Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
Area 6 Face-to-Face Meeting
June 17 & 18, 2005
Denver, Colorado

Designated Federal Official:

• Tom Sherwood
  Local Taxpayer Advocate,
  Denver, CO

Committee Members Present:

• Jim Banks, MT
• Larry Barnard, ID
• Mario Burgos, NM
• Jerry Fireman, WA
• John Hollingsworth, SD
• Neil Mitchell, UT
• Jack Morrell, ND
• Maryann Motza, CO (Vice Chair)
• Joe Reder, WA
• Virginia Symonds, OR (Chair)

Committee Members Absent/Excused:

• Greg Maciulla, AZ

TAP Staff:

• Dave Coffman, Program Analyst and Note taker
• Bernie Coston, TAP Director
• Judi Nicholas, Program Manager

Guest:

• Charles W. Morris, IRS Estate Tax Attorney

Friday, June 17, 2005

Opening
Tom opened the meeting.

Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda
Virginia welcomed the members and reviewed the agenda.

Roll Call
Dave took roll call. A quorum was met. All members and staff introduced themselves and shared some biographical information. The TAP staff explained their role within the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP).

Director’s Comments
Bernie welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked them for their participation in the TAP. Bernie spoke about the following subjects:

Letter to Commissioner Everson: Bernie commented on a letter written by representatives of the TAP to the IRS Commissioner. One outcome from this letter is that the commissioner has agreed to meet with a contingent of the TAP membership on an ongoing basis. Bernie is attempting to schedule a brief meeting between the commissioner and the Joint Committee at the November annual TAP meeting.

Recruitment: Approximately 35 TAP slots will be filled this year. An effective alternate pool has been established and alternate members have already been selected from the pool. Future recruiting will be much more focused. The TAP recruitment efforts will focus only on those areas with slots to fill.

Changes in Charter: An amendment to the charter has been submitted. Changes include replacement of 1/3 of all TAP members each year and more flexibility in selecting members based on population changes. These changes will help in promoting consistency.

Changes in TAP: One criticism that Bernie has been dealing with is the lack of meeting time allowed for issue and area committees during the annual meeting. This year, more committee meeting time will be granted. Bernie also noted another criticism, the time lapse between the annual meeting and the first teleconference meeting. To remedy this, the first committee meetings will start in December.

Exit Surveys: Last year, Bernie asked outgoing members to complete an exit survey, sharing their experiences with TAP. 50 surveys were sent and only 7 were returned. Bernie stressed the importance of the survey and asked those retiring to make a commitment to complete the survey.

Bernie asked the members for questions/comments.

Virginia asked Bernie if he shares the results of the exit survey with all TAP members. Bernie replied that an Analyst compiles the results and he will send it to the chairs to share with their individual committees. Results will be shared at the July Joint Committee meeting.

John suggested that Bernie may get a better exit survey response if someone (unknown to the TAP members) were to conduct a telephone survey with the exiting members.

Judi commented on the length of the survey. If the survey is too long, some may either set it aside for later (or then forget about it) or they may be turned off by the amount of time it will take to complete the survey.

Meeting Satisfaction Survey (Introduction)
Virginia informed the committee that a survey instrument is being considered for Area 6 members to provide input on the productiveness of its meetings. Virginia introduced John as being the member who will take the lead on explaining this instrument.

John explained the method that is being used by his prior area committee and noted that the Area 6 guidelines may be incorporated into the survey. From his prior area, John remembers that the Area 5 analyst compiled the results of the survey and provided a summary to the chair.

John explained that a written survey gives members some structure with time to reflect after the meeting.

Bernie asked the members if there is any historical data from past satisfaction surveys. Mario said that something like this has been tried in the past but the response rate diminished as time went on.

John and Virginia asked everyone to think about this written survey as one method of assessing Area 6 meetings. Tomorrow, all members will discuss the survey and Area 6 will decide if and how the survey will be used.

Bernie cautioned everyone to only have survey questions on items that are within the control of Area 6.

Joe noted that a very cohesive group, such as Area 6, is generally not afraid to say anything within the group. Also, verbal feedback is instantaneous, allowing the problem to be fixed quickly.

TAPSpeak Demonstration
Dave gave a demonstration on TAPSpeak. The demonstration focused on navigating through the basic areas of TAPSpeak and addressing some common problems that members experience when using TAPSpeak.

Dave also pointed out that the Area 6 portion of TAPSpeak can be tailored to suit the needs of the committee. Everyone was asked to start formulating ideas on how Area 6 could use TAPSpeak more effectively. These ideas will be discussed tomorrow.

Outreach Report
Maryann and Tom shared their experiences from their visit with members of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Accord on Tax Administration. Maryann provided information about the TAP to the Bosnia-Herzegovina tax officials and is planning to write an op-ed piece for the media, sharing her experience with the visiting tax officials. Maryann asked other members to share their outreach experiences.

Jack stated that he composed a letter introducing the TAP and is sending it out to organizations, asking for an opportunity to speak to them about the panel. Jack asked if National Office TAP can compose a library of letters for outreach purposes.

Action: Judi will research and find out if the National Office TAP can compose a library of letters for outreach purposes.

Neil asked members for their experiences in outreach. Joe commented on his outreach contacts with political figures. He also outlined his outreach strategies with homeowner associations and churches.

Judi noted that everyone has a finite amount of time and asked them to do what they can for outreach.

Subject Matter Expert
Mr. Chuck Morris, an IRS estate tax attorney, spoke to the committee (via conference call) on the subject of estate taxes. Area 6 invited Mr. Morris to speak at the meeting, hoping to gain some insight on estate taxes for an estate tax issue they are working on. Mario, the issue owner, led Mr. Morris through a discussion on several questions and talking points submitted by the committee.

Mr. Morris provided a brief history of estate taxes, the requirement to file and the current and near-future exemption amounts. He also commented on the volume of Form 706 returns filed, the percentage of those returns that generate tax and the amount of revenue collected.

Most questions involved compliance with estate tax returns. Mr. Morris commented on an existing non-filer program which has had some success. However, there is not a computer program (such as the program to ensure Form 1040’s are filed when appropriate) that is triggered by specific data to determine if a delinquency may exist. The greatest challenges to an effective non-filer program are resources and data analysis. In the area of estate taxes, there is so much to be gained by having a compliant public.

#3037 Estate Tax Return Filing (Mario Burgos & Greg Maciulla):
The committee used the knowledge gained from the subject matter expert to discuss this issue.

Decision: The committee decided that an effective system (computer program) should be put into place to ensure Form 706 for estate taxes is filed when appropriate.

Action: Mario will work with Dave in drafting a referral to the Joint Committee. The draft will be shared with the Area 6 committee members for input.

Fax Number Recommendations
Judi informed the committee that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is looking at fax machine usage within the IRS and is considering an audit in this area. Judi provided a research report on the recommendation and the IRS response to the investigator. Mario pointed out that the IRS response included the need for technology to support such a program plus the need to analyze and quantify the burden reduction. Mario suggested that the IRS perform this analysis.

Judi noted that the response came from the notice support group. The issue needs to be submitted to an area that deals more with fax technology than notices.

Decision: Recommendation will be resubmitted to the appropriate area within IRS.

Action: Dave will locate the appropriate area within IRS that is familiar with the technology needed to implement this suggestion.

Provider Identification Numbers
Virginia reviewed the Joint Committee’s response to initiating provider identification numbers and informed the members that this issue has been returned by the Joint Committee without closure. An appropriate closure is not available. Area 6 must decide how to work or dispose of this issue.

Decision: The committee decided to research the possibility of forwarding this issue to the Office of Chief Counsel and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

Action: TAP staff will research the possibility of referring the issue to the Chief Counsel and the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

# 2835 Change in Refund Notification (Larry Barnard):
The committee reviewed a draft of the Joint Committee referral. The committee agreed that the proposed solution lacked specifics. Discussion on this issue included timeframes for notices and the current confines with existing technology. Judi reiterated the intent of the referral.

Decision: The proposed solution needs to be articulated more clearly. Also, the second sentence of the issue statement should be deleted.

Action: Dave will work with Larry in making the revision. Dave will e-mail the revised draft to the group. Approval of the referral will be by e-mail.

#3117 Form 1098-T Tuition Statement (Maryann Motza and Jim Banks):
The committee reviewed a draft of the Joint Committee referral. Jim explained how educational institutions use Form 1098-T and common bookkeeping problems associated with the form. Committee discussion included usefulness of the form, reporting requirements, qualified expenses and confusion on the part of the educational institutions.

Decision: This issue is not ready for referral to the Joint Committee.

Action: Dave will complete the research needed to find out why Form 1098-T is generated and how IRS uses this form after the educational institution completes it.

#3250 Grandparents Claiming EITC (Jim Banks and Jerry Fireman):
A draft of the Joint Committee referral was reviewed and discussed. Several members asked why this issue is not being handled by the EITC issue committee. Others noted that the issue was discussed at the EITC meeting. Dave explained that he contacted the analyst and learned that the EITC committee will not work this issue. Members insisted that this issue is being worked by the EITC committee. Judi informed the members that issue committees work issues they receive from the IRS issue owner(s).

Action: TAP staff will discuss this issue with the program owner for EITC to determine if this issue can be incorporated into the work being completed by the EITC issue committee.

#3247 IRS Delay in Sending Employment Info to SSA (Maryann Motza and Larry Barnard):
Larry explained this issue to the committee, emphasizing the main problem -- the sharing of employment information from IRS to the Social Security Administration.

Dave updated everyone on the research and actions that have taken place on this issue. From a recent contact with the computing center, Dave learned that income information is transmitted from the IRS to SSA on a weekly basis.

Mario suggested that the staff send a letter to the taxpayer with the research and ask them to explain the actual problem they encountered. Dave noted that this issue was raised by Jerry after an outreach event he attended. The taxpayer’s name is not known.

Action: Jerry will try to determine which taxpayer made this suggestion and provide the contact information to Dave.

TAS Toll-Free Number (Virginia Symonds):
Virginia summarized the research findings for this issue. She compared the TAS criteria in the selected publications to that of the TAS toll-free number menu prompts. There are inconsistencies between the publications and the menu prompts.

Mario noted that the research went in a different direction than the issue. The issue is that the caller wants to be able to speak directly to a person without going through the menu options.

Judi and Bernie explained that there are really two problems to this issue. The first is that the caller is unable to speak directly to a person and the second is that the menu prompts do not outline all TAS criteria.

Judi added that this phone number is not staffed by TAS personnel. Instead, employees from Accounts Management answer these calls.

The committee called the TAS toll-free number to hear the menu prompts.

Discussion ensued as to what may have happened to cause this caller to make such a suggestion. Judi said that the caller may have been calling for a particular purpose; however, the menu prompts did not advise him of all TAS criteria. The caller probably heard the initial TAS criteria description (which is incomplete) and realized that his situation did not fit in the list of criteria. Confused, the caller probably selected the other option which took him to the IRS toll-free help line.

Bernie suggested that the greeting be changed to let them know their selection will connect them with an individual. Mario suggested placing the option for the toll-free tax help line first and options for TAS criteria after that.

Decision: All TAS criteria should be included in the TAS help line menu prompts.

Action: Virginia and Dave will draft a Joint Committee referral, suggesting that the first menu prompt direct the caller to the IRS Help Line (800-829-1040) and the remaining prompts list the TAS criteria and include the message that the caller will be transferred to an IRS representative.

#3249 Accuracy of Answers by IRS Help Line (Jerry Fireman and Maryann Motza):
Jerry explained the problem that taxpayers often encounter when calling the IRS Help line and getting different answers from different IRS employees.

Judi informed the members how IRS employees use probe and response (P&R) guides, in conjunction with IRS publications, to answer tax questions. She also noted that the P&R guide has changed the last few years in order to increase the accuracy of the assistor. The different levels of quality review were discussed along with the relationship of new employees, training and accuracy.

Action: Dave will locate the quality improvement plan, quality improvement process and the IRS’ goal for accuracy. The committee will revisit the issue after this information is gathered.

#3076/3079 Tax Forms Compatible for E-filing (Mario Burgos):
Mario recommended that this issue be referred to the Joint Committee. His solution is that all IRS forms should be e-file compatible, both existing forms and any new forms that are introduced.

Decision: This suggestion will be will be forwarded to the Joint Committee.

Action: Dave and Mario will draft a Joint Committee referral to share at the next meeting.

#3197 Form 8493 – Need for Translation (Greg Maciulla and Joe Reder):
Joe informed the committee that the translated version of this form is due to go to print on October 24, 2005.

Decision: Committee decided to drop this issue as the committee no longer needs to advocate for translation of the form.

Action: Dave will enter the decision to drop this issue into the TAP database.

Discussion of Unassigned Issues
Judi said she has been prioritizing the issues that are given to the Area 6 committee. Prioritization is based on the number of issues that the analyst can effectively work. She asked the committee to consider a process used by another area which uses a subcommittee to prioritize the new issues. This is done prior to the full committee meeting. After the subcommittee prioritizes the issues, they share their recommendations at the full committee meeting. Issues then are placed in the parking lot, dropped or added to the list of active issues. There can only be so many issues on the plate of the analyst at one time.

Virginia asked how much independent research members can do. Judi replied that members may do as much research as they like, but the staff will continue to complete research on the issues.

Judi asked the committee to decide a method for working unassigned issues.

Decision: The existing issue owner process will remain in effect. A list of unassigned & assigned issues will be placed on TAPSpeak.

The committee then assigned issues owners to the unassigned issues. Issues that were not assigned were placed in the parking lot. Using the current list of unassigned issues, the committee prioritized the new issues for the analyst.

Decision: The committee decided to close issue # 3408 and send a closing letter to the taxpayer.

End of Day Comments
Virginia commented that the day was productive and a lot was accomplished. Jack noted that face-to-face meetings are always much more productive. Bernie recognized the effectiveness of face-to-face meetings and noted that factors such as conflicts with other meetings, the budget and the strain on the staff, restrict the number of face-to-face meetings a committee may hold.

Closing
Tom closed the meeting for the day.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Opening
Tom opened the meeting.

Welcome/Review Agenda
Virginia welcomed everyone and reviewed the agenda.

Public Comments
Members of the public were not present. The public did not submit any comments to the committee.

Initial Research on Assigned Issues
Judi asked the committee to review the issue statements on the list of assigned issues. Committee members reviewed the issue statements and provided Dave a research path for each assigned issue.

Action: Dave will provide preliminary research based on the path requested by the committee members.

Joint Committee Report
Virginia reported on the unfavorable response rate to TAP member exit interviews.

The rest of the most recent Joint Committee meeting was spent working issues. Judi commented on a process being considered where the Forms & Publications office will make a change to the forms & pubs when they receive it. The process, when finalized, will be in the member handbook.

Virginia noted that, because of a letter sent by the TAP chair to the IRS Commissioner, the commissioner agreed to meet annually with a representative from TAP. Judi clarified that the TAP is trying to organize two meetings per year with the commissioner and the purpose of the letter sent by the TAP chair was to organize a dialogue with the commissioner in light of the TAC closings.

Action: Dave will post the letter from John Dalrymple on closing the Taxpayer Assistance Centers to the Area 6 portion of TAPSpeak.

Judi stated that the annual meeting dates are November 1, (travel day) to November 5, 2005.

Tailoring TAPSpeak
Judi led a discussion on placing Area 6 materials on TAPSpeak. At the time of this discussion, only draft meeting minutes and the outreach spreadsheet appear on TAPSpeak.

Discussion included using the e-mail feature of TAPSpeak to notify committee members of recent additions, the appropriate place(s) to house Area 6 materials and timeframes used to retain this information.

Decision: As issues are being worked, research reports will be posted to the discussion room of TAPSpeak.

Decision: Draft minutes from the Area 6 meeting will be posted in the discussion room.

Decision: Research reports, Joint Committee referrals and any documents associated with the teleconferences will be placed in the reading room.

Decision: The chart for unassigned and assigned issues will be updated monthly and posted to the reading room.

Dave noted that there were some problems with the TAPSpeak e-mail notification feature. The vendor has been contacted and it appears that the problem has been fixed.

Meeting Satisfaction Survey (Conclusion)
Committee members were asked to provide input on the Meeting Satisfaction Survey. Discussion continued with suggestions, questions, agreements and disagreements.

Jim suggested that the survey should be completed immediately following the meeting and faxed to the analyst.

Some members expressed that they do not have time to fill out the form. Others remarked how the form could be used to track meeting effectiveness.

John commented that incorporating the Area 6 meeting guidelines into the survey would tailor the form to the needs of Area 6; however, expanding the questions too much will decrease the response rate.

Virginia asked the members for their preference of a paper survey versus a verbal survey. Results were mixed. Joe preferred the current method of surveying the committee at the end of each meeting. If any member has a problem that could not be addressed during the meeting, he/she may phone the chair and explain the problem directly to her. Jerry suggested that the next few meetings should use the survey and then determine its effectiveness after that.

Most committee members stated that if the survey would help the Area 6 chair, they were willing to go along with the survey process “as is”. Maryann asked that the survey be kept as optional and not required.

Decision: Area 6 will continue with verbal closing comments at the end of each meeting. As an option, members may complete the written survey and submit it to Dave after the meeting. Dave will compile the results and send them to Virginia.

Closing Comments
Virginia stated that this is the last face-to-face meeting for many of the Area 6 committee members. She remarked that the TAP experience has been an adventure.

Several members shared their challenges and experiences in working as a volunteer for the TAP.

Closing
Tom closed the meeting and wished everyone a safe trip home.