Joint Committee Teleconference Minutes

May 2, 2003 Washington, D.C.

Members Present:

• Mario Burgos, E-filing
• Justin Doucette, Area 6
• C. Morgan Edwards, Notices
• Walter Fish, Area 1
• Robin Gausebeck, Area 4
• Gwen Handelman, Earned Income Tax Credit
• Ed Hanna, Area 3
• Sharon Lassar, Multilingual
• Chris Lowe, Ad Hoc
• 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

Members Not in Attendance:

• Mary Balmer, Area 2

Others in Attendance:

• Tersheia Carter, Program Analyst
• Martha Curry, Program Analyst
• Patti Robb, Note Taker
• Barbara Toy, Program Analyst

Guests:

• Michael Chesman, Director, Office of Taxpayer Burden Reduction, SB/SE
• Kim Harris, Logistics Management Institute (LMI)
• Arlene Kay, Executive Director, Systemic Advocacy
• Margie Kinney, Supervisory Program Analyst, SB/SE
• Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate
• David K. Shepherd, Logistics Management Institute (LMI)
• Sue Sottile, Director, Strategic Planning, W&I

Public in Attendance:

• Linda Stihlhorst
• Hunter Alexander

Quorum: 14 members present, quorum of 9 met

Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda

Introductions
Each area and issue committee representative, staff, and guests introduced themselves. Seuntjens welcomed guests but stated Joint Committee would not be accepting oral comments. Comments should be directed to the area committees.

Deryle Temple introduced new members of the National Office staff, program analysts, Martha Curry and Tersheia Carter. They just started last week. National Office staff will take ownership of issues, be in charge of strategic vision, and be conduit to the Program Owners, the National Taxpayer Advocate, and Treasury. Curry will serve as the Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the Joint Committee, effective future meetings. Temple stated that the Joint Committee is one of the issue committees and the DFOs for the issue committees will eventually be a field area manager. Temple is still in the process of hiring field managers. The field managers will each have one area and an issue committee assignment; one field office will have two issue committees. Curry will serve as DFO until all managers are on board, but the support will still be provided by Barbara Toy and Patti Robb to provide continuity and maintain relationships. Temple will attend and participate in Joint Committee meetings as Director and will provide National Office direction. Curry will sit in on committee meetings, both area and issue, to provide national perspective. This will not be to take over field responsibilities, but to provide a high level overview of what's going on across the board, common trends, common issues, problems, and successes. Curry will be the one consistent person working on issues, analyzing data, and providing information and data to help you focus your time and emphasis. Curry will also act as a liaison between the National Taxpayer Advocate, (NTA) and Arlene Kay, (Director, Systemic Advocacy), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) program owners for area and issue committees. The national office now has a general telephone number members can use; we also have a secretary, LaVerne Walker. National Office should be more responsive now that we have a dedicated staff.

ACTION: Staff will provide a National Office directory to the Joint Committee by way of email.

National Office Report

Randy Swartz, who was the DFO for Area 1, was recently selected as National Director for Low Income Tax Clinic (LITC). Peter Gorga will become the permanent DFO for Area 1. Temple is trying to minimize changing personnel. When taxpayers come to panel members with individual issues, their individual issue will be sent to the Taxpayer Advocate Service. One thing the Deputy National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) and the NTA has requested is that we communicate to our staff that individual issues should be sent to the area program manager and not the Local Taxpayer Advocate who acts as the DFO.

Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA), Speaks to Joint Committee
Nina Olson announced that IRS has a new commissioner; Mark Everson was confirmed last night. Olson stated she wanted to cover the topics that members were concerned about: The burden on volunteers--amount of time that members spent on issues; the number of resignations; the belief that folks were brought in too early on issues without enough knowledge of issue; the role of TAP regarding legislative proposals, the annual meeting, and who should receive the TAP annual report.

By listening in on conference calls and talking to others from the IRS Operating Divisions who have worked with TAP on issue committees, feels panel members should take great pride in the incredible skills brought to the IRS and in providing a different viewpoint. IRS still has a learning curve in working with the different viewpoints, but the IRS is beginning to understand and recognize the relationship as a partnership. Olson has worked to have IRS go to TAP and to make the contact predecisional, and IRS has already used some of TAP's recommendations. Not always-a case in point is that IRS has taken position on tax preparers' certification without consulting the NTA or TAP although Olson assigned this as an issue to the Ad Hoc committee. Olson is trying to make it known throughout IRS that they should work seriously with TAP predecisionally so IRS cannot be accused of paying only lip service to TAP. Olson is concerned about TAP members' devotion and the amount of time members are spending on issues. TAP's input and comments are critical, but this shouldn't become a second full-time job. TAP staff should be your first IRS contact for any information or research. Utilizing the staff to get the information you need is not meant to restrict the information you receive, but to minimize duplicate requests. TAP has already placed a burden on IRS Operating Division resources and Olson wants to make sure that TAP first utilizes TAP staff and then Taxpayer Advocate Service resources before requesting assistance from IRS Operating Divisions.

Leonard Steinberg, Chair of Small Business/Self-Employed Payroll Tax Committee, had three questions for Olson. First, he commented that members from both area and issue committees had strong feelings on providing input on legislative issues. Members feel very strongly on providing input to the NTA for inclusion in the Annual Report to Congress. Steinberg stated he didn't feel enough people or the right people read the NTA Annual Report to Congress. TAP needs a renewed emphasis on putting forth those legislative issues that could be incorporated into the NTA report through Joint Committee. Second, TAP needs a database of all issues brought before TAP and a repository for research on these issues to avoid duplication of issues, and as TAP transitions, insurance that issues are not being redeveloped all over again. Third, what is role of systemic advocacy in relationship to TAP-it's not adequately defined. Are we in competition, in lieu of, or supposed to work together?

Olson replied first to questions two and three. Systemic Advocacy (SA) has its system. Arlene Kay has been with SA for 12 months. Kay will be here this afternoon to talk more about Systemic Advocacy. Kay's last position was Director of Quality and Innovation for Large/Mid-Sized Businesses. Since being here, Kay, in a short period of time, developed Systemic Advocacy Management System (SAMS); a database that receives all systemic issues and proposals from sources inside and outside of IRS. People outside the IRS can go to the TAS website and click on systemic advocacy to submit issues. We are working on a system so people can track their issue. IRS and TAS employees can now input issues and track them. The previous systemic advocacy system used long forms, which included a lengthy justification for the change, including cost effects and a screening system that stifled ideas. The system now has input on TAS website directly from public and practitioners. Employees also can input directly to SAMS without going through their manager or any other layers. Employees can track the status of their issues on the system but presently the public cannot because of security issues. The issues are no longer screened but SA has a weighting system. Issues are ranked by the number of taxpayers affected and the impact on taxpayer rights, which is a particular focus of Olson's. After ranking, issues may be assigned to an SA analyst for further development. Some are sent to the Operating Divisions, but SA maintains a control of the proposal. Some are legislative proposals that may be included in the NTA Annual Report to Congress. The engineering is in place for either a part of database or similar system to track TAP issues. At this point, Temple stated that TAP staff is working on a database with Systemic Advocacy already. Olson stated that she is very sensitive that TAP is separate from systemic advocacy and that TAP should have its own tracking system which can be built using or within the SAMS architecture.

As far as question one, Olson agrees that not enough people read the Annual Report. It can be overwhelming, but there is a five-page preface summary, and the on-line version is broken into sections so you can isolate one part easily. The CD-rom version was not built that way but will be next year. Olson disagrees with the report going into a black hole, as she briefs the Ways and Means Committee, and every tax counsel for each member of the Finance committee. Last year, the House passed legislation that included nine of the NTA's issues. There was no answering legislation from the Senate before adjournment but Ways and Means already passed 11 or 12 of my legislative proposals including some from this year's report-the husband\wife co-owned business proposal rather than be forced into filing as a partnership or filing only one Schedule C and only one getting credit for self-employment credit, they could each file a Schedule C and claim the self-employment credit. Legislation regarding the uniform definition of a child has also been introduced. TAS has been given a great opportunity to influence legislation on the proposals in the NTA Report to Congress. Only the NTA can directly propose legislation to Congress; the commissioner has to go through Treasury. TAS employees are kept informed of the status of legislative proposals by email, and Deryle Temple can forward the legislative proposal information to TAP. In terms of Olson's own opportunities to discuss proposed legislation, she has a very busy "hearing" season coming up and has been given opportunities to speak and feels she has a great deal of influence.

