Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

Text Version

Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. Internal Revenue Service

Contact Us
1-888-912-1227

Joint Committee Teleconference Minutes

March 18, 2003

Members Present:

Mary Balmer, Area 2
Phil Bryant, Notices
Mario Burgos, E-filing
Justin Doucette, Area 6
Walter Fish, Area 1
Gwen Handelman, Earned Income Tax Credit
Ed Hanna, Area 3
Sharon Lassar, Multilingual
Chris Lowe, Ad Hoc
Robert Meldman, Area 4
Paul Nagel, Schedule C Non-filers
Tom Seuntjens, TAP Chair
Leonard Steinberg, Payroll Taxes
Deryle Temple, Designated Federal Official (DFO)
Charles Taylor, Area 7
Lillian Woo, Area 5

Others in attendance:

Jim Grimaldi, Area 1, Vice Chair
Barbara Toy, Program Analyst
Sandy McQuin, Program Manager
Patti Robb, Note Taker

Quorum: 16 members present, quorum of 9 met

Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda
Tom Seuntjens met with Deryle Temple a few weeks ago to discuss items to be worked:

Role of Local Taxpayer Advocate is to educate, to facilitate grassroots avenues, and to inform panel members
Legislative issues - if/how to address
Flow of issues/duplication of issues
Time restraints
Role of chair and vice chair based on our charter as stated in the TAP Guidance document--we should have more interface interactions with the IRS and Treasury because it is important that the TAP panel get the appropriate visibility so the IRS Operating Divisions will be receptive to our recommendations.
Annual report to Treasury and National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) office -What ever that date is, the chairs of each committee should report to the joint committee 30 days earlier to give time to prepare a report from the total panel.
Operating procedures and guidance. These are being updated and will be discussed at the May meeting.

ACTION: Toy will update operating procedures and guidance before the May meeting.

Communication/marketing strategy for TAP. Seuntjens asked Chris Lowe to have the AD Hoc committee work on this issue.

ACTION: Lowe will address communication/marketing strategy with Ad Hoc committee and report back to the Joint Committee as soon as possible but no later than the May meeting.

Budget
May Agenda

Review/Approve Minutes
Gwen Handelman wondered if all the attribution of comments were correct. She did not recall some of the comments coming from some of the people named. Meetings are not taped. Barbara Toy keys the discussions as they happen. If comments are attributed to the wrong person, please let Toy know. Handelman's main concern is she thought some of the comments attributed to panel member, David Meyer, might have actually come from TAP staff. It was agreed that it is important to distinguish between what is said by members and what staff says. Please report any discrepancies in the minutes to Toy.

Approved February 18, 2003 minutes by consensus.

Agenda Items:

Chairs provide update on their committee, their focus, and feedback on support provided
Mary Balmer said Area 2 is working on interesting issues, but many are legislative. (Temple interjected that she has met with Treasury and Nina Olson, NTA and discussed how to proceed with legislative issues. They should all be put on hold until the decision document comes from the NTA. The document should be completed and shared with Seuntjens within two weeks.) The majority of issues Area 2 is working revolve around the IRS telephone system and the Taxpayer Assistance Centers. Area 2 subcommittees will work with Area 3 subcommittees on several of the issues either with a cross-area subcommittees or splitting the issue. Another area of focus is EFTPS (Electronic Federal Tax Payment System) which is not user friendly. We also have an issue on electronic tax payments which may be related to the e-file committee so we will check with that committee for duplication. Another issue came into the group about direct debit installment agreements. Apparently with regular installment agreements, you get monthly statements from the IRS showing the balance on your account but if you choose a direct debit installment arrangement, you do not receive periodic statements. Area 2 is very busy right now and has a lot of work we can dig into. The big question is how to handle the duplication of efforts. The area committee is looking for direction from the Joint Committee.

Phil Bryant is concerned about time commitments. He gets emails from all over the nation and would like area emails or email for his committee only. It was decided to identify the subject of each mail in the first line of the email so members quickly know if it can be set aside or needs attention.

