Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
Area 6 Teleconference
January 5, 2005

Attendance

• Clayton Agena
• Jim Banks
• Mario Burgos
• Jerry Fireman
• Maryann Motza, Vice Chair
• Joe Reder
• Sallie Richardson
• Tom Sherwood, Designated Federal Official
• Virginia Symonds, Chair
• Bruce Twomley
• Sherry Whah
• Gil Yanuck

Staff

• Judi Nicholas, Program Manager
• Dave Coffman, Analyst
• Mary Peterson O’Brien, Analyst
• Marla Ofilas, Note Taker

Opening
Tom opened the meeting by welcoming everyone.

Announcements/Review Agenda
Virginia reviewed telephone etiquette and TAP member expectations that the members decided on during the annual meeting in November. Marla took roll call and a quorum was met.

Face-to-Face Meeting Options
Judi explained that due to budget constraints, each TAP committee will be funded for one face-to-face meeting. The committee was asked to consider whether they wanted a meeting in February as planned or at a later date.

Several members felt that the committee would benefit from having a meeting early in the year and begin strategic planning. Other members felt they would like a meeting where they could work issues. There were a couple of members who stated they would not be able to attend a meeting held in February.

Decision: A poll was taken and all agreed to have their first face-to-face meeting in June. The committee also agreed to decide on dates and locations via email. The committee will meet for their next teleconference on February 2, 2005.

Action: Dave will send possible June dates via e-mail to check member availability.

Outreach
Judi explained that a packet was provided to each Area 6 member that included a power point presentation with talking points to use during outreach events. Members were reminded that, prior to any outreach activities that would incur a cost, they must get approval at least 2 weeks in advance. In addition, when a member participates in an outreach activity, they are there to represent TAP and to speak only on behalf of TAP. TAP members are to explain what TAP is about and what their role is as a TAP member.

Members were asked to provide Dave with information when they participate in any outreach activities. It is desirable for members to complete a speaker report on TAPSpeak but any method will suffice. This information will allow TAP to track outreach events.

Bruce asked if there was a way of getting information on outreach activities that other Area 6 members participated in. The outreach information will be collected and shared with all committee members.

Decision: All activities will be consolidated into one document and shared with members monthly.

Action: The committee leadership team (Virginia, Tom and Maryann) will decide the best method for sharing the information.

Training TAP Members
Virginia asked the committee members if they wanted to discuss options or make suggestions on available training for TAP members.

Joe and Gil agreed that since there are time constraints, everyone should email Virginia with their suggestions. The suggestions could be discussed during the next meeting.

Decision: Everyone agreed to email Virginia with their ideas and suggestions.

Action: Virginia will consolidate all suggestions and the committee will discuss them during their next teleconference.

Virginia encouraged committee members to utilize TAPSpeak. She also suggested that members contact Dave if they have any problems.

Decision/Action:

• Dave will load the January minutes onto TAPSpeak to test the member’s ability to access the site.
• Dave will assist Joe with accessing TAPSpeak
• Mary will mail out TAPSpeak training materials to the members.

Issue Process for Area 6
The committee discussed committee workload, new referrals and referrals carried over from last year. Virginia asked the committee for input on how referrals and responsibilities should be distributed between the panel members. In the past, a referral was assigned to TAP members based on the state where the referral originated. Virginia suggested that referrals could be assigned alphabetically by name. Maryann also suggested assigning issues by area of expertise or by interest in a particular subject. Using the past process meant that some members did not have issues to champion, which is a drawback to assigning by state.

Jerry asked for clarification on referrals and issues. Instead of working in subcommittees, each individual served as a champion for a particular issue or issues. An issue would come to TAP, initial research would be completed and the champion for that issue would work along with the Area 6 analyst to review it and understand it. While reviewing the issue, a member could generate additional questions and have the analyst do additional research. Once a member is satisfied with the completed research, the issue and research would be presented to the committee. The committee would come to a consensus about whether to continue with the issue or drop it. The committee members would discuss the issue and the research and provide the champion with input or additional avenues of research. Once an issue is ready for elevation to the Joint Committee, the member would work with the analyst to create the recommendation using an available template. The Area 6 chair serves on the Joint Committee and will champion all Area 6 issues elevated to the Joint Committee.

It was stated that it is the member’s responsibility is to work with the analyst to understand the issue and make recommendations to the Area 6 members. If the issue is elevated, the member will also work with the analyst to develop a written recommendation. It was stated that all issues are addressed and no one unilaterally decides if an issue should be dropped or elevated.

The analyst is responsible for monitoring all other issues that are being worked to ensure that the same issue is not being worked elsewhere. TAP has an internal database that was created to track issues. The database may also be researched by title and/or topic. A monthly report is generated for the Joint Committee that shows all active issues.

Decision: Dave will send out an email by Friday with a description of all new issues to the committee members. In addition, he will contact the members with multiple existing issues who would prefer assistance. A final email will be sent listing the issues that need a champion.

Action: Members will reply to Dave by January 14th indicating the issues they would like to work.

Joe asked Judi if there were any issues in the parking lot (“parking lot” is a term used by the group put issues on hold due to workload). There are no parking lot issues.

Existing Issues:
Dave sent out reports with existing and new issues to the committee for review.

The following issues were discussed by the committee:

• Change in Refund Notification
  Gil explained that after reading the recommendations, he didn’t find any of them acceptable. Gil felt that he would like to be notified if there were changes to his return and would be upset if he was not.
  
  Decision: The committee decided to pursue the issue. The issue will be included on the list that Dave will email to the committee.

• Free File Misconceptions
  The research on this issue does not directly relate to the issue as described. Gil observed that users must pay attention to the fine print prior to entering the site. Sherry feels there is not enough information upfront to let users know about possible fees. Mario stated that Area 5 created a subcommittee to work this issue and he thought they had elevated this issue. The staff believes the issue is related to refund anticipation loans.
  
  Decision: The committee decided to put this issue aside until further research is completed. The committee will discuss this issue during the next teleconference.
  
  Action: Dave will contact the Area 5 Analyst to discuss the research completed on this issue.

• Application of Refund – Statute Expired
  Dave stated that additional research needed to be completed regarding this issue. Judi agreed but expressed that there are several code sections that address this issue and any change related to this issue would be legislative and would not be within TAP’s scope.
  
  Decision: Dave will work with Sherry to create a closing letter to inform the taxpayer of the committee’s decision. In addition, the committee agreed to elevate this issue to Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate, for possible inclusion in a future report to Congress.

• Notice When Changed Itemized Deduction
  The committee discussed this issue and felt it was legislative. Gil felt that the new IRS procedures should still be reviewed to ensure the instructions are clear on this issue.
  
  Decision: The committee agreed to review the new IRS procedures to ensure they are clear.

• Electronic Forms
  Mario stated that not all fillable forms can be electronically filed. Ten percent of fillable forms cannot be electronically filed. The research on this issue does not seem to provide the information necessary to determine how to proceed.
  
  Decision: Mario, Judi and Dave agreed to meet and discuss clarification of this issue.

New Issues
Judi asked the committee to postpone discussion of the new issues to the next teleconference. The new issues will be included in the email, which will be sent by Dave, seeking volunteers to champion the issues.

Decision/Action: The committee agreed and Dave will include the new issues in his email to the members.

Committee Business
Virginia stated that there is no information to report from the Joint Committee meeting. The majority of the meeting was a discussion about the TAP budget and face-to-face meetings.

Virginia asked about direct deposit for travel reimbursements. Judi noted that this method is being explored.

End of Meeting Assessment
Virginia asked if there were suggestions or comments regarding this first meeting. Mario asked that discussions regarding processes be limited to email and the time on conference calls should be limited to working issues.

Action: It was suggested and agreed that Tom, Virginia and Maryann could discuss it and determine how to implement the suggestion.

Virginia also suggested that the teleconferences should be limited to one hour.

Decision: All agreed.

Closing
Tom closed the meeting. The next Area 6 meeting will be on Wednesday February 2, 2005.