Regarding TAP's role in addressing legislative proposals, Olson sent this legislative issue question to the federal advisory board expert in Counsel for a response. It is very clear that unless your charter specifically authorizes you to author or propose legislation, you do not have the authority to do so. It is not a TAP function. There are not enough hours in the day for TAP to address legislative proposals. Doing so siphons off from where IRS and Treasury need you, which is as an advisory board to the executive branch. However, if TAP sees a legislative issue that really needs fixing or is a really good idea, raise the issue to Arlene Kay and Olson who may choose to include the issue in the NTA Report to Congress. If TAP is working an issue and you come to the conclusion after checking with Counsel that it cannot be worked administratively, send the issue to Olson with a copy to Kay or through SAMS for Systemic Advocacy to complete development of the issue. The issue should not be included as an issue worked in your annual report, but as one proposed to the NTA for consideration. Handelman asked Olson if the issue should come directly from the toll free telephone system to SAMS? And just how much time TAP should devote to developing the issue? Olson replied that it is a question of resources and suggested directing the caller to input the issue directly into SAMS through the website. If Systemic Advocacy is already working the issue, Olson requested that TAP forward any information to her or the employee assigned, and they will get back to TAP on what they are doing with the issue. Leonard Steinberg replied that this would eliminate some of our committee members' frustration as far as letting these issues go. Olson replied that it provides another point of view for her to mention that TAP is working on this issue, which helps get TAP's good work recognized and gets the issue to the committee in charge of that subject. Walter Fish congratulated Olson on being subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Olson replied that TAS steers clear from making proposals regarding broad tax policy about whether tax rate is appropriate, or whether it is an incentive toward savings versus consumption, etc. AMT has those broad policy implications. What TAS can talk about is the administration of the tax code. The policy is clear but the statute is not working as it was intended or it is creating a burden. As an advocate, Olson is very careful because she does not have authority to make broad policy. That is why last year's NTA proposal on AMT is about the administration of the code and not about policy. Fish stated his pet peeve is he believes the use of emails is being abused and he would prefer a weekly packet. Olson agreed that management and staff should use the email more wisely to support TAP. But if staff takes the information and puts in into an orderly fashion, they could be accused of filtering information.

Lillian Woo said she had been designated by the Area 5 Committee to ask why AMT was dropped from the Report to Congress. Olson replied that it not dropped and that was an incorrect perception. With the report already over 400 pages, Olson was not going to waste paper repeating proposals from prior years. None of the legislative proposals are considered dropped but become part of the NTA legislative history. Because of this misperception, TAS will create a schedule of legislative activity and include footnotes, "for greater detail refer to 2001 NTA report." Woo replied that it would be helpful for our membership to know all past issues and to have a list for reference. That way, members won't feel the issue has been totally neglected. Olson replied that she would take these concerns back to Systemic Advocacy. Olson added that this was a classic example on the role of TAP and what TAP should be doing as an advisory board. Olson can take this input from TAP and state this is the point of view of TAP, a Treasury advisory board to the IRS. It provides an ally for Olson and also gets TAP recognition.

C. Morgan Edwards from Area 2 and representing the Wage and Investment Notices Committee asked Nina about the return preparer certification licensing and the distinction between certification and licensing. Olson replied that she was not proposing licensing but certification. She added that return preparer associations are in support of this education and certification proposal. What concerns Olson about today's tax preparers is that return preparers completing paper returns were more serious about tax preparation and obtaining the necessary training, even if they only practiced a few months of the year. With electronic filing and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), you now have a whole realm of people in return preparation that have nothing to do with tax or tax products; they are selling guns, furniture, and check cashing. This is what makes this proposal different than any time before--it is a different environment. We are not looking at traditional preparers but those not covered by Circular 230. The certification process will force these people to take their job seriously and make a decision to become serious about tax preparation or about selling products.

Edwards talked about the relationship between banks and IRS and Refund Anticipation Loans (RAL). In his experience, banks give very short terms and loans become due in 30 days and following is how this issue ties into notices. If there is an error on the return, a notice is generated that may take a substantial amount of time to process. In the meantime, the taxpayer is being hounded by the bank for the loan payment. The refund is already spent and there is a serious problem. The issue is, what should the relationship between IRS and the banks be, and how will the IRS process questionable returns and how long will they take? Olson replied that she works the EITC issue daily and a statement like this from TAP is incredibly valuable. Olson requested members email her with these types of issues to bring them to her attention. This is something she can bring to IRS showing how their system is creating real problems. This is part of financial literacy and taxation. Olson will be asking Ad Hoc to work on financial literacy because this is good role for TAP as citizens, to talk about financial literacy -RALs and persons not having accounts for direct deposit. Edwards suggested expansion of free file and an expansion of education directly from IRS. If people know they can get refund within 10 days they will not go after a RAL.

Robin Gausebeck representing Area 4 talked about time commitment. Area 4 just had a 2-day face-to-face substantive meeting in Cincinnati. Based on that experience, Area 4 would like to suggest that Area committees have more direction in the use of TAP's budget. Area 4 would like to have more frequent face-to-face meetings because they believe it is more effective than conference calls and devoting an hour here or there. All members agreed that we got a substantial amount of work done in a short period of time. We made more progress in day and half than in 7 months of being an active panel through teleconferences or in subcommittees. Area 4 is willing to take measures to save money when having meetings-less expensive hotels, less expensive places to travel to and from… Olson replied that TAP is a Treasury advisory committee and Olson was told very clearly that actual face-to-face meetings should be limited because of geographic distribution and travel expense. Treasury told us there would be no more money. Olson thought it best to have an annual meeting and have some, but not as many, face-to-face meetings. But Olson can understand that it is more difficult to get work done in bits and pieces and that Area 4 had a valid point. Olson will take this issue back to Treasury. Gausebeck restated that Area 4 wasn't asking for more money, but they were asking to be part of decision in how money is spent. There may be some union issues involved in these decisions, and even if analyst agrees to lodging arrangements, the union may object and Olson cannot approve. Olson asks that TAP lay the important groundwork out through telephone conferences and when you reach a critical point, hold the face-to-face meeting.

Gwen Handelman stated that part of the time commitment burden is that some material for meetings is not given in a timely fashion. Olson interjected that staff needs to work more efficiently. Handelman added that members have received a lot of good information, but it gets overwhelming. For the face-to-face EITC meeting coming up, there are tons of pre-read information. For this committee to be effective, we need more money so issue committees can hold more than one face-to-face meeting. Olson agreed that IRS has too much information, is not organized, and there is this inability to get it organized. Olson's experience with IRS and TAS is that there is a period of incredible inefficiency trying to get information in usable format. But Olson disagrees that a face-to-face is necessary for organizational purposes. The best method of sorting information is to hack away at bits at a time and not spend dollars on face-to-face meetings wading through this information. TAP managers and staff are redefining their roles, which caused delays in getting information. Olson recommended members utilize staff to help organize information but warned about the danger of having staff over-sort the information and losing valuable information.

Handelman supports giving committees more discretion and choice on the budget for holding meetings. Next, Handelman asked Olson to consider whether or not it is too burdensome for TAP members to be on both an issue and area committee. Area committees consider a wide range of issues and some are very technical and issue committees, while the issue can become technical, can focus on their one issue. Would it be a better allocation for members to choose and not have both an area and issue committee assignment? Olson replied that TAP exists because Treasury and IRS define what issues you work based on strategic plan, and the area committee is a balance to this so TAP can raise its own issues. That's the reason for area committees--to balance the IRS direction of issues. Knowing the reason both area and issue committees were formed; Olson would feel more comfortable that TAP members talk among themselves and if TAP chooses and believes it would be a better use of resources, make a proposal to change.