ACTION: Identify subject of email in the first line of the message.

Mario Burgos expressed disappointment in the change in the structure of the support staff. I have expressed this to Seuntjens and have heard from some of my fellow committee members with regard to the changes in DFO. I understand from a management standpoint, that it will be an improvement in the process, but from a volunteer standpoint, the fact that we are already at a disadvantage operating via conference calls and not having an opportunity to gel with a face-to-face meeting and it puts us at a disadvantage having a committee structure change. Even if it is a minor tweak. On another point--the effectiveness of our committee, our program owner has been less than responsive and wasn't on the last conference call. This will hamper our committee in the long term. It makes us question whether the issue we are spending our time on is in fact the right issue when the program owner doesn't feel it's necessary to show up for a meeting or even let anybody know that they are not going to be on the call. I've also left a message for the program owner and sent emails on different topics but have not received a response. Seuntjens agreed a committee couldn't be effective if the owner doesn't respond or work the issues with the committee appropriately. Seuntjens also mentioned that the current issue committees could be changed in October. If the owners don't feel that there is a need to continue an issue committee, a new one might be developed. This is something we need to discuss in May. Burgos questioned whether waiting a full year is wise. Seuntjens asked Burgos to put his concerns in an email to Temple or myself. We want the committees to add value and maybe we shouldn't wait until October.

Justin Doucette reported that Area 6 dropped off the organizational side several months ago and hit the ground running. We are tackling issues relatively efficiently. Generally, our issues are related to communication in one form or another. Whether it is getting information from the IRS or the IRS misinforming taxpayers. Initially, we tend to get brush off type answers from the IRS such as no, we can't do this or that is not possible, it's not our policy. Judi Nicholas, Program Manager, is working with the committee to improve the process. Area 6 has identified issues with offer-in-compromise. We have a face-to-face meeting scheduled for May in Seattle and one in connection with the Tax Forum in Las Vegas. Ed Hanna wondered why Las Vegas when TAP was told it was not an appropriate place to have meetings. Temple replied this policy was miscommunicated. This is an internal policy for the IRS because as a public organization we are accountable for spending taxpayers' money. But as far as the panel is concerned, you represent all taxpayers in all 50 states, so you should be going where you need to go to get feedback. Not Hawaii or Alaska, we need to have some limits.

Walter Fish from Area 1 reported that they are moving along slowly. Our outreach is not going along as I expected but we have an unusually large number of practitioners on our committee. We have a very serious issue having to do with 9/11. Grants were made to business in the 9/11 areas and they are taxable. When the issue was brought to the committee, we were turned off because it is legislative. But I think if we are to represent our area, we need to at least communicate the information our taxpayers bring us to the right people. James Grimaldi has been working with the 9/11 grants and was initially told that since the issue is legislative in nature, the committee really shouldn't spend time on it. However, wherever I go, and whenever I tell people what my duties are in TAP, invariably in New York City, the grants come up. It's not only the legislative side; there is confusion from taxpayers and even practitioners on what they should be doing. Are the grants definitely taxable? What should they be doing if they get a grant on December 31? Seuntjens suggested the area analyst research this subject and if you decide to proceed, bring it back to Joint Committee but also consider what other grass roots issues need to be worked.

