7.11.3  Tax Exempt Quality Measurement System (TEQMS)

Manual Transmittal

July 31, 2015


(1) This transmits revised IRM 7.11.3, Employee Plans Determination Letter Program, Tax Exempt Quality Measurement System (TEQMS).

Material Changes

(1) This IRM is updated to meet the requirements of P.L. 111-274 (H.R. 946), the Plain Writing Act of 2010. The Act provides that writing must be clear, concise, well-organized, and follow other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience.

(2) IRM, EP Determinations Quality Assurance Staff (QAS), is renamed to, EP Determinations Quality Assurance (QA).

(3) IRM, Organizational Quality Score, is renamed to, Quality Score.

(4) IRM, Feedback Prohibited from TEQMS, is amended to delete the requirement that the Reviewer’s memorandum will not state the case score.

Effect on Other Documents

This supersedes IRM 7.11.3 dated August 20, 2014.


Tax Exempt and Government Entities
Employee Plans

Effective Date


Robert S. Choi
Director, Employee Plans
Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division  (09-01-2008)

  1. This IRM describes the Tax Exempt Quality Measurement System (TEQMS) and the TEQMS process for Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Employee Plans (EP) Determinations specialists and managers.

  2. TEQMS is designed to measure the quality of the work product demonstrated by TE/GE employees using established quality criteria. It serves as the quality measurement in the business results part of the Balanced Performance Measurement System.

  3. TEQMS results give management quarterly/yearly reports to identify improvement opportunities. Management is primarily responsible for analyzing TEQMS reports and taking appropriate action. TEQMS is designed to achieve statistical validity at the national level for EP Determinations.

  4. TEQMS for EP Examinations is in IRM 4.71.15, Employee Plans Examination of Returns, EP Special Review.

  5. This IRM includes:

    • Overview of TEQMS, including changes from the Balanced Performance Measurement System

    • Quality Assurance Staff/Role of TEQMS Analyst

    • Case selection process

    • Review and data submission process

    • Description of reports

    • Tools for assessing data reliability

    • Case return process  (07-25-2012)

  1. The enactment of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA '98) required the IRS to change its quality standards. The Balanced Performance Measurement System, which includes quality, is one of five key RRA' 98 modernization "levers of change." The levers are:

    1. Revamped business practices

    2. Four operating divisions

    3. Management roles with clear responsibility

    4. Balanced measures of performance

    5. New technology

  2. The balanced measures of performance lever is broken down into three-parts and used to assess organizational performance.

    • Business Results

    • Customer Satisfaction

    • Employee Satisfaction

  3. RRA '98 increased the IRS's awareness of the need to focus on customer service and customer satisfaction. This increased awareness has been incorporated into TEQMS.  (07-25-2012)

  1. TEQMS is a/an:

    • Important component of Balanced Performance Measurement System.

    • Organizational measurement.

    • Measure of quality as it relates to cases.

    • Indicator of improvement opportunities.

    • Tool for assessing various, specific components of merit and non-merit cases.

    • Calculator of quality scores for evaluation at the national level.

    • Method of providing annual and interim quarterly quality reports.

  2. TEQMS is not evaluative at the:

    • Area level.

    • Group level.

    • Employee level.

  3. In addition to serving as an organizational quality measure, TEQMS reviews result in the following benefits:

    • Improved customer service and customer satisfaction.

    • Reduced number of cases that Appeals returns for additional work.

    • Improved suspension rate in Appeals.

    • Increased consistency in determination reviews.

    • Created a way to increase communication.