Mario Burgos stated very quickly to provide another point of view, he doesn't mind amount of emails and can't stand paper. His suggestion is that as part of process, staff compile a summary of information from monthly reports for the annual report and members write the remainder. Burgos understands the legislative issues will go to Systemic Advocacy for inclusion in Report to Congress and NTA's role with legislative issues is unique in that NTA can propose legislation. But, what he doesn't understand is how systemic issues fit into TAS. Olson stated that basically the job of systemic advocacy is to look into proposals brought to them by employees or public. Systemic Advocacy is divided into individual and business, and the director of systemic advocacy reports directly to her. Systemic Advocacy deals with larger systemic issues, and on the other side, case advocacy, works specific cases. Olson added that Arlene Kay would be discussing this later. But, it is Systemic Advocacy's job to look at issues brought to them by TAP, a TAS employee, an IRS employee, or Congress. They look at why is it happening-is it an aberration, is someone not following directions, or is it designed incorrectly--and make suggestions to correct the problem.

Burgos stated that in his life experience if you want something done, it works better when you try to communicate directly rather than going through layers. It seems to him the trend in TAP over the last few months is that layer upon layer has been added. At one point, TAP went directly to NTA, now it needs to go through Martha Curry, to Temple, and then some to Systemic, and some to IRS, which is an awful amount of filters. Olson replied that any member could email her directly with their concerns. Copy Temple, Kay, and program managers, but on a day-to-day basis, information requests should go through staff. Burgos's concern is that he, as an individual, can directly to Olson, but the strength of him as an individual is not all that great.

But the strength, the value of TAP, as we represent the nation and there are 102 of us, sends a much stronger message. Seuntjens interjected that this also was his question, and where are our eyes and ears for this group as advisory group for Treasury? He would hope that someone from Treasury would be the eyes and ears, as well as someone from NTA office. Olson replied that April Lehman is liaison for Treasury for TAP and oversees some of the other Treasury advisory groups. Temple and Olson meet regularly with Lehman about TAP, not on issues, but the substance matter--the management. But if there is a proposal where you would need subject matter experts from Treasury such as on Financial Literacy, that could be arranged. But Olson said she wanted to get back to issue of layers. There are serious management issues in the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel aspect of her organization not the panel, her employees. As the manager of this whole organization with 2,200 TAS employees in 74 sites, we have been looking at the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel and the staff to make sure it is organized in the right way to support, and has the skills to support the individual volunteers and the subcommittees as a whole. Olson doesn't have confidence yet in the structure of TAP, and some of the things seen as layers are in fact decisions Temple and Olson have made to make the program work. TAS needs to judge employees on how they are doing their job and there are no quality standards in TAP, and Olson stated she didn't know how these employees were being evaluated. This is not a good way to run a business. To the substance point, I don't want you to walk away if you have an issue and you don't feel it is being addressed and it is an issue panel members think is important to panel members, write, email, or fax Olson directly with a copy to Temple or Curry. Burgos replied that this is what he liked best about Olson; she was only one in IRS that accepted direct emails and faxes. Olson added that she also wanted people to know that she also reads all her emails and does also respond to them. Olson said that we may not have gotten the right management staff for TAP, but that is what we are trying to do. Burgos replied that if staff support he has been receiving is substandard, the only thing next is to read my mind before I say things because the staff support has been amazing. But the challenge he has had is his connection with the program owner and that person's response. Olson replied this is part of the problem. It is not the people we have on staff, it is that in TAS, we have to define how the staff gets it to the IRS. That's where Temple and Curry come in-getting your issue to the right person in the IRS. Staff has to get to the right person. The IRS is hierarchical and requests need to go through the management structure; it needs to go through Curry or Temple because that is the right level. This is an internal issue. I am not saying the staff isn't doing everything they need to, but we can't have them doing everything they should be doing for you and then hitting a wall.

Sharon Lassar prefers emails and teleconferences and prefers not to travel for meetings. Lassar wanted to address certification for practitioners: Lassar would like to see a nationally maintained database of preparers for people to look to find if a person is certified but also to check anyone who is licensed by including links to state's other licensing databases. The database should be searchable by name, location, specialty, or by type of license. An issue that arose from the Multilingual Initiative subcommittee is it should also be searchable by language spoken by practitioner. It would make it more simple to find a certified preparer. Lassar keeps being told that this cannot be done, but believes it is relatively simple to do and is do-able. Olson asked Lassar to please be sure Lassar's comments get to the subcommittee working on Certification of Preparers. Olson likes the idea and also hears it cannot be done. This is not helpful and if you put your mind to it, you can find a way to get it done. Instead IRS needs to find a way it can be done before there is a directive from Congress. Oregon and California both have a system of certifying preparers; Oregon's is more burdensome requiring bonding for preparers and consultants and has different levels of competency. Oregon has database that people can check for status of certification. IRS's position is that states should be regulating preparers, but Olson doesn't want 50 different regulatory agencies. Lassar added that it should be a voluntary registration, and the database should identify Certified Public Accountants (CPAs), attorneys, and enrolled agents. There should also be a page defining what the different levels mean and what each can do for you. For example, Lassar is not a practicing CPA and would not want to be on database.

Olson recapped each issue. Olson will take proposal back to systemic advocacy about including a status report, an archive of past issues in the NTA report to Congress, and also include TAP's references and work on legislative proposals as part of history in the Report to Congress. Olson also talked about how TAP can cover legislative issues in its own annual report so TAP's viewpoint is on the record. The roles of systemic advocacy will be covered later with Arlene Kay. There also is a difference in opinion about the workload and use and volume of email, but Olson believes better organization would cure that problem. We will also have a status report of issues from past reports and indicate they are still supported. Olson will get the NTA's congressional testimony schedule out to the panel with possible topics to be covered, and it would be great to say TAP has been studying this issue and this is their position. It may not be Olson's position, but it is an important position. Olson also talked about important issues like RALs and that TAP has identified other things that create a burden for members, such as over abundance of emails. Olson will wait to hear from panel where members want balance between Issue and Area committees, and she is very open to any suggestions, but she reminded the panel that realistically there is no more money for TAP. Olson is also open to suggestions on alternate ways of holding face-to-face meetings, but reminded that there may be union issues involved. Olson discussed management and why there are layers and how we are trying to reduce burden on TAP managers. The subject of member's resignations was brought up and Olson told the panel, TAP would be doing exit interviews to find out why people are leaving.

ACTION: Joint Committee should send comments and inputs about legislative issues directly to Olson but do not limit to subjects she is scheduled to testify before Congress.

Discussion/Adoption of Joint Committee Operating Procedures/Definitions of Issues and Issue Flow/Start time Commitment/Participation of Members
Seuntjens discussed the need to come to understanding, make some decisions on these procedural issues, and how we communicate by email or otherwise.

