Joint Committee Teleconference Minutes

February 18, 2003

Members present:

• Deryle Temple, Designated Federal Official
• David Meyer for Mary Balmer
• Mario Burgos
• Justin Doucette
• Walter Fish
• Gwen Handelman
• Ed Hanna
• Sharon Lassar
• Robert Meldman
• Paul Nagel
• Tom Seuntjens, Chair
• Leonard Steinberg
• Charles Taylor
• Lillian Woo

Members not present:

• Phil Bryant
• Chris Lowe

Others in attendance:

• Barbara Toy, Note taker

Quorum: 14 members present, quorum of 9 met

Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda
Review/Approve Minutes: Approved January 21, 2003 Minutes

Agenda Items:

Discussion regarding Flow of Issues
Barbara Toy authored the draft "Definition for TAP Issue Flow" document based on staff conference call discussion and an email from Lou Romito, Local Taxpayer Advocate in Pittsburgh. Tom Seuntjens stated it is a good draft providing good guidelines that don't need to be followed too rigidly. The panel still needs to define the Joint committee's activities in elevating an issue. Seuntjens will work with Deryle Temple and ask Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) to draft those guidelines. Discussion ensued on the definitions. Not all chairs had received the draft and may send their comments to Toy. Lillian Woo thought the guidelines were clear and concise but provided enough latitude. David Meyer stated they basically encapsulated Area 2's discussions.

Sharon Lassar expressed concern that the Ad Hoc Committee could be working a lot of issues if each area committee elevated one issue a month. Seuntjens replied that not all issues would need to go to Ad Hoc; some could be passed on directly to the NTA or IRS. Or, the Joint Committee may refer the issue back to the initiating committee for further development or to work with the program owner. But, the Joint Committee would not form subcommittees to work issues. Mario Burgos pointed out that if each committee is using the same process, the issues shouldn't need further development.

At this point, Leonard Steinberg raised the question on the Joint Committee's role is it as decision makers or acting as clearing house for issues, or if more than one committee raised the same issue, does the joint committee decide who works the issue? The decision was made to first look at the flow of issues in a pure environment where there is no duplication of issues. Seuntjens described this pure environment, the areas are working grass roots issues with a nation-wide scope and the Joint Committee is a decision making body on how issues are prioritized and how they are sent forward.

Steinberg asked if the only decision the Joint Committee makes is whether the issues goes or not. Seuntjens replied that the committee will also decide where it goes and advocate, act as cheerleaders for the issue. The Joint Committee will also review the issue, understand the issue, and through discussion, decide what to do with it. Temple reminded the committee that any decision making is whether the recommendations goes forward. It doesn't matter whether it is an administrative, procedural, or legislative issue. IRS program owners or the NTA makes the final decision on implementation. Burgos stated there is definite decision making on issues brought to the Joint Committee level if it has national ramification; the Joint Committee prioritizes and decides if it should be sent to Ad Hoc or if it should be turned back to the Area.

The question was raised whether the joint committee should basically accept what the other committees have brought forward.

Discussion then turned to the issues raised at the January Joint Committee meeting and how they were handled. Last month, decisions were recorded in the minutes but the notes were only brief. Hanna felt his committee expected a more formal type of response and also questioned the time frame because nothing is more demoralizing than the process taking too long and receiving no feedback. Gwen Handelman agreed there should be a more formal response than having people go through minutes. All our comments were not fully developed or expressed in the minutes. This gave some people the impression that the issue was not given sufficient discussion.

Decision: Committee reached consensus on preparing a formal reply.

Seuntjens proposed developing a vehicle for the response and it was decided that an email to the chair of the committee would be sufficient. Burgos suggested having certain area experts write the response, as opposed asking for general comments. After discussion of the issue, we finish with an action item with the names of members who agreed to write up the response and set a time restraint.

Handelman added that she felt the whole committee should review response and she would like to see others' responses because it is easier to build upon that response. If you are in agreement, you don't need to spend time repeating the same thoughts. There should be a deadline for the volunteers and a deadline for the whole committee to review and comment. Handelman warned that we need to strike a balance between the timeliness of the responses and taking into account that all of us can't respond immediately to all emails.

ACTION: Toy add the response procedure and other updates to the Issue Flow document

ACTION: Toy will initiate email responses on issue discussed at the January meeting and this meeting.

Seuntjens noted for that the joint committee will have a major impact on deciding or prioritizing issues as issues come into us from across the country. When the time comes to prepare our annual report to the NTA, we may need to reprioritize.

Legislative Issues
Seuntjens opened the issue saying we need some input from the NTA before we can conclude the issue. Seuntjens believes the TAP charter is clear that we should consider all issues not exclude legislative. But the reality is if we put all efforts into legislative, we would hit a stonewall. We shouldn't exclude legislative but limit legislative and put majority of effort into procedural issues.

David Meyer stated his area is starting to see more and more issues regarding changes to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), Capital loss carryovers, Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), taxpayer rights. Whether to work certain issues gets to the guts of what the TAP should be doing and why TAP was created. Some believe TAP was put together to monitor how IRS interacts with the public and to curb abusive behavior. Another view is that TAP should deal with whatever issue comes it's way either legislative or procedural. Meyer fears TAP may turn into a lobbying organization and go from being grass roots to tax professionals trying to push their personal agenda. Meyer further state TAP should make a distinction between issues asking for substantive legislative change and those requiring specific changes affecting procedures such as administering the failure to file penalty. Meyer's understanding is that TAP was put together, not to act as a commentator on substantive legislative change but to affect the administration of the code. Handelman stated there is sometimes a blurry line between substantive and technical corrections. Handelman agrees on the initial intent of TAP but look at an issue such as the NTA's proposal for a uniform definition of a child. It is a substantive change but if we are directed to look at grass roots issues these are the types of comments we hear. TAP does need to reflect the issues we get from the grass roots. Charles Taylor feels it is too complicated for the areas to break down the issues into legislative and administrative and maybe the issues should be brought to the ad hoc for categorization. Paul Nagel suggested creating a legislative committee. Temple stated TAP couldn't create additional committees; it is an administrative change that requires NTA approval. Temple also stated she needed to discuss with Nina Olson her stance on this issue. The intent is twofold: work with the IRS on key procedural and structural issues that the IRS brings to the panel and bring the grass roots input on any other issues to IRS' awareness. These issues may have legislative impact or process or procedural impact, so intent was not to preclude TAP from making legislative recommendations. Meyer again cautioned against TAP becoming another forum for lobbyists. Handelman believes it's a bad idea to send all these issues to the Ad Hoc and it should be the Joint Committee who hears the proposals and can direct the committee to narrow the focus or decide what else should be done. We could consider avoiding sweeping legislative changes not technical corrections to the code. Bob Meldman said the concept we discussed at our area meeting is whether we should bring up an issue if it is legislative. Area 4 believes TAP should find out the importance of the issue from our constituents and report the feedback from the citizens to the NTA. Seuntjens stated TAP should be careful of how its resources are allocated and doesn't want TAP to become a lobbyist effort because then TAP will not be effective. But, for legislative issues, some initial work should be done on the issue but the committees should be careful not to expend too many resources before bringing to issue to Joint Committee.

Monthly Committee Reports Action Items Joint committee act as a "clearing house" when issues cross area and issue committees Steinberg raised the question on the role of the Joint Committee in deciding on who which committee will develop an issue if the same issue is raised in more than one committee. Seuntjens replied that the Joint Committee is the decision maker on what grass roots issues go forward to the IRS. Also, the analysts should read all the committee reports and inform the chairs of any duplication. The chairs should also read through the reports. If duplication exists, the chairs of each affected committee should have a conversation and decide who will take the lead on the issue.

Meldman pointed out that the timing of the Monthly Committee Reports did not allow enough time for review prior to the meeting. Discussion about date ensued and panel requested an issue matrix showing issues and committees as a concise picture.

Decision: Change due date of Monthly Committee Reports to the 8th and Toy will compile the reports and the Issue Matrix and have out by the 12th

ACTION: Toy will develop an Issue Matrix

Next, the question was raised on whether more than one committee could develop the same issue or different aspects of the same issue. After discussion, it was decided that more than one committee could work an issue. Justin Doucette suggested in the case of more than one committee working an issue, one should still take lead. Handelman said this is a matter of how the issue is defined. It is important for the committee chairs to communicate. If the issue can easily be broken into two items each can take the lead on their separate parts. In addition, If the same issue is in an area and an issue committee, the program owners for the Issue Committee already have the lead by design and the other committees can only develop the issue if it is doesn't fit that committee's definition.

Decision: The decision was made to make it the responsibility of the chairs to communicate on duplicated issues, define the issues, and make the decision on which committee takes the lead on the issue.

Discuss Time Commitment of Panel Members
Paul Nagel stated panel members especially those who are tax practitioners expressed concern about their time commitments. In addition to regular monthly meetings for the area and issue committees, members are also asked to serve on subcommittees for each. Handelman suggested the structure of having members serve on two different committees might need a rethink. Ed Hanna suggested taking a look to see if being in both the area and issue is too much. Seuntjens stated that means there would be an average of six assigned to each committee. Or, Nagel said the membership size could be increased. Sharon Lassar reminded that the role of issue and area committees wouldn't be as extensive once it is defined and the panel is accustomed to its role. The issue committee focus is developed by owner. Issue committee members were wasting time developing lists of issues and bringing up new issues when the role of the issue committee is to provide feedback and input. The time commitment might vary by committee if you are provided a lot of material to review and asked for a lot of feedback. For example, Handelman's issue committee's (W & I Earned Income Tax Credit) focus was very broadly defined. Seuntjens stated that the issue committees need to focus on the direction given by the program owner and that chairs should continue to bring concerns to him and the joint committee. Chairs should also continue to encourage those members who are not contributing to participate more, which will ease time commitment of all.

Seuntjens announced that Nina Olson will be attending the May meeting and we can use that time to clarify what the view of the panel is in her eyes and how she will use our input.

Action: Chairs should get back to Toy or Seuntjens on the seriousness of the time commitment problem.

Expanded power of attorney rights for check box on 1040
Ed Hanna explained that Area 3 is recommending expanding the power of attorney rights granted by the check box on the 1040s. The Area 3 committee would like to see the powers extended to subsequent notices. Meldman stated this issue also came up in Area 4; systemically there is a problem because the regulation expires in a year, and we need more information on how the change came about, statutory or a change in the IRS manual.

Action: Toy will send out historical information on how the check box power of attorney change took effect.

National Office Report
Temple announced that staffing would be increased to include a program manager for each of the seven area committees. The program managers will also have responsibility for an issue committee. Program managers will be added to: Austin, Richmond, Brooklyn, and Los Angles. Other structural changes in our own staff will follow. TAP staff is working on documents clarifying when you should contact your Designated Federal Official (DFO), your Program Manager, or your Program Analyst. The list will also contain description of what types of work the staff should be doing for you to utilize the staff fully.

Temple also announced that the responsibility for the Low Income Tax Clinic (LITC) program has moved from Wage and Investment to the Taxpayer Advocate Service. As that organization is developed, Nina Olson would like to see lines of communication established between TAP and LITC.

Closing
Reminder that the March 18, 2003 teleconference will begin at 1:30 EST, 12:30 CST. The change in time to 1:30 EST is permanent.

Meldman talked about an outreach in Area 4. Nina Olson is visiting the Milwaukee TAS office and various practitioner groups are hosting a luncheon in her honor.

Action: Meldman will report on the outreach at the March Joint Committee meeting.