Handelman is looking forward to new support structure because of staff shortage. Perhaps the reason we are feeling that the time commitment is overwhelming is because of the staff allocation. We've got three subcommittees: Marketing and Outreach, Education, Publications, and Forms, and Over-claims analysis (looking at ways to reduce over-claims; two thirds of which are being prepared by paid preparers). The over-claims subcommittee is in the process of drafting a memo to Chris Lowe to explain our interest in the regulation of preparers and problems we see in that area. One of our tasks was to give feedback to the EITC task force that the IRS had set up. For months, we asked about this task force so we could provide feedback. Finally, at our last teleconference we were able to get the program manager of the implementation task force to speak to us. At that time, he requested we provide feedback on forms the task force drafted as part of a pre-certification program where EITC claimants would provide documentation in advance of claiming or simultaneously with their return. He wanted the feedback on the alternative documentation by mid March and the rest of our response by the end of April. After having waited for months and months to hear what they were all about, the committee was given a very short time frame for response. But, the committee members did draft a response providing great feedback and have feedback and a draft report on the rest of the issues he raised. One of our objections to the forms, was they required birth certificates and marriage certificates from people who were not the parents of the child. One member researched how hard it would be to get birth or marriage certificates when you are not one of the parties involved and found out it was more burdensome than we thought. Many of our members are feeling overburdened because they are preparers or involved in volunteer tax preparation. We've had a hard time getting EITC statistics. Our committee is also very interested in e-filing.

Hanna is looking forward to working with Balmer on the issues they are working on right now. Area 3 will soon have two issues to move up to Joint Committee. One involved with record keeping and reducing paper burden is not requiring Schedule L balance sheet if assets are under 250,000. Most practitioners prefer to still have the schedule to provide a history. Would like to see a change in Schedule K1 for S-Corporations so they provide the same basis information for stock and for loans as provided with Schedule K-1s for partnerships. Another issue is inquiries on amount of estimated taxes paid. Preparers (particularly for elderly people) would like to streamline the process of inquiring about estimated tax payments so the preparers can get that information.

Sharon Lassar reported that the Multilingual Committee has three subcommittees. Their overall concern is that the program owner too broadly defined the issue. Research and information is not being offered. The program owner shares if the committee specifically asks but doesn't give information freely. The committee is not sure what they should be requesting and believes the program owner should have provided more background information. Seuntjens requested Lassar state the problem in an email so Temple and Seuntjens could bring it to the attention of the program owner.

ACTION: Lassar to email Temple and Seuntjens regarding the Multilingual committee's interaction with the program owner

Lowe reported that the Ad Hoc committee is continuing to work with NTA office to solicit feedback for the licensing of tax practitioners and working with USA today to have survey questions put on their poll guide. The first face-to-face will be in St. Louis on June 6-7, 2003. A subcommittee is looking at making recommendations to make TAP more visible, marketing TAP. We've had a very positive experience with the staff. The committee will forward what they have done and future initiatives to the Joint Committee.

Bob Meldman reported that Nina Olson was in Milwaukee on March 12, 2003. About 50 people attended a luncheon with her--tax practitioners, accounting executives and enrolled agents. There was nice press coverage of the outreach activity. From an Area 4 standpoint, we don't want any changes in staff or DFO; they have been very supportive and involved. Area 4 has worked with Area 5 committee to resolve some duplication of issues. Program owners have been responsive to our requests for information. Meldman has information to share with the EITC committee; the Low Income Tax Clinic in Milwaukee has been offered a grant from the Potawatomi Indians to fund a study on pre-certification.

ACTION: Share pre-certification information with Handelman.

Paul Nagel reported that the last meeting for Schedule C, Non-filer's was March 11, 2003. The DFO and the program owner, Margie McKinney, have attended our three subcommittee conference calls. One issue the committee is working on is consistent filing requirements for the Form 1099-Miscellaneous. Nagel believes TAP should have a statutory/legislative committee or some committee to deal with the legislative issues.

Leonard Steinberg would like a better understanding of how Systemic Advocacy relates to TAP and if related, TAP should be made aware of the relationship. Presently, the payroll committee has three subcommittees. One is putting together a survey regarding compliance for payment of quarterly payroll taxes. Program owner has been great to work with and very involved. Due to time commitments, our issue committee holds an all committee conference call every other month; the subcommittees meet more often and report to the chair on a monthly basis. This change to bimonthly meetings helps ease the time commitment problem. Resources are not as we'd like--meeting by teleconference is difficult, adding additional staff for support is helpful. All 102 panel members are needed to give their time, effort, and expertise to complete TAP's agenda and mission. Steinberg shares Mario's consternation about the change in DFOs. This reflects a change in process and he feels the issue committees should have been asked for their input. While he understands personnel decisions are internal to the IRS, his objection is that the change should have been shared with the panel; not doing so was disrespectful to panel members.

Charles Taylor reported Area 7 had their first substantive face-to-face meeting in Fresno. The AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) issue was brought up. Area 7 would like to do something to support the NTA Report to Congress with regards to her recommendation on AMT, Offers In Compromise, and changes to the Website and income limits. About 20 people attended their public forum. Although they would have liked better attendance; the meeting had nice press coverage.

Lillian Woo reported that Area 5 had their first face-to-face in Kansas City in February. Two speakers briefed the committee on innocent/injured spouse; and AMT. The committee decided to zero in on e-file and AMT. The subcommittees are in the process of doing research and will have a report for the whole panel. The AMT subcommittee is checking with their legislators on the fiscal notes. Staff support and the DFO for Area 5 is excellent. Outreach activities are phenomenal and include visits to congressional offices and VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) sites. The staff analyst is right on top of everything.

Discussion regarding Flow of Issues
Discussion postponed until next meeting. Final approval will be made at the May meeting.

Capital Loss Deductions
Following is an email from Handelman on this issue:

I regret that I do not have time to volunteer to draft the Joint Committee's response to the Area 4 proposal to increase and eventually eliminate the limits on capital loss deductions. However, I will attempt to explain my concerns so that they can be passed along to the Area 4 Committee. General Abraham's memorandum is admirably well-reasoned and thoughtful and serves as a good model for committee proposals. Nevertheless, I would like to see the Area 4 proposal address, first, the potential for manipulation, at least by those with substantial capital assets, if the limit on capital losses is eliminated or even increased; and, second, the equity of continuing to penalize married couples by allowing married individuals only half the capital loss deduction of a single individual. Third, I also have reservations about elevating any legislative proposals, especially those that would decrease federal revenues, until more proposals have been forwarded to the Joint Committee.

1. Potential for manipulation. The reason for the limit on capital losses is "selective realization." This refers to the fact that it generally is entirely up to the taxpayer to decide whether to sell property and thereby "realize" the gain or loss for tax purposes. Traditionally, the ethical foundation of the income tax has been taxation according to ability to pay. It is inconsistent with the ethic of ability to pay for a person to get a deduction for a realized capital loss where the taxpayer has unrealized capital gains in an equal or greater amount. At a time when many of us have experienced declines in the value of our capital assets, it is easy to forget that, typically, the value of some capital assets will increase during any given year, and the value of others will decline. Even in these difficult economic times when most of us have suffered declines in the value of equities we hold, the value of other capital assets, like bonds and real estate, may have increased. If a taxpayer decides to sell only property that has declined in value and hold property that has increased, a taxpayer whose total assets actually have increased in value is allowed to report income as if that taxpayer has less ability to pay taxes than a taxpayer with the same amount of ordinary income who did not sell any property (and, indeed, may not have any property to sell). Under current law the potential for mismeasurement of taxpayers' relative ability to pay taxes is limited to $3,000, and it seems a small price to pay to allow taxpayers who have really experienced more losses than gains to reduce the tax liability on their ordinary income immediately, rather than having to wait for all losses to be carried forward until they have capital gains to offset. If capital losses were unlimited, however, those with extensive capital resources would be able to greatly increase the mismeasurement of their relative ability to pay taxes by picking and choosing which property to sell. Moreover, under current law, taxpayers may put themselves back into essentially the same economic position as they were before they sold property such as a company's stock at a loss by repurchasing the the same type of property (like more stock in the same company) after waiting 30 days. Although the price may fluctuate some in 30 days, taxpayers with these sorts of assets can essentially have their cake and eat it, too: take the loss and also maintain their investment as if the property was never sold. So, these losses are in a sense only artificially "realized." I think that a proposal to increase or eliminate the capital loss limit ought to at least include discussion of these issues and, preferably, include provisions that would make the capital loss increase inapplicable when inappropriate.

2. Marriage Penalty. The Area 4 proposal advocates continuing to allow single individuals twice as large a deduction as married individuals. In view of the fact that the proposal strives to change the law for the better rather than just accepting the law as it is, I think the proposal should at least discuss the justification for and consequences of this disparate treatment rather than simply continuing this form of marriage penalty as it exists under the current capital loss provisions.

3. The Area 4 proposal acknowledges that tax law changes that would reduce federal revenues at a time of mushrooming federal deficits and prolonged economic decline would be "unacceptable." I do not think the proposal should be elevated if it is only theoretically endorsed by the Area 4 Committee. Even if Area 4 were prepared to offer the proposal for immediate legislative action (perhaps coupled with a revenue-enhancing proposal), I think the Joint Committee would be well advised to hold off elevating legislative proposals until near the end of our first term when we can asses the relative merits of committee proposals and prioritize them. I do not think that even meritorious proposals should be elevated on a "first come, first serve" basis.

I hope these comments are helpful to our process and welcome dialogue on all these issues.

Discussion followed on whether this email contained enough information to be used as a report back to Area 4. Items one and two need additional clarification. The decision was to route the discussion through emails again for any additional comment then to send back to Area 4 for clarification of the first and second items. The Joint Committee would like the information so it can be formally prioritized by the May meeting.

ACTION: Send comments to Toy. She will forward responses to Area 4. Toy will forward Handelman's comments to Hanna.

Review May meeting Agenda
Seuntjens asked the committee to review the May agenda. Fish and Handelman agreed that ten hours was too long to listen to speakers. Handelman added there is too little time for actual substance and too many procedural discussions. Steinberg suggested breaking up speakers over two days and Seuntjens replied that we need to check on the flexibility of the speakers. Taylor added that a Schedule C Non-Filer committee meeting is right after the Joint Committee ends (using same room) and if the Joint Committee meeting is extended, the Schedule C Non-Filer meeting will have to be changed too. Handelman proposed that issue committee work product be submitted to the Joint Committee before the May meeting. This gives the Joint Committee the opportunity to send back for more information so decisions on prioritization can be made in May. For the Issue Committees, the feedback is going to the program owner so the Joint Committee doesn't see a lot. Seuntjens stated that it is very important for each committee chair or vice chair attend this May meeting. I will be asking for a mid-year assessment. Balmer asked what is going to be included in the TAP annual report?

Seuntjens replied that the annual report is a summation of what the panel has done to date. The area committees need to provide adequate information for the report.

ACTION: Toy will send another copy of the self-assessment report.

Monthly Committee Reports Action Items

Develop process for identifying/working duplicate issues from the various areas
There are three options:

Chairs speak to each other and decide who wants to own issue
Can work together
Joint Committee can designate who will own the issue

It was decided by consensus that option number one is the preferred method. If the issue can be clearly defined into separate parts, each of the committees could take ownership of their part of the issue.

Waiting for Response on "Check the box" limitations
ACTION: Toy will forward report before the April meeting.

Alternate Panel Members to Replace Inactive Members
Taylor asked what steps should be taken to replace inactive Area 7 panel member. Chairs from other areas have same problem. It was decided that the first step would be for the chair to contact the member to see if they are still interested. There was discussion on what constituted an "unexcused absence" and what to do if the member is active in their area committee but not their issue committee or vice-versa. The procedure agreed to is: first, the chair from the committee should contact the panel member to find out their interest in continuing, next contact the chair of the other affected committee for feedback, and then, if necessary, elevate to Joint Committee.

Recruiting and term appointments for panel members
Taylor raised the issue of staggering terms for panel members so there is some overlap in terms. Can you extend the two-year term? Two years is not long enough. You just start to work together as a team. Balmer asked if members leave, would they be replaced? Woo said we have a vacant position in Nebraska that has never been filled; what is the status on that? (Seuntjens interrupted and asked Temple to cover replacements/alternates during the national office report).

ACTION: Toy will obtain feedback from the Joint Committee on staggering terms and extended terms for panel members, then email these thoughts to Temple and the NTA.

National Office Report
Temple said that as far as the TAP involvement in legislative proposals, I have met with Nina Olson and April Lehman, the Treasury's liaison to the White House, and clarification was received regarding TAP involvement in legislative proposals. As we speak, Nina is reviewing the draft of the document that has been prepared.

ACTION: Temple - The decision document will be issued to Seuntjens as the TAP Chair for distribution to members soon, within the next two weeks.

Temple brought up that the decision to ask Area 2 to act as a focus group for Free Filing was made based on the financial obligation and cost. Temple agreed that for future calls of this nature, calling for involvement from the TAP, will be elevated to the Joint Committee and then you can decide what members may have an interest or who desires to participate in a certain project. Temple agreed that if the free file group contacts her again or if a similar chance arises, she will bring the matter to the Joint Committee to decide which committee will participate.

Temple clarified that the TAP has been issued an appropriation. For the last six weeks, she has been aggressively worked looking at what the expectations are, not only from Nina (Olson), but also from Treasury, and by talking to Seuntjens getting feedback from him, and then from the staff to try to figure out what we need to do. But as far as the budget is concerned, there is just not an adequate amount to fill all your requests since there are administrative needs that need to be considered; daily operating needs that were not considered. We need to give the financial officer a document that indicates how we spend the money and if we need additional funds.

ACTION: Temple will give a final response about approved meetings between now and mid-April.

Next, Temple discussed issue committee rotation. Seuntjens and I talked about the concern raised by some members that they really did not have a good understanding of the national issues identified by the Service during the October Orientation. The question was whether they would have an opportunity to rotate at the end of the fiscal year. That's a decision you have to make within your group - it doesn't have to be elevated. Seuntjens stated members had concerns that they weren't' well versed as to what these issue committees were all about in October when they ranked the issues one, two and three. Seuntjens thinks there are some members who don't feel they are, or who are not contributing to their max because it may not fit their talent or their interests. The question I have is should we open this up again in October to allow members to switch issue committees if in fact these issue committees remain? Temple stated that most strategic plans are for five years out, five to seven years so it is a possibility that they would stay the same. I just need to clarify that for you. I'll have that for the May meeting.

ACTION: Temple will report on possible changes to issue committees at May meeting.

The annual report is basically due by the end of the year. I am working with Arlene Kaye, Executive Director for systemic advocacy. Kaye is responsible for identifying and tracking issues where taxpayers have come into the organization for help. Her organization is also responsible for the National Taxpayer Advocate Annual Report to Congress. Kaye is one of the individuals that will address the group in May. It is critical that you understand the association. SAMS, Systematic Advocacy Management System, is the system we will use to track the issues that are identified through TAP. Kaye will address what systemic advocacy does; she will talk about SAMS, and the impact on TAP and the annual report.

The Local Taxpayer Advocate (LTA) responsibility to the TAP has been agreed to by Nina Olson and Henry Lamar, Deputy National Taxpayer Advocate, and all the Area Directors. The direction to the LTA is that they will share their individual outreach plans with their local TAP member or members if they happen to have two, the TAP members should be advising the LTA which of those outreaches they could or would like to attend. The LTA would then work to facilitate that and make it happen. As they see they are going to have additional opportunities to go out and make presentations whether it is going to be a congressional office, stakeholder groups, universities, small business associations, they are to let you know and give you an opportunity based on your availability and interests to participate either in giving a presentation or being available to hear their ideas as another method of securing information from taxpayers. The TAP management staff is responsible for identifying partnering efforts within and outside of the IRS, which TAP could be invited to participate or make a presentation. We really need to identify what the responsibilities of the TAP support staff vs what the local taxpayer advocates are supposed to do in support of the TAP. The TAP management staff is responsible for that. We are also responsible for working with internal stakeholders to identify opportunities for you to provide pre-decisional input. On any issue, the TAP support staff needs to develop a packet to bring to the issue committee or area committee that this is what's going on in the IRS, here's who has this issue, these are the latest concerns and give you something to start with. That's our job as the TAP support staff among many other things, but it is not the role of the local taxpayer advocate. As the director for the TAP, I will have the same responsibility as the field managers but at the national level. I am also trying to solidify a formal process for communicating the issues to the operating divisions on an ongoing basis and actually have an audience with them. So you don't feel t you are identifying these things, bringing them up, and they are falling on deaf ears. Part of the expectation commitment I have made to Nina Olson is to develop that process so the panel can be even more effective whether it was an issue identified by the IRS or one the area committees has identified. As for the support of the business owners, I spoke to Sue Sottile and Michael Chesman who are the executive business owners assigned to each of the issue committees. Both of them are very interested in what is happening with the TAP panel. Temple is meeting with them early in April and then set up a time for Seuntjens to talk to them prior to the May meeting.

ACTION: Temple will set up meeting between Seuntjens, Sottile, and Chesman prior to the May meeting.

They are very concerned about the issues. The problem is we need to have an established process in place within TAP that as the managers who are responsible for working with these area managers, local managers, territory managers to bring you the support or get you the appropriate speakers or presentations at your meetings so you can be effective and productive. What's happening now is that information has not been elevated to anybody. So sometimes the support may not be what it should be; it may have the appearance that the business owners don't care but they are very much involved and committed to the entire process. I know some of you voiced some concerns about the DFO. I just want to apologize up front for the changes because it's inevitable that changes will occur and they will be difficult for my staff and for you as members but they should not and will not have any impact on our ability to serve you. If anything, we should be able to serve you more effectively. But I want to clarify that the DFO for the area committees are not being changed. There are acting DFOs assigned to two of the committees because Randy Swartz and Larry Morris are on extended assignments that prevent their continuous involvement. The decision was made by the Deputy Taxpayer Advocate to replace them by other LTAs. It is the issue committee DFO that has changed and there are reasons behind that. The Designated Federal Official (DFO) is responsible for helping to facilitate the meetings and they also have the role of working with the operating divisions management to ensure that you are getting the support that is required. That is not the responsibility of an employee. That is a management responsibility. So that duty has been changed and it will remain in effect. This is the first of many things you are going to see. These are not the decisions that I am going out to the panel and ask for your concurrence or even pre-decisional input. But we should be communicating them to you and I am going to be relying on the managers in the field to communicate to their area committees and I will communicate it to Seuntjens. After 60-plus days of being on the job, there are some other things that are coming into play. We are trying to increase the staff and have already asked for additional managers, which will hopefully be hired sometime before the end of April. I've put in a request to the commissioner for additional analysts. We are taking all the necessary steps so that we can increase the staff so they can be assigned effectively to the panel and provide the type of support you need. Effective mid April, the National Office, which is myself and my staff, will assume responsibility of the Joint TAP Committee. Barbara Toy will remain involved until after the May meeting, but after that she will resume her duties as a field analyst. A national office analyst will come in and do exactly what Toy is doing. You will still have the camaraderie and relationship working with your analyst. We're talking about the function of the DFO for the issue committee which will be the responsibility of the manager. But, that does not preclude you from having the communications that you have had with the analysts and/or managers on an ongoing basis. Seuntjens interjected that Temple has agreed to notify the Joint Committee by email in advance of changes in staffing. Woo reminded Temple that she was going to talk a little bit about a Nebraska panel member. Temple replied that Treasury has delegated the authority for choosing replacements for panel members to me. There are several options; bringing in alternates who have already been cleared; looking at other applicants or recruiting.