Time Commitment.
Committee decided to start with the Time Commitment issue. Leonard Steinberg commented on the chair's additional responsibility. Chairs understand their commitment as a chair requires extra work and they have additional burden serving on another committee. Walter Fish added chairs actually wear three hats here and suggested chairs should only have the one committee assignment. Justin Doucette's concern was that a state or a part of one might not have representation. Steinberg added that working on both committees gives members a broader perspective and more appreciation for working on issues in both area and issue committees. Steinberg and other members of his issue committee feel everyone should be on both committees. Steinberg agrees it does become a little overwhelming at times, especially during the tax-filing season and sometimes the emails are too much. But he personally does not have a problem with the time commitment. As an area chair, Doucette wouldn't mind having the opportunity to drop the issue committee membership and would be more comfortable making the decision if it was not mandated. Woo suggested Area chairs poll members stating here is your commitment; here is what you are actually doing, and how do you feel? C. Morgan Edwards suggested better ways of communicating would mean less time spent reviewing materials and therefore, less time invested as a TAP volunteer. Gausebeck stated that Area 4 discussed this at their meeting and agreed to scale back the number of issues worked and to prioritize the issues. Some issues are put on the back burner until another one is completed. Ed Hanna believes as an area chair, it would be better not to be on an issue committee. Handelman is the mirror image of Hanna's feelings--would like to stay on issue committee but drop area committee because it is too much. Handelman would like to opt out of area committee without feeling guilty, but she wants to add that this also extends to subcommittee chairs and some members. Our committee has already had two resignations-at least people ought to have a choice to be on both or just one. Also, when assignments are made, there should be sensitivity to geography. Nagel added that not all panel members want to be on a subcommittee within a committee and should they be forced to participate? Should they be required? Steinberg pointed out if they opt out of a committee, the burden gets spread out disapportionately to those left. Fish wondered how drastic was this loss if they were not active or not contributing anyway? Burgos added that if members averaged six hours a week. That is the amount of time members committed to and suggested members utilize the staff more. Burgos relies on TAP staff to help by putting together reports so he can tweak them. As far as research, he evaluates and may summarize the research, but delegates the responsibility to gather the information. Lassar agreed TAP took a lot of time, but it is within our commitment. She added that staying on both committees helps keep the lines of communication open. Gwen Handelman is on her area committee even though she is not as active in area as in her issue committee, it is good to have her at meeting just to have her viewpoint. But how do we rid ourselves of panel members who do not participate? Lassar does have someone on her issue committee that hasn't met the 90% attendance requirement and it is her understanding that the attendance rate is not present in the area as well. Hanna added that participation depends on our personal workloads and also people have different skills. Charles Taylor stated level of participation has a lot to do with background with practitioners workload is not nearly the same as those who are not. People come to the table with different skills and their assignments or workloads should be reflected. Steinberg added that some people, not having extensive background in IRS, had a severe learning curve. He suggested if we meet again as a whole committee or for future members, there should be a class on process and flow within IRS and a brief overview of tax law. At least, people would have understanding of terminology and how things work in IRS. Paul Nagel added that non-practioners were more reluctant to add to discussions. Burgos felt there is a flip side to this issue--practioners come in with a lot of assumptions about how and what IRS can do, but non-practioners come in with a clear mind. Steinberg replied that as a practitioner, he doesn't always agree with the IRS but besides that things like terminology are still an issue. Seuntjens brought the committee back to the time commitment discussion.

Doucette asked what is the risk if we give members the choice to opt out of one committee, either an issue or area will be underserved. Seuntjens believes the risk is in having no representative in an area. Seuntjens thoughts are that you have to participate on both and that chairs should take the leadership role and allow members to opt out of subcommittee work on one committee or another, but not both, and to make sure you have good participation level. Hanna agreed that members in the areas still collect data and perform outreach. Seuntjens summarized his thoughts; chairs should participate in both sides so you don't loose the feel of the whole TAP, but chairs should have option to not participate in subcommittee work and asked what other chairs thought. Handelman revised her proposal for members to designate one committee as their primary and not fully participate in the other. Fish agreed with Handelman but suggested not making it a policy, but let chairs put into practice. Doucette believes the issue is more inherent to chairs because chairs have an obvious primary committee. But to make a blanket statement about opting out of subcommittees is tough because each committee operates differently. Not all have subcommittees, and subcommittees are formed differently. Chris Lowe agrees with Handelman. One strength of the Citizen Advocacy Panel (CAP), was its ability to focus on one issue, and Lowe would like to focus on Ad Hoc. At end of two years, the committee can look back and say we were effective. At the end of two years, the hill testimony won't be our legacy. Being on Joint Committee and chair of Ad Hoc easily satisfies his commitment. Lassar stated that if she had only one committee, she could then, because of interest and availability, focus 100% on the one committee. Lowe would rather send up four good issues at the end of the year than 100 insubstantial issues. Steinberg again brought up the problem of under-representation. Lowe's argument is the area can represent his geographic area, not just the member from a state. Lowe understands the principal and importance, but it should be weighed against the effectiveness of TAP. Seuntjens asked for consensus on chair's level of participation. Can we agree that as chairs, you should feel free to tell chair of your other committee you will not participate in sub work. Consensus not reached--11 thumbs up, 2 can live with it, and 1 opposed.

Steinberg said he could change his vote but he is a firm believer in unintended consequences and asked; how will this affect the future of TAP? We don't know what long-term implications will be. It may evolve that the only issues worked would be those flowing from IRS, but they are not our issues. Area work is as important as issue work; there has to be a balance and it is a commitment we made. If we cannot accept this, we should not have taken the responsibility of chair. The level of expertise in this room is extraordinary, and to not utilize this resource to its fullest extent is short sightedness. Lowe countered that we can only do so much. You can only drive a car 150 miles an hour so long. If you force the value in this room to work on all committees, you dilute that value. We are already seeing resignations throughout TAP, and Lowe can see unintended consequences in resignations if we enforce the 90% attendance requirement. Steinberg says we need a safety valve. Everyone should be committed to two committees; chairs have the Joint Committee and the committee they chair, so they should not have another area or issue committee. Seuntjens stated chairs should still have the assignment and the chair would still participate in other committee, but not in subcommittee work. Temple stated that by definition you all serve on subcommittees. There are seven Area Committees, and eight issue committees: Three Wage & Investment (W&I), three Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE), Ad Hoc, and Joint Committee. Doucette asked that we restate not allowing chairs to resign fully. They are still part of the quorum and should attend meetings, but they don't have to be active members. Seuntjens asked if we restate that chairs are not obligated to participate in more than attendance at secondary meetings, could we reach consensus or should we put this in the parking lot? Edwards added that people will naturally gravitate to that proposal. Joint Committee reached consensus that as chairs you can opt out of subcommittee work in the secondary committee and are not obligated to participate more than attendance at secondary meetings.

Handelman proposed extending same rule to vice chairs and subcommittee chairs actively involved in research. Hanna disagrees because too many members might drop subcommittees. Fish asked why do we have to define, why can't it just happen? Gausebeck suggested each chair should define work in any subcommittee so it's broken into small enough parts to fit everyone. Seuntjens asked for consensus on extending to all members--thumbs down to opt out for volunteers that are not chairs.

Steinberg proposed to leave decision to individual chairs. Handelman did not believe that it needs to be proposed. Members expressed concern that discussion of this issue was taking too long. Lowe expressed that it was important for TAP to self-govern and even if it takes longer, the Joint Committee should take the time to set a policy. Discussion followed on how extensive the problem was and if it mostly concerned members of the EITC committee and if it was only the one committee, perhaps the committee should be split or they might need to prioritize the issues, or ask for more TAP staff support. Handelman replied that the Joint Committee should not micromanage and that the EITC committee subcommittees were appropriate to the issue. Area 3 members had also expressed concern about time commitment but Hanna thought members accepted the burden. Lillian Woo said Area 5, based on idea that one size doesn't fit all, identified a zillion issues but determined to have only 2 subcommittees at a time. There is an idiosyncratic response to this issue. Charles Taylor felt panel spent way too much time on this and that individual chairs should deal with the issue. Handelman disagreed with leaving to individual chairs and believes it should be policy. Lowe proposed giving TAP chair the ability to exempt, which brings the authority outside of each individual committee. Seuntjens preferred leaving to individual chairs. Handelman put thumb down because she did not believe Joint Committee was being responsive to all panel members.

Handelman believes some of the Area 3 members are over burdened. If people are spending more than 300 hours, they should be able to opt out. Handelman stated she didn't want to spend any more time on this issue and as time goes on, the issue might change. Seuntjens appreciated everyone's view and he was not trying to ram this down anyone's throat, but because joint committee could not reach consensus, each chair will have to manage the workload within their own group.

