. The above procedure should be followed strictly immediately after the distribution of 1964 income tax returns. The replenishment of percentage tax returns should also be along this basis. cdi (SGD.) BENJAMIN N. TABIOS Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue