Ad Hoc Issue Committee Minutes

Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
Ad Hoc Face-to-Face Meeting
June 3-4, 2005
Park City, UT

Attendance

• Larry Barnard
• Larry Behnkendorf
• David Cain
• Harold Gadon
• Steve Landauer
• Gregg Maciulla
• Judi Nicolas, Designated Federal Official
• Teresa Smedley
• Faith Vinikoor
• Sherry Whah
• Lillian Woo

Staff Support

• Mary O’Brien, Program Analyst
• Marla Ofilas, Note Taker

Welcome/Review Agenda
Sherry welcomed the members and reviewed the agenda. Sherry added an additional item to Saturday’s agenda. The committee will review a letter that will be sent to the taxpayers and comments will be forwarded to Bernie Coston, TAP Director.

Announcements
Judi provided an update on the TAP recruitment.

Recruitment: Bernie Coston’s direct reports met in Milwaukee to rank the applications. There were just over 400 applicants. The selected applicants will be scheduled for an interview in mid June. Applicants that were not selected for an interview will receive a letter thanking them for their interest in TAP. TAP Staff will be contacting the list of alternates to inquire if they are still interested in serving on the panel.

The TAP Annual meeting would be the first week of November.
Denise Fayne’s, Program Owner for Forms and Publications will hold a teleconference where she will provide feedback to the committee.

Ad Hoc Sub Committee Presentations
Larry provided a review of the Publication 17 education subcommittee. The committee was charged with making recommendations on a future online Publication 17 that meets the needs of the ordinary taxpayer as well as to make the product visible.

The committee came up the following points.

1. IRS does not have the access to the ordinary citizen to test needs.
2. What are the usability requirements for the ordinary citizen?
3. Problem defining words or combination of words to do a topical search.
4. Publication 17 is not prominent, How can we educate the public?
5. Utilize Publication 17 to promote and encourage efile. Vice versa
6. Would the public use an online product and what would make it easier for them to use a product?

Once the committee brainstormed, they developed a problem statement:

The needs of the average taxpayer in accessing tax information contained in Pub. 17 are not being met. The online version is not “user friendly.”

The committee felt the main issues to resolve was, searchability of Publication 17 and educating taxpayers on Publication 17. The committee also felt that two sub committees should be created to work on each of the components.

David gave an update on the Online Publication 17 Searchability subcommittee. The first step for the subcommittee was to identify what problems the ordinary taxpayer has when searching Pub. 17. The sub committee looked at the needs for a word search in content, indexing, and key words. The subcommittee discussed the need of adding hyperlinks to other forms and publications that would direct the taxpayer to a specific section of Publication 17. The subcommittee wanted to ensure that they were working toward making it easier for the ordinary taxpayer and not just satisfying CPA’s or Enrolled Agents. David emphasized that he would really like to see the hyperlinks added to Form 1040 and tax tables and schedules.

The sub committee recommended that a link be placed on the first page of www.irs.gov so a taxpayer could easily access Pub. 17. In addition, the committee recommended having a method of allowing the non-tax prepares to ask a question on the IRS web site, which would search Pub. 17 for various answers to the questions.

The committee reviewed the Summary of Recommendations from Deborah Thomas. Deborah asked a web page design class, from the University of Arkansas, to provide input on Pub. 17. The design class was charged with looking at the design of the page layout and navigation for usability. The suggestions that the class provided would allow users easier access to the information in the publication and make the publication more usable.

Updates from Forms and Publications Program Owner – Denise Fayne
The committee paused from their report outs and gathered to have a teleconference with Denise Fayne.

Denise, thanked the subcommittees for their work that that they’ve done. Denise recognized that the subcommittees had put a lot of thought and effort into their work. Denise explained that she has been working with the division in the IRS that owns the irs.gov website and had discussed the work that the Ad Hoc committee had been doing not only to changes to the online version of Publication 17, but also to the look and feel of the irs.gov website. Denise told the Ad Hoc committee that the more information they give and the more insight they provide will enable the website to be more usable and provide a better searchable engine for taxpayers.

Denise asked the committee to provide an update of what they have done so far. Larry explained that he is the Chair of the Education sub committee. Larry asked for feedback on a concept the subcommittee developed. The sub committee feels, to make Pub. 17 as useful as it can be, the public needs to know that it exist. Larry reviewed the seven concepts that the sub committee thought of:

1. There needs to be a better description of the Publication 17 which will convey it's usability and benefit to the average person. This description could then be used as an "advertisement" in various ways, which are described in some of the other action items, below. Example: Pub 17 “Your Answer Machine” – Your guide to preparing individual taxes.

Denise asked Larry if this would be a special icon that the public would click on to take them to the Pub. 17. Larry said yes and felt that the goal was to have that icon linked to the marketing phrase, for example the e-file icon.

2. Ask the IRS to include the advertisement for Publication 17 in both the printed IRS 1040 and 1040 A instructions, and on the IRS.gov website.

3. Post copies of the advertisement for Publication 17 in IRS walk in offices as well as anywhere else, tax material or tax information/advice is available.

4. Ask tax preparation software companies to include the advertisement for Publication 17 in their package, either in the software or in print.

5. Ask the IRS to have staff who answer the help line to, after answering the question, reference where it would have been found in Publication 17.

6. Work with internet search sites (Google, etc.) to configure tax information question responses to result in Publication 17 being listed in the first few response items.

Denise felt that number 6 was a great idea and also felt that all search engines should be included.

7. Ask the IRS to distribute the advertisement for Publication 17 to volunteer groups for whom they are providing training and/or orientation.

Larry concluded that the goal in the Education sub committee was to get the information out to the public and create an icon so when a taxpayer sees it; they know to go to Pub. 17. Larry asked Denise for feedback.

Denise felt that all seven suggestions were exceptional. Denise explained that the telephone assistors use a probe and response guide, which is a detailed version of Pub. 17 and felt that the assistors already tell taxpayers where to find the answer in Pub. 17. Denise felt that the icon could be a simplified and catchy description of what Pub 17 could do for taxpayers. Denise clarified that her department does not have ownership of irs.gov but offered to take the suggestions to irs.gov and explain to them the suggestions the committee has identified. Denise also explained that irs.gov could accept or reject the committee recommendations because they own the website. Denise felt that all recommendations could work. In addition, Denis is willing to take them forward.

Larry thanked Denise and asked David to continue. David explained that once a taxpayer is educated that Pub. 17 exist then they should be referred to the home page of irs.gov and to the icon that would be placed there. David continued to explain the work of the sub committee and repeated what he reported out to the full committee.

David had suggested that a page number be added on form 1040 that would direct the taxpayer to a page in pub. 17 that would provide information on that particular topic. Denise explained that there could be a problem because the pub. 17 is printed in advance of the 1040. The 1040 could change while in print and the information would be incorrect. Judi explained that a suggestion was made to create a hyperlink on each line of the 1040 that would take a taxpayer a section of the Pub. 17. Denise explained what she is trying to do is make pages irrelevant online. Judi clarified that it becomes about the topic or the piece of information, not what page you find it. In an electronic form, page numbers are irrelevant. Denise would really like to see that the committee move away from using page numbers and have taxpayers think of subjects or topics. Denise felt that the idea of a table of contents and index would work. The idea of having a taxpayer look up “IRA’s” in the table of contents, click on the subject, and is directed to that portion of the Pub.17 is wonderful. Denise also felt that in the future she could also see pop ups asking the user questions.

Denise explained that she will forward the final recommendation to the programmers. Even though there are issues with funding, Denise felt that this is something that needs to be done. Judi explained that once the sub committees refine their recommendations, they will provide a report of what they looked at; what they considered; and what their recommendations are. Denise felt that if she could receive refine recommendations then she could get department to review it and fund it.

The committee members continued to provide their experiences using Pub. 17. Judi concluded and asked Denise if she could provide the committee timeframe on her next steps. Denise explained that once she receives the recommendations, she will commit to contacting the director of irs.gov; share the recommendations; and ask how forms and publications can make the recommendations work. Denise also clarified that these recommendations may not be implemented right away due to budget constraints but she did feel if will in the near future. David asked if the committee should continue to work this issue since there is no funding to implement the committees ideas. Denise felt that even though there is no funding now, to implement the recommendations, the recommendations would be implemented in the future. Denise advised the committee to continue working and coming up with ideas. Denise also reiterated that there are no constraints with coming up with ideas on the Pub. 17 that is not about the searchability of it.

Denise thanked the committee for their worked. Judi confirmed that the committee and Denise will have an additional teleconference later in the afternoon for a final review of the recommendations. The call ended.

Break
The committee broke for a short recess.

The committee discussed the teleconference with Denise and provided additional suggestions on Pub. 17. Hal asked if the recommendation from the Educations sub committee and the Searchability sub committee would be submitted together. Judi explained that it would depend if the recommendations were completed at the same time. Judi suggested that question could be asked when the committee has their teleconference with Denise in the afternoon; if she would prefer two separate recommendations or just one.

Hal also asked if there was away to keep track of the recommendations since is something that will not be implemented right away and could be implemented when they are no longer panel members. Judi explained she could ask Denise what would be appropriate in terms of follow up and communicate any new information to the committee members.

Judi explained the next steps to the committee regarding their recommendations. Judi also explained that Denise has committed to meeting with the irs.gov staff. Judi continued that Mary suggested that someone from irs.gov should be contacted to provide education to the committee on how the irs.gov works

Judi felt that the committee needed to decide if they would want someone from irs.gov to talk to them and provide education on irs.gov during the July meeting. Larry felt that the committee should focus on what they have been charged to do before coming up with additional suggestions or recommendations. Larry also felt that the committee should let Denise talk with irs.gov regarding the recommendations. . Action: Judi suggested that maybe the Ad Hoc committee could join the meeting that Denise will have with irs.gov. Judi will follow up with Denise on the suggestion made.

IRS CPE for Employee
Steve provided an update on the IRS CPE for Employee sub committee. Steve explained that the sub committee had a teleconference with Grant Thorton, an international tax company that holds it’s employees to a particular level of training. Steve continued that the idea was to contact them to see how they train their employees and provide recommendations to the IRS.

Steve continued that the IRS has discontinued the 40-hour requirement for tax professionals (IRS Revenue Agents/Revenue Officers) and the IRS has changed policy on how Continuing Professional Education (CPE) is delivered. Most CPE is through self-study computer courses and through non-interactive Video courses and less through interactive methods such as the traditional classroom. Teresa asked who the program owner is of this issue. Teresa expressed that issues are supposed to come from program owners. Judi agreed and explained that Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate, asked that this issue be worked. Teresa asked who would receive the recommendations if there isn’t a program owner from a division working with Ad Hoc. Judi explained that the recommendation would go to Nina, who will then forward them to the Operating Divisions and work with them.

Steve explained the problem statement that the IRS does not hold its employees to the same standards as the private sector that has a fixed requirement for CPE and has not fully researched or implemented Best Practices developed for professional training by outside agencies. Steve explained the education requirements of the IRS Revenue Agents. Steve felt that receiving education via interactive video is not the same as having face-to-face classroom training

Judi explained that the IRS has an interactive video training system called CENTA. It could be a live training session with other participants involved or it could be a pre-recorded session. Judi indicated that IRS does all of it’s own training and they do not contract it out. Before a subject is taught to an employee, the IRS conducts classroom training for the instructors. The instructors have to attend a two week training class on classroom instructions; how to develop your lesson plan; how to present your materials, etc. Judi continued that having CENTA type of training cuts down on the cost of having a face-to-face training.

Faith felt that it was ironic that the IRS would like to license all tax prepares but they don’t provide CPE for their own employees.

Subcommittee Breakout Sessions
The committee members gathered in their sub-committees to work on the Publication 17 and the IRS CPE for the remainder of day one.

Teleconference with Denise Fayne from Forms and Publications
The committee gathered to participate in a follow up call with Denise Fayne, Program Owner. Larry asked what departments of the IRS would be involved in implementing the recommendations, irs.gov, etc. In addition, Larry asked if Denise would like to receive the recommendations that are being worked on by the two sub committees. Larry continued and asked if she would like to have them sent in together or separate. Denise explained one packet of recommendations would work. Denise also explained that she does not know who would be involved in implementing the recommendations. Denise suggested that the recommendations should be sent to her, only. This will ensure that the recommendations are delivered to the right personnel.

Denise asked for an update of what they have been doing since the initial call. Judi explained that the members broke up into their sub committees and worked on their recommendations. The sub committees worked on flushing out the recommendations with more detail and information to support the recommendation. Denise felt that it was good that the members are providing details. This would ensure few questions.

Denise thanked the members again for their help.

Closing
Before the committee adjourned for the day, Judi reviewed the agenda for day two of the meeting. Judi reminded the committee that the IRS has requested the Ad Hoc committee to review sample letters. Feedback will be recorded and forwarded to the IRS. Sherry adjourned the meeting.

June 4, 2005 -- Day 2

Attendance

• Larry Barnard
• Larry Behnkendorf
• David Cain
• Harold Gadon
• Steve Landauer
• Gregg Maciulla
• Judi Nicolas, Designated Federal Official
• Teresa Smedley
• Faith Vinikoor
• Sherry Whah
• Lillian Woo

Staff Support

• Mary O’Brien, Program Analyst
• Marla Ofilas, Note Taker

Welcome/Sub Committee Report Outs
Sherry opened the meeting and reviewed the remaining agenda.

Larry explained the Education sub committee has worked on the recommendation. Larry anticipates the recommendation to be completed prior to the next teleconference. In addition, based on the teleconference with Denise, the committee will consolidate the Education and Searchability recommendations and submit it as one.

The committee reviewed dates of the next sub committee meetings and discussed alternate dates for the monthly Ad Hoc meeting. Decision: The committee agreed to move the Ad Hoc teleconference to July 14, 2005 @ 1:00pm pacific.

David provided an update that his sub committee will have a ruff draft of their recommendation by June 16th. David continued that the committee will recommend that Pub. 17 provide hyperlinks in the index and tabs that will take the taxpayer to a specific topic in the publication. Faith also explained that the sub committee reviewed the recommendation provided by the University and included some of the suggestions in the recommendations.

Judi reiterated that the recommendation should be specific and would be better for Denise to present to the owners. Teresa suggested that the power point presentation be included with the recommendation. This could assist Denise and be used as an illustration.

The committee continued to discuss possible solutions of how Pub. 17 could be more user friendly. Sherry asked if the committee had any other ideas to offer. None was provided. Sherry asked Steve for a report out.

Steve explained that they should have a final draft completed with in the next two weeks. Judi asked if the recommendation is to reinstate the 40 hours? Steve agreed. Steve continued and explained that the sub committee received a tour of the Centra web based learning tool. The sub committee felt it was a good communication tool but not a source of education. Steve felt that self-study and Centra are the same.

Judi asked if mandatory topics were mentioned in the recommendation. Steve explained that they wanted to stay generic with the recommendations but emphasize that the 40 hours be reinstated. Steve felt that the operating divisions could decide what kind of mandatory topics the employees should receive.

After a report out from Steve, Sherry asked how to consolidate the Pub. 17 recommendations. A cover letter was suggested with the proposals. Judi explained that in the committee could articulate the proposals in the cover letter and attach the individual reports. Mary agreed that this could be done.

Decision/Action: Mary will work on the initial draft of a combined proposal. The ruff draft will be available before July 14th.

Update on National Licensing
Sherry explained that the Ad Hoc committee worked on an issue for Nina Olson regarding National Licensing of Tax Prepares. Lillian continued that the Ad Hoc committee, received from Nina Olson, the charge to look at licensing. There were many unenrolled prepares that were making errors and taking advantage of unsuspecting taxpayers. The committee worked the issue and found that it involved testing, administration, enforcing the test and cost to the IRS. The Ad Hoc committee spent a year looking at various options. The committee put together a teleconference that included representatives from consumer organizations and professional preparer organizations. It was a two hour teleconference in which the members of the Ad Hoc committee accepted all the statements. The representatives did feel that something needed to be done about the unenrolled preparers because there was to much praying on the unsuspecting public. The Ad Hoc committee divided themselves up into sub committees. The committee looked at Oregon that enforces licensing. There are two levels of prepares, Consultant and Preparer. There are different exams that provided to each level. In addition, the committee looked at the Vita test.

Finally, the committee put together a recommendation and forwarded it to Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate. Lillian continued and explained the details of the recommendation. Lillian explained that the recommendation was incorporated into Nina’s annual report but the committee has never received a formal response from her or any direction on how she has tried to implement the recommendation. Lillian explained that she is looking for a response because Commissioner Everson was unaware of the recommendation. Lillian continued that there are two bills that had been introduced into the house and senate. Both bills do not include the recommendations that were worked on by the Ad Hoc committee. The bills only discuss the concept. Lillian and Sherry felt that the committee should raise the issue again to inform the Director of Practice and the Commissioner that the work has already been done. Judi verified if they are looking re-raise the issue. Judi asked what would be their objective in re-raising the issue. Sherry explained that there are two bills, 828 and 832, and they are not alike. A member asked if this is legislative. Sherry agreed but felt that Nina asked the committee to work this issue and feels that the Commissioner should know a recommendation was made.

Lillian reiterated that the idea was to provide them with the information so they would understand that an organization worked on this issue. Judi asked Lillian and Sherry how they knew that Commissioner Everson is unaware of the recommendation. Sherry explained that she had a private conversation with the Director of the NIDA. The Director indicated that they were unaware of the recommendation. Steve asked how the Commissioner would know when he receives hundreds of recommendations. Steve continued that he has helpers to assist him with correspondences that come in.

Decision: After further discussion Lillian, David and Sherry have agreed to craft a letter to inquire a follow up with Nina. In the letter, they have agreed to ask, “What has Nina done with the recommendation?”; “How widely was the recommendation shared?”; “Where is it now?”

IRS Notice Reaction
The Ad Hoc committee was asked by the IRS for feedback on a notice that would be sent to taxpayers. The committee reviewed the notice and answered three questions:

1. What’s initial reaction to the notice?
2. Will the average taxpayer understand the purpose of the notice?
3. Does the notice provide clear details on where the taxpayer can turn for assistance?

The committee provided Judi with their reactions.

Next Steps
Judi explained that no additional issues have been assigned to the Ad Hoc committee. Judi has agreed to discuss potential issues with Bernie and Denise.

Judi concluded that the committee should be prepared in July to provide a consensus on the recommendations so they could be elevated to the Program Owners in August.

Sherry adjourned the meeting and reminded the committee that the next teleconference will be July 14, 2005.

Meeting adjourned.