How to release disengaged panel members.
Some members have not been active in either area or issue committee and are not responsive to emails. Chairs want an established policy for handling non-participating members. The policy is that first the chair of the committee should talk to the affected person. Next, the chair should have a conversation with the chair of the other committee. If the member is disengaged in both issue and area committee but doesn't want to resign, the chairs should bring the matter to the TAP chair. The TAP chair may call for a vote to dismiss at the next scheduled Joint Committee meeting. Affected member must be informed of the vote prior to the meeting. Although Joint Committee votes on dismissal of member, it is Treasury's decision on whether or not to remove member.

ACTION: Toy send full roster of panel members to all chairs.

Reconfirming Chairs at Annual Meeting in October.
Seuntjens would like the chairs of each committee to have the opportunity to reconfirm chairs for every committee, including the Joint Committee at the annual meeting. He believes it will make chairs more productive as leaders if we get reconfirmation of the job we are doing. Seuntjens also believes the issue committees need to be re-identified as not everyone has perfect match of experiences or interests. Steinberg suggested the annual meeting serve two purposes; one to hold a face-to-face with area and issue committees. Burgos asked why wait till annual meeting for change in issues? Seuntjens replied that he believed we need to do some prework on the issues and understand exactly how we are going to do it, and have orientation for each issue presented at the face-to-face meeting by the program owners. It would be more difficult for members to decide if they want to opt out if they don't know which issue would be a better fit. Handelman added that it doesn't all have to be done face-to-face. If there is to be reconsideration, let members know in advance. Nagel suggested that as soon as members know they can be reassigned, they can look at minutes of other issue committees to find out background. Temple stated that since the IRS program owner is the one to focus the issue, TAP isn't part of the decision. Seuntjens asked if we don't have an active program owner or committee, don't we want to make sure it's a valuable issue or to see if IRS needs to redefine the issue? Temple replied that there should be discussion on what ties it to the business strategic initiative. Gausebeck suggested in addition to allowing people to move, also adjust size of committee based on anticipated workload. Seuntjens said there has to be a balance. Too few people limits the sharing of ideas. Nagel wondered if there should be term limits for the chairs, but everyone agreed there is a natural limit because of volunteer term limits. A proposal was put forward to reselect issues at October meeting and to reaffirm chairs. Fish had thumbs down to the proposal. Fish suggested instead of reconfirming chairs, have the co-chair assume responsibility for the second year. Not all committees have co-chairs. Fish also suggested that selection of issues and reconfirmation be held even if October meeting was not held. Proposal restated so issue committee selection and reconfirmation be held with or without a face-to-face and it was passed by consensus.

Demonstration of TAP Speak
Kim Harris and David Shepherd from LMI, who are contractors for website and our web forum, gave a demonstration of TAP Speak. Questions and systemic problems about TAP speak should be directed to TAP staff. The joint committee decided to let area chairs and the area analysts decide how to roll out TAP Speak to its members.

Systemic Advocacy -- its role in the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS), Systemic Advocacy Partnering with TAP.

Arlene Kay, Director, Systemic Advocacy, defined systemic advocacy as dealing with broader issues of concern to taxpayers either individual or business than the other side of taxpayer advocacy, case advocacy. Systemic Advocacy works in a variety of ways. One way is through Systemic Advocacy Management System (SAMS). Another way is by working with IRS to correct problems or before a policy is implemented, identify potential problems. Systemic Advocacy was requested by IRS oversight board because TAS was geared too exclusively to individual taxpayers' problems and the board wanted TAS to address a broader spectrum of issues. Systemic Advocacy provides a different perspective than rest of IRS, identifying unintended impact or consequences. For example, IRS was empowered to levy up to 15% of social security income. TAS raised the question, how are you going to take proceeds and what happens if you levy by percentage when Social Security is a persons only source of income? TAS intervened prior to implementation to ensure there is a total positive income before levy from IRS. EITC-TAS lives and breathes EITC. The IRS perspective is to address fraud problem. TAS perspective is to administer even-handedly and make sure the administration does not cause excessive hardship; that is, too much paperwork, etc. Several characteristics of systemic advocate are sound technical background and tenacity-the skin of a rhino. Frequently, you are only one advocating certain point of view. Systemic Advocacy addresses most pervasive problem or issues through its annual report, but the preferred way is to catch problems before new programs/initiatives are implemented. For example, the Offers in Compromise (OIC) focus of IRS changed. OIC is now a viable collection option. There have been problems in the implementation of the program. Systemic Advocacy is not looking at individual cases but systemic inconsistencies and inefficient procedures that are impeding program. Service has X number of resources to devoted to OIC processing, but Systemic Advocacy says the resource problem is a separate problem from the taxpayer's problem, and that IRS needs to find a way to serve the needs of taxpayers. Ed Hanna asked what was source of input to Systemic Advocacy. Kay replied that input sources are:

1. Internally through looking at source of cases brought to case advocacy
2. Personal contact (emails and letters)
3. SAMS
4. External contacts, liaison with professional groups

SAMS was implemented in March; suggestions can be input both internally and externally through irs.gov. Systemic Advocacy uses criteria to determine if issue should become a systemic advocacy project and how the issue ranks against other issues brought into system. Criteria, such as,

1. Are taxpayer's rights abridged?
2. How many taxpayers affected?
3. Immediacy of issue.
4. Is responsible area of IRS addressing?

At first, when SAMS started, Kay didn't want any curbs on it-the previous system was a cumbersome paper system filtered through many layers. Kay was warned that that without layers there would be mostly unusable suggestions. Kay finds people fairly sensible when they surface suggestions/problems. SAMS was first opened internal to TAS, then internal to IRS staff, and then externally. Most of external inputs are very good and are reflective of what is happening and come from individuals, as well as tax professionals. Another source of input is tax professional organizations and other groups such as groups of manufacturers. Generally, large business are already well represented. Part of the systemic charter is to address legislative issues, not large sweeping legislative proposals. TAP should not work legislative issues but feed into the SAMS system for inclusion in NTA Annual Report to Congress. But on other issues, Kay sees Systemic Advocacy and TAP as working in a complimentary fashion rather than overlapping. TAP can "tap" into SAMS for information--take a look at key issues. Is systemic advocacy working related issue? Is there research available? Systemic Advocacy can analyze cost of change. Determine what systems are involved. Kay said to look at Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN)), it is a big hot issue. An ITIN is a number given in lieu of Social Security Number (SSN) for those working in the country who do not qualify for a social security number. It was supposed to be used for tax filing purposes only, but it is used for bank accounts, driver's licenses, and other purposes. IRS did not discourage the wide spread use of ITINs but after 9/11, the IRS became more worried about access by terrorists. The range-of-proposals are wide on this issue. The law says if you earn wages, even if you're not a legal worker, you have to pay taxes. But the other hand, we are not going to give you a way to do it. Systemic Advocacy works with Treasury and the IRS operating divisions on this issue. This is a large issue, and if TAP works a part of the issue, Kay doesn't see a conflict. Kay would like to suggest that if TAP is working an issue, it is fed into SAMS so Systemic Advocates don't redo the research. Burgos talked about the problems with increasing Small Business/Self-Employed (SBSE) e-filing. The research is done and the IRS already knows the ten reasons people do not file electronically. One is that certain attachments cannot be filed electronically. IRS knows it is a problem but doesn't want to commit resources to curing the problem. How does Systemic Advocacy turn around and get done what needs to be done? Kay replied that Systemic Advocacy would try to find fresh opportunities for increasing electronic filing. We can't order IRS to do something but can point out the advantages of using our way of solving the problem and also could address the issue in the annual report to congress. Doucette asked what happens if issues entered on SAMS are not systemic issues and systemic advocacy won't work them? Kay replied that the individual will get directed to appropriate area of IRS, or the issue could be archived and worked in the future. Kay would like to work in tandem with subcommittees and would contact TAP for their reaction on Systemic Advocacy's approach. Kay hoped it would be a two way street-that we could leverage resources. Seuntjens added that we need to compliment each other and be careful not to duplicate. Edwards talked about the lengthy process of change for notices and wondered if Systemic Advocacy could circumvent this system? Kay replied that first Systemic Advocacy would look at the issue; is the information inaccurate? How many are affected? Are people being deprived of a statutory right? If egregious, then NTA can issue a statutory directive. Only the Commissioner can circumvent an NTA directive. Charles Taylor commented that even if there is overlap on issues, we bring different perspectives-external and internal. Tap also uses different techniques. Kay stated that SAMS tracks issues as they progress so TAP could check status of issues. But, Burgos wondered if systemic doesn't rank, why would TAP devote time to the issue? Kay replied that Systemic Advocacy might rank differently than TAP or might not work because of finite number of resources. Gausebeck stated that many issues brought to TAP through the web site or the toll free are legislative, and maybe we should be sending people to Systemic Advocacy to input the issue which would free TAP to work different issues. At first, Kay agreed to share all 1500 issues currently on SAMS, not all of which are active. But, Lowe assumed there is quantifiable number of issues that are on top and asked if it is fair to say that these top issues appear in the Report to Congress? Kay agreed, and Lowe asked for look at the top 50 issues that rank relatively high but are not assigned. Kay also stated that if the issue ranked high but was not assigned and TAP decided to pursue she would be interested in seeing research on the topic. Kay added that even if TAP sees an issue is being worked by Systemic Advocacy look to see what the scope of the issue is, TAP should still work as they will bring a different perspective to the problem.