  4. Quality results are reported in a number of high level documents, such as:

    • IRS Congressional Justification

    • TE/GE Strategy and Program Plan

    • TE/GE Business Performance Review Process (BPR)

    • IRS Annual Performance Plan

    • Commissioner's Monthly Report

    • IRS Management Board Report

    • Executive Management Support System

  5. The success of TEQMS requires a joint effort between EP Determinations management and specialists.  (07-31-2015)
EP Determinations Quality Assurance (QA)

  1. EP Determinations QA reviewers perform all TEQMS reviews and the program is administered by a TEQMS analyst.

  2. QA reviewers are senior determination specialists who have extensive knowledge of tax laws, guidance and policies for determination cases. QA reviewers must be objective and exercise independent judgment and individual initiative in performing their duties. They review EP Determinations cases and report the results in an electronic checksheet called a "survey." They are expected to effectively communicate with other specialists, managers, taxpayers and external customers to timely resolve issues in completing their assignments.

  3. The TEQMS analyst's role includes: overseeing the TEQMS sample selection process, monitoring case receipts for the sample selection, preparing quarterly/yearly reports and implementing consistency reviews and validity reviews, as appropriate. For EP Determinations, the TEQMS analyst serves a dual role as both a senior reviewer with normal QA duties and as the TEQMS analyst.  (08-20-2014)
TEQMS Case Selection Process

  1. These cases are not included in the population for the TEQMS sample selection:

    • Volume submitter (VS) or master and prototype (M&P) specimen plans.

    • Pooled trusts.

    • Non-lead multiple employer plans.

    • Cases that are not worked to completion (e.g., returned incomplete, withdrawn by taxpayer, substantially deficient, cases re-selected for TEQMS review, and correction disposal).

    • Auto-closure cases (closing code 13).

  2. EP Determinations cases subject to TEQMS review are divided into two groups. EP Determinations management determines the type of cases included in each group.

    • EP Determinations cases, also known as non-merit cases, closed with closing codes 00 and 01.

    • EP Technically Screened cases, also known as merit cases, closed with closing codes 06 and 09.


      The initial group's proposed closing code determines the type of review classification.

  3. Each Employer Identification Number (EIN) and plan number is treated as a separate unit in the population.

  4. Mandatory review cases (see IRM, Mandatory and TEQMS Case Reviews, paragraph 3) are included in the population of cases that are subject to the TEQMS selection process.  (08-20-2014)
Statistical Validity Level/TEQMS Sample Selection

  1. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the TEQMS analyst determines the approximate sample size of each group described above based on the number of cases expected to be closed during the year based on information provided by the Rulings & Agreements Planning and Programs group. The TEQMS analyst calculates an annual sample size for each group using statistical calculations with a 95% level of confidence and plus/minus five percent margin of error. Case review results are statistically valid at the national level; the TEQMS analyst computes the actual precision of the quality data at year-end.

  2. EP/EO Determination System (EDS) randomly selects cases during EDS's closing process. The TEQMS analyst monitors the sample selection rate during the year and adjusts it as appropriate, typically once per quarter.  (09-01-2008)
TEQMS Review Process/Quality Standards

  1. QA reviewers review cases in an open status, complete the survey, and then close them.

  2. The case may be returned to the specialist under IRM, Case Return Criteria Overview, after the QA reviewer completes the survey. The case will be closed after it is returned to the QA reviewer by the specialist.  (08-20-2014)
Data Capture Process

  1. QA reviewers evaluate cases and complete a survey (electronic checksheet), that contains the case review criteria. The survey has two sections:

    1. The administrative part which contains review information, case return criterion and case information.

    2. The quality standards/elements part which contains quality standards, elements, aspects, and reason codes.


      The survey for EP Technical Screening cases contains only quality elements and reason codes.

  2. Find instructions to complete the survey and guidelines to apply the quality standards, elements, aspects, and reason codes in the TEQMS - Tax Exempt Quality Measurement System - EP Determinations Student Guide, catalog number 86711Q, at:http://core.publish.no.irs.gov/trngpubs/pdf/t4317-002--2005-10-00.pdf  (07-25-2012)
Data Submission/TEQMS Database

  1. QA reviewers electronically submit the survey into the TEQMS database when they complete their case review but before they close the case on EDS.

  2. The database performs a series of validity checks before the system accepts the survey's data.  (07-25-2012)
TEQMS Reports

  1. Each quarter, the EP Determinations and EP Technical Screening cases' surveys are input into the TEQMS database and summarized into various reports. The reports identify:

    • Measures of overall performance on quality standards.

    • Potential improvement areas.

    • Feedback on specific root causes.

    • Potential training/CPE needs.

  2. The various reports do not provide individual, group or area evaluative information.

  3. The reports include:

    • Percentage Yes (answers) by Standard/Average Total Score - this reflects the percentage of yes answers (standard was met) for each standard and the organizational score.

    • Percentage Yes (answers) By Standard/Average Total Score By Quarter - this reflects the percentage of yes answers for each standard and the organizational score for each quarter and cumulative fiscal year.

    • National Quality Standards - this reflects the percentage of yes answers for each standard/element/aspect.

    • National Quality Standards Detail - this reflects the number of yes, no, and n/a answers for each standard/element/aspect and reason codes/process measures.

    • Case Return Criteria - this reflects the number of cases returned under return criteria.

    • Narrative comments for yes and no answers.  (09-01-2008)
Report Analysis

  1. The TEQMS analyst evaluates the database's reports and prepares trend reports. The reports describe areas where EP Determinations has or has not done well, provides suggestions for improvement and analyzes trends based on the answers on the survey. A separate report is prepared for EP Determinations cases and EP Technical Screening cases.  (07-31-2015)
Quality Score

  1. The Balanced Performance Measurement System requires case quality to be numerically scored. This measure is an indicator of the IRS's progress in achieving high-level strategic goals. TEQMS offers a rating system that best measures the organization's case quality.

  2. TEQMS is distinguished from the Critical Job Elements (CJE) Performance Plan. CJE Performance Plans are documents that describe to employees, the work performance expected of them and the performance standards applied to their work performance. Manager case reviews should assess an individual's strengths and weaknesses based on the CJE's. Although the TEQMS standards are closely associated with the CJE's, performance evaluation is not based on TEQMS criteria.

  3. The TEQMS database computes the organizational score based on the reviewer's answers as to whether the case met each standard (yes or no). EP Determinations cases have six quality standards. Some standards contain elements and/or aspects. The maximum possible score is 100. EP Technical Screening has five quality elements, which may contain reason codes. The maximum possible score is also 100. See the TEQMS - Tax Exempt Quality Measurement System - EP Determinations Student Guide, catalog number 86711Q, for more information about quality standards, elements and aspects at: http://core.publish.no.irs.gov/trngpubs/pdf/t4317-002--2005-10-00.pdf

    The organizational quality score for all EP Determinations cases = Total Number of Standards Passed / Total Number of Standards Rated X 100

    The organizational quality score for all EP Technical Screening cases = Total Number of Elements Passed / Total Number of Elements Rated X 100

    Example 1:
    During the fiscal year, TEQMS samples 400 EP Determinations cases. The EP Determinations survey has six quality standards. Therefore, the total number of standards rated equals 2,400 (400 x 6). Of the 2,400 standards rated, only 1,200 standards are passed (answered "Yes" ).
    The organizational quality score is 50 = (1,200 / 2,400 X 100)
    Example 2:
    During the fiscal year, TEQMS samples 400 EP Technical Screening cases. The EP Technical Screening survey has five quality elements. Therefore, the total number of elements rated equals 2,000 (400 x 5). Of the 2,000 elements rated, 1,800 elements are passed (answered "Yes" ).
    The organizational quality score is 90 = (1,800 / 2,000 X 100)  (07-25-2012)
Consistency Reviews To Ensure Data Reliability

  1. To encourage greater consistency between reviewers in applying TEQMS criteria to cases, the Manager, EP Determinations QA, is responsible for doing consistency reviews as needed, but normally every quarter. The TEQMS analyst is responsible for scheduling and administering these reviews.

  2. The analyst selects at least one EP Determinations case and at least one EP Technical Screening case that each reviewer and the analyst rate independently. Each reviewer and the analyst prepare a checksheet similar to the survey forms. The analyst receives a copy of each reviewer's checksheet and prepares a summary of their answers.

  3. The analyst schedules a meeting with reviewers to discuss the summary document with an emphasis on the standards, elements and key aspects which reviewers differ. The goal is that the group will reach a consensus on the differences. If this is not possible, the analyst notes it in the report and recommends appropriate action for reviewers, such as additional training or clarification of a procedure.

  4. The analyst may prepare a report on the consistency review and forward it to the Manager, EP Determinations QA for approval. After approval, the analyst files the report and disseminates it as deemed appropriate. On a rotational basis, at least one reviewer or the analyst will be the primary reviewer on cases selected for the review. They are responsible for closing the case, issuing a reviewer's memorandum and/or correcting the determination letter, if applicable. The Manager, EP Determinations QA is responsible to act if the consistency review results indicate that additional training or improved procedures are required.  (07-25-2012)
Case Return Criteria Overview

  1. This section describes:

    1. Criteria for returning cases to the specialist for further development.

    2. Instructions to the QA reviewers for returning TEQMS cases to specialists.

    3. Type of feedback prohibited from TEQMS.

    4. Type of feedback permitted from TEQMS.  (07-25-2012)
Case Return Criteria

  1. QA reviewers may correct administrative type errors on EDS closing documents and closing letters (e.g., improper caveats, EINs, taxable year, incorrect name or address, plan number, POA letters, etc.).

  2. Generally, reviewers won't make technical corrections but send the case back to the specialist.

  3. Reviewers return cases to the specialist for further review if there is:

    1. Clear evidence that an incorrect determination has been reached with regard to the qualification of a retirement plan.


      They won't return an underdeveloped case unless there is clear evidence in the case file that the plan is not qualified.

    2. Evidence of fraud, malfeasance, collusion, concealment or misrepresentation by the taxpayer or representative.

  4. Reviewers also return cases when there are other circumstances that indicate failing to return them would be a serious administrative omission. For example, cases that would:

    1. Result in serious criticism of the IRS's administration of the tax laws.

    2. Establish a precedent that would seriously hamper subsequent IRS attempts to take corrective action.

    3. Result in inconsistent treatment of similarly situated taxpayers.  (07-25-2012)
Procedures for a Returned Case

  1. If a reviewer disagrees with the specialist's recommended case closure, they may return the case file for correction and/or further development with a completed Form 5456, Reviewer's Memorandum - TEGE, Employee Plans Determinations, approved by the Manager, EP Determinations QA.

  2. If the specialist receives a case from QA, they should correct any issues and complete a Form 5457, Response to Reviewer's Memorandum EP/EO, with explanation of corrections or disagreements with all of the reviewer listed issues. Attach the form to the case and forward it to the group manager for approval BEFORE returning the case to QA.  (07-31-2015)
Feedback Prohibited from TEQMS

  1. Except as provided below in IRM, reviewers may not give feedback on TEQMS cases because it is an "organizational" measure, not an individual, group or area performance review. These rules apply:

    1. The group manager or specialist may not access the TEQMS survey.

    2. QA won't prepare advisory memos for TEQMS cases, in general. However, if the group has not followed required procedures for processing a TEQMS case, QA will issue a memo detailing the issue. An example of not following required procedures is date-stamping and mailing determination letters before sending the case to QA.  (07-25-2012)
Feedback Permitted from TEQMS

  1. After reviewing a case, the reviewer is permitted to send a secure email to the specialist, and cc the TEQMS analyst, detailing any case issues/errors and/or provide positive feedback when the specialist has demonstrated commendable work. The email will include pertinent case identifying information.

  2. The TEQMS analyst collects the emails and prepares management summary reports, as needed, for each group identifying any emerging trends. The management summaries are not specific to any individual and can't be used for evaluative purposes. They may be discussed in a group setting.

More Internal Revenue Manual