ACTION: Toy will get breakdown of top 50 issues on SAMS that are not assigned as a project to TAS employees.

Operating Division Participation with TAP, Discuss experiences, what worked, what needs to be improved, consideration operating divisions are giving to TAP Recommendations

Sue Sottile, Director, Strategic Planning, is the Manager for the National Partnership Liaison Relationships and is in the Stakeholder, Partnership, Education, and Communication part of Wage and Investment (W&I). At orientation many of the W&I executives were not present because the belief was that the time should be spent developing relationships with fellow members and the program owners. Sottile is the liaison between TAP and W&I. Sottile helped the design team write the charter and procedures. Sottile has experience in developing national public relations working with external groups. Sottile knows the value TAP brings to the table and believes the comfort level will grow in the next few months as TAP builds the relationship with IRS. It is important for TAP to build a relationship with the IRS since we can help each other. W&I has limited resources and needs to prioritize when developing our products and services and to gain TAP input. To do that, W&I has a strategic planning process. Sottile's role with TAP is to be involved as early as possible in knowing what our issues are in the field and on national issues, such as EITC. Sottile is working directly with the EITC committee. At the local level, TAP, Temple, and Sottile need to communicate to prioritize local interaction. The fact that W&I knows what the issues are is just the beginning. Service-wide issues such as EITC and Multilingual Initiative (MLI) are directed by the program owner, but W&I is open to fine tuning or identifying new issues. The W&I view of TAP is to identify critical issues and problem areas. The intent of W&I is to get TAP input as soon as new issues come in and work on some short term issues. The three issues for W & I were selected as issues because they are part of the strategic plan.

Margie Kinney, Supervisory Program Analyst, offered apology for Michael Chesman, Director, Office of Taxpayer Burden Reduction, who could not attend at this time but will attend later. Chesman asked Kinney to represent the Office of Taxpayer Burden Reduction. TAP offers something special to SBSE. For the most part, 80% of SBSE's returns are prepared by tax professionals. TAP offers something special to SBSE. For the most part, 80% of SBSE's returns are prepared by tax professionals.In contrast to focus groups, TAP offers SBSE the opportunity to share fundamental information with TAP overtime, and SBSE gains a different perspective by sharing back and forth. Surveys and focus groups represent only a personal view at one point in time. When SBSE and TAP members share, we end up with a much better product.

The Issue Committees are where TAP can have the most impact right now. The Operating Divisions in their strategic planning processis are currently looking at 2005, and in some instances, such as systems changes, 2007. TAP needs a certain amount of patience. Changes may take years. Changes need to be fed into budget and strategic planning and then prioritized. What works with TAP is the commitment of participants and a desire to make changes; a willingness to work on issues. What doesn't work --TAP is an evolving process; it is a learning experience. Some committees are starting at a slower pace. SBSE is recommending face-to-face meetings earlier in the process. SBSE has no interest in creating a liaison or in having issues that go nowhere. SBSE is committing resources for TAP to have contacts so issues at least have reception. Kinney's issue committee met in early January and set up a system for working the issue, but not all the groups had that experience. SBSE has to make some effort to jump-start the other issue committees. Business issues differ from individual issues, where most issues are familiar to most TAP members. For business issues, a certain amount of expertise is needed to prepare these returns. In the future, SBSE wants to play more of a role in assigning people to the issue committees.

Kinney discussed what will happen to issues in SBSE. Issues coming from the area committees applicable to the business community will first be reviewed by our office. If there is substantial potential for burden reduction, it may mean our office will work the issue or take the issue to the Burden Reduction Counsel to assign to a task force. If there's not a substantial amount of burden reduction, we will assign the issue to a program owner and track it to ensure it is given consideration. In reality, IRS has very limited resources, the budget is very tight. If something falls outside of the established priorities, it is difficult to have it considered. Before sending issues forward, SBSE would like the area committees to give them thoughtful consideration--what are the pros and cons, problems in implementation, and the impact on taxpayers; and then put together a case for why the IRS should expand resources to move in that direction. Burgos thanked Kinney for format for reports; it is incredibly helpful to have that format. Burgos requested Kinney put the format in writing for area committees to consider when submitting issues.

ACTION: Kinney will put together format for area committees to consider for submission of issues to SBSE.

Burgos asked what the results were from the meeting held to determine what was going to happen with the e-filing committee. He stated the next e-filing committee meeting was scheduled next week and they still did not have an agenda. Kinney assured Burgos that there had been a plan to get in touch with him and he would know by Monday. Kinney also mentioned that SBSE wanted the e-filing face-to-face meeting moved up to June. Burgos replied that it was.

Doucette brought up the licensing/certification issue that Nina Olson had talked about earlier. His concern is that IRS already made a decision and TAP was left out. TAP would like assurances that its input will really be considered and requested pre-decisional. Down the road, Doucette does not want to find out TAP was not taken seriously, and that procedure was implemented without considering TAP's input. Kinney replied that as liaison, it was the Office of Burden Reduction's role to ensure there is buy -in from the SBSE operating division. Part of the reason both issue and area committees were formed was to get more buy in. SBSE doesn't want to waste TAP's time-it's too expensive for both TAP and IRS. Sottile requested clarification on how Ad Hoc received the issue. Temple replied that the committee was working the issue at the request of Olson. Doucette suggested that if TAP is left out of process, it means either Tap is being left out of office or the NTA is. Chesman entered the meeting and Seuntjens recapped the issue and said TAP wants to have the eyes and ears of the IRS. How do we start? Chesman replied that when TAP was designed, we wanted an organization that had realistic expectations and to have those realistic expectations fulfilled. So, the idea was to get folks to work on issues that IRS was currently highlighting. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) was highly critical of forms and publications for not having enough input from focus groups. From my experience in large organizations for 30 years, it takes at least 5 years, sometimes 10, to change the culture. As the organization starts moving to become more responsive, there are going to bumps along the way--large slip ups in communication. My guess is that somehow the slip in not contacting TAP occurred because the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Communications in IRS are improving dramatically. Information sharing is better but communication slip-ups still happen. Chesman would be utterly flabbergasted if the IRS knew TAP was working an issue and someone made a decision not to contact TAP. Chesman can't say this will not happen in the future, but will commit to having it happen the least amount of times.

Nagel asked if SBSE could assure there will be a program owner on every call? Kinney agreed and will develop a back up system when owners are ill or not available. Handelman stated that the program owner for EITC has been on our calls. Our committee's problem was with the EITC pre-certification task force. Our committee tried to contact them for information but received no response for months. They finally asked for our input but needed the response immediately. Handelman also reported there was a problem with confidentiality and wondered why the program owner would bring this type of information to an advisory committee whose records are available to the public. Sottile replied that decision was made to approach the group to gain the citizen input because the IRS has been criticism for not getting the input pre-decisional and perhaps were not fully aware of the full impact. Chesman added that getting input from taxpayers can be tricky for IRS when the issue is highly political and sensitive; especially if brought to a citizen group whose meetings are expected to be made public. Sottile stated on one hand, getting citizen input early in the process is the best way to develop a product, but it is difficult if the information is embargoed. Kinney added that as part of the Executive Branch, there is a certain process on highly political issues. The information doesn't go outside the Service until it goes through Treasury and they consult with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and next the IRS briefs Congress. Handelman asked why there form an EITC committee then for such a hot topic, why involve in pre-decisional if highly sensitive? Temple stated IRS not aware that committee was required to be public and we will do better job of informing IRS before this type of information is brought to a citizen group. Sottile reiterated that it was important to get pre-decisional input on this topic but both sides should have been more aware of the highly sensitive material and what should have been released.

Steinberg stated it appears that decisions are made in a closed environment and that results in not finding the systemic defects and what may or may not work. It is so closed that, we, as professionals the in field, are left to clean up the mess. Steinberg also talked about finding out about Systemic Advocacy and the apparent conflict with TAP. He was concerned that panel members were not told and that has an impact on the area and issue committees. Chesman agrees up to a point, but believes the IRS is getting better. It started with Charles Rossotti but there is a difference in the IRS. There is an openness and desire to change as much as possible and as quickly as possible, but it takes a long time for that to happen. You can put out directives, people think about it but it takes a while to become ingrained so people do not think of each instance as an exception.

Seuntjens stated that we now have a clearer idea of how the issue committees work with the program owners, but am still concerned with the areas. Who will be the eyes and ears for issues from the areas? Chesman and Sottile will most likely be recipients of issues but we need to know the process of getting these issues to you. TAP will be presenting the issues in its annual report which goes to the NTA and Treasury but who in the operating divisions will receive and what will the business owners be receptive? Also as issues are prioritized and elevated by Joint Committee how are they elevated?

Temple replied that she will be working with the two issue owners in developing a process for formally elevating issues, and she will include Seuntjens as part of the process. There needs to be one systemic method of elevating the issues since some issues may cross over to both W&I and SB/SE. Seuntjens would also like to know how IRS will keep TAP informed of the status of the issues as part of the process. Sottile stated that she as part of Stakeholder, Partnership, Education and Communication (SPEC) was very interested in knowing the grassroots issues that TAP will be elevating, and to find out what the issues are and how TAP defines the issue. Seuntjens added that TAP also needs to know the criteria that W&I and SB/SE are looking for and Temple replied that will be part of the conversation and that the conversation should take place in the next 30 days. Temple said what we can't have happen is to send issue up and then not having someone defined in the organization to address.

ACTION: Temple will deliver a process and format for elevating issues in 30 days, June 2, 2003.

Sharon Lassar asked if there was some sort of incentive for program owners to show successes by working with TAP. Lassar asked the question because her issue, Multilingual Initiative, has been redefined. Lassar is perfectly happy working with the program owner, but wanted to be reassured that committee was now working on the issue as IRS intended. Temple asked if Lassar was referring to Multilingual. Lassar replied that this issue crosses all committees since E-filing is also to be redefined. Lassar wants to know that the issue redefinition is okay at Sottile and Chesman's level and is what IRS needs. Sottile replied that she was in constant contact with program owners and chairs, and the whole purpose of the partnership is to be collaborative. Chair should be getting feedback. The purpose is to form an outside partnership. Sottile replied that W&I is formulating this partnership and may have decided the definition needed to be narrowed. Seuntjens interjected that the Joint Committee should know if there is a redefinition. This information is needed prior to October; TAP will ask program owners to present issues and provide members opportunity to select another issue committee.

ACTION: W&I and SB/SE need update definition of issues for presentation prior to October 2003.

Morgan stated, as a student of bureaucracy, what I heard said of how you handle this process of certification of preparers or EITC. Morgan understands what IRS wanted to do by keeping in small circle and, as a citizen panel, we didn't need to know. It would have been better had the IRS brought the issue to the panel in a broader format not revealing the embargoed information. The IRS would not have to place limitations on how the group handled the information and the subject could have been approached with ease. The group could formulate suggestions that could have an affect on the decision. Handelman thought the issue committee is supposed to give feedback to the IRS while the areas go out and get ideas. But now issue committees are doing more of what the area committees are supposed to be doing and this leads to my confusion on what exactly is the role of the issue committee. Sottile restated she was at the meeting not only to share what is being done, but is also interested in feedback on what's working. Kinney stated that each committee's program owner develops the focus of the committee differently. The Payroll committee has a subcommittee that is surveying others because she wants much broader input. The Multilingual Committee is also surveying outside of the committee. Handelman stated it was her belief that issue committees should be using expertise of members and not gather issues from the community and the distinction in the role of the area and issue committees is being blurred. Kinney replied that the difference is the issue committee is focused on one issue. Burgos commented that at orientation, he was humbled by the people around him; he was surrounded by success and knowledge. He would personally take offense to be asked to do a survey when the IRS people are already doing the same thing at the same place. The program owners bring an issue and ask for feedback. The feedback is even better when you are told why it is wanted. Burgos is experienced in working with volunteers and believes it is bad to set up expectations for the volunteers, and to tell them there is a process when there isn't one. So maybe TAP should be suspended until there is a process in place. Seuntjens added that TAP has been here for 7 months and we are still waiting for issue flow clarification and an elevation process and wondered what does success look like? What are the expectations? This morning, we heard from Nina Olson that previously the Citizen Advocacy Panel (CAP) was not successful and we don't want to hear that about our panel. The volunteers need to start hearing that their issues will be recognized. Who is going to hear TAP issues? Chesman stated the word is "impact." Burden Reduction has an evaluation process--is it something the commissioner can do by changing a form, procedure, or policy,? What will be the impact? It was Chesman's belief in taking this job that he would have impact and it was part of his criteria for taking the job. It is hard to get things done in a bureaucracy but you have to keep slugging. Chesman is not suggesting it's working perfectly. We will get the process for TAP and the criteria we use in the Office of Taxpayer Burden Reduction--what will have greatest impact given IRS limited resources and what has a real chance of getting to fruition. Seuntjens added that impact is important, and as volunteers we feel obligated to have impact and feel if we fail, we fail twice--to taxpayers and to our fellow members.

ACTION: Chesman will provide criteria used in Burden Reduction to TAP.

Mid Year Assessment Report on Individual Committees

Seuntjens stated the objective of the assessment reports is to determine a format sufficient for the Joint Committee to do the annual report.

Ad Hoc Committee - Chris Lowe
In October, the Ad Hoc Committee was given the primary responsibility of certification of preparers issue and a few months later, was taken totally by surprise that IRS has already taken a position. The focus of the committee changed and the committee decided to survey the public to find out if this issue is quantifiable. We now had an opportunity to validate Olson's position as laid out in the Report to Congress. Ad Hoc devised a poll to run in the USA today and the committee has been waiting for an okay from Olson on the survey, which appears we will not be authorized to do so. Next, Ad Hoc developed a survey to email to entire panel. Ad Hoc will synthesize that information and determine if this panel, more importantly a panel with a nation-wide scope, supports the cause of certification of tax preparers. Ad Hoc has had a similar roller coaster ride with the developing a marketing strategy for TAP. Ad Hoc solicited a contractor on a pro bono basis to develop strategy so general public has knowledge of what TAP does. The committee wanted to tie in the marketing with April l5 because of the heightened awareness of taxes. The marketing campaign was to be the apex of the face-to-face meeting in Saint Louis, but we got a message to hold from staff. Committee was told all public relations messages coming out had to be polished and scrubbed and it was job of IRS to do the marketing campaign. And now we hear the subject of financial literacy is really hot. Once bitten, twice shy! Ad Hoc could make a strong case for financial literacy. But, he is nervous about bringing this issue to his committee because at some point it may become a political hot potato and our good work is tossed out again. Lowe stated the frustration expressed is primarily from the chair's point of view. Lowe understand the issues are highly political but is concerned issues are tossed out if they challenge establishment or go in a different direction. One concern is that we report directly to NTA more accurately someone on her staff but our initial charter is to Secretary of Treasury as well as to commissioner and the NTA. Lowe knows the concept of the Ad Hoc committee is very new and concept of using Ad Hoc and Joint Committee is still being worked out but the point is we have had two issues handed to us and then just as soon we get our teeth into it, the issue pulled out. Steinberg suggested that Ad Hoc present this as additional rationale for Nina Olson to support her position. Lowe stated that Ad Hoc, in short order, shifted gears but until the issue is developed they couldn't promise Olson that the information would support her position. Lowe does anticipate that will be true but we can't taint the information.

Seuntjens stated that as far as the marketing strategy he was not informed that it was now "hands off" and that he was the one who passed off the assignment to Ad Hoc. He didn't understand the objection since they were not implementing the plan but merely putting together some thoughts. Seuntjens stated he did not understand why IRS would not want the input. Lowe when you cross the line and start talking about strategizing your approach to the media that's when red flags start going up. But, we were trying to develop or at least brainstorm a strategy for TAP members to do interviews for national press around April 15 activities to let people know TAP exists and wants input. Seuntjens asked if everything was shut down or could you still work on part so we can better market on who we are. Lowe replied that there was some discomfort and Temple can speak to this, when we wanted to go to someone who was willing to do pro bono work. Temple replied that she is still tying to address the issue and putting staff together hasn't allowed her to get to the marketing issue to determine the appropriate level of involvement for TAP to develop a strategic communication strategy both internal and external. Temple will not have spare time until June. My concern is that developing the internal strategy would take focus off issues and not that we didn't want input. But on adding more of a burden and adding more things when we aren't ready to go forward. Seuntjens replied that last October, TAP heard that it could develop their own news releases to make sure the panel is as effective as possible, to gather grassroots perspective and we still need to put together some type of strategy to let people know who we are and try to maximize this panel's efforts. Seuntjens still believes Ad Hoc should address the marketing strategy and not drop. Steinberg also asked if it is a matter of public relations that caused the red flags. Temple replied we are only talking about how to market TAP so people know you're there. Because the issue that Lowe brought up is this in realm of public relations. Seuntjens stated that news releases and other media coverage have been done by individuals and different committees but there is no overall strategy. Temple stated that the strategic plan on appropriate TAP involvement will be worked on in June.

ACTION: Temple will develop a strategic plan on appropriate TAP involvement for developing marketing strategy and present to Joint Committee in June.

Burgos pointed out two things to Temple from a volunteer perspective -my volunteers let tell me when I am overtaxing them. As a volunteer, I will let you know when I've had enough and ask you not to make the decision, and a second point we were told in no uncertain terms last October that we have the freedom to go out to do any type of press release or any other media contact. Burgos believes TAP staff and Temple supports us and we weren't appointed by TAP staff. And, Burgos is really uncomfortable hearing Lowe say his desire to speak to someone was shut down. Temple said we were talking about two different things she is talking about the strategic marketing not individual news releases. A strategic plan to built into the business plan where we define TAP and what it will look like, and no one as far as every day meetings, no one has said people could not go out to media and building relationships within your community. Burgos pointed out that TAP is a national panel and asked if he wanted to go out to a nation-wide media power as a group, could he? Temple replied that they could. Burgos replied that if that was true, he had no issue. Temple pointed out that every business unit has a strategic plan. Burgos replied that TAP is not a strategic business unit of the IRS and that is the value of TAP. As a group, TAP empowers you not the other way. If it is the opposite way and you run us, we are dis-empowered. Woo expressed confusion on why the Ad Hoc committee had to request approval to approach USA Today from the NTA but was told that they could not do because it needed approval. Seuntjens told Lowe to continue to develop the marketing plan on the Ad Hoc agenda while waiting for clarification from Temple. Marketing department said one thing at orientation and Temple's received another message, we need clarification.

ACTION: Temple will clarify the policy on news release for the Joint Committee by May 20, 2003 conference call.

Lowe's last question is at what point we received the notification to have mid-year assessment. He was not aware and did not have a written report available. Seuntjens stated it was mentioned during previous conference calls and if was not stressed enough he apologized for that.

W & I Notices - C. Morgan Edwards
The chair of the notice committee, Phil Bryant, prepared the report and asked Edwards to cover two things; the notices themselves, and what committee has done. The committee has held monthly teleconferences and had one face-to-face in Austin. In addition, two members attended working sessions with IRS staff for the prioritizing of notices to be updated. One question raised is how much committee can participate in this process or whether it's an internal process. There are some concerns about the process for changing a notice or letter. It is like moving an elephant--a major chore. So, the committee is looking at notices that might change within 3 years and is subject to prioritization, which may push it farther down the pipe. The committee looks at the primary notice and attached messages. The committee reviewed the notice on Social Security Number (SSN) matching. One part of the notice covers the SSN not matching the one in the system, and the other a marketing message about when can you expect your refund if you efile. If I receive that message, I could care less about my SSN being wrong. I want to know how quickly I can get my refund. IRS has a whole passel of people to tell you what the notice means; it is notice resolution via telephone or in person. Another concern is some of the people in notice resolution do not have access to information they are responding to, and the computerized system that generates a notice is like a catalog shopping list. Employees plug in paragraphs so and end up with a two or three page notice that confuses the taxpayer. Notices is a complex issue, and the process to make change to the notices is even more complicated. Seuntjens added that the problem is too complex, but the program owner is doing good job of breaking it into friendly bits. After we go through a notice, we make suggested changes we want and the owner receptivity has been very good. Seuntjens believes part of the problem is calling the notices, notices. To him, a notice is more of a legal document or notification, and that IRS should be treating these more as communication documents rather than legal notices.

W & I EITC Committee-Gwen Handelman
Handelman started by saying everyone now has a pretty good idea of what has been happening in EITC. The reason I wanted to follow notices is that she would like both committees to agree that the EITC committee would continue to work on the rewording of EITC notices. The EITC notices have an exceptionally high no response rate. Because of the high rate it is hard to know the correct number of overclaims because so many are marked as no response to the audit notice. Our committee was asked to provide comment on forms under revision. Only one of our suggestions was incorporated into the revision but we have hope for the future. Our disappointment is the committee feels there is a lack of direction and communication on what we should be doing. About 25% of persons eligible for the EITC don't file to claim the credit and about same percentage are erroneous claims. The committee requested feedback from practitioners on the content and use of EITC checklist. Preparers complete 23% of the erroneous claims. Preparers complete the Form 8867, which are not submitted with the return but kept incase of preparer audit. Handelman requested comments about content and use of Form 8867 from preparers on panel in writing. Fish joined this committee for one reason - for fraud and the Earned Income Credit. Fish would like to see a stop to a husband and wife both filing head-of-household and claiming the credit. Nothing we have done in this committee is addressing preparer fraud. Handelman is working on that point. Chesman asked a question on Form 941 there is a line for employer to claim credit for advanced EITC. Has your committee addressed that issue? Handelman replied that's in the parking lot and is not a priority issue for our committee. Chesman replied that SB/SE is redesigning the form 941 and I would be interested in feedback on that issue.

ACTION: Toy will send out email to all members identified as practitioners requesting comments on the content and use of Form 8867, Paid Preparers Earned Income Credit Checklist.

Area 2 - David Meyer, Deputy Chair, for Mary Balmer
(David Meyer stopped in to say hello, not aware that Mary Balmer couldn't attend at last moment and graciously presented the Area 2 report.) Area 2 has been doing significant outreach programs--attending VITA meetings, visiting various institutes, and also doing other outreach activities by email. Mary Balmer promoted a Webinar though her company and received some suggestions. Had our first face-to-face in early March, which in addition to getting to meet each other, and was a valuable meeting. The meeting was well attended. The committee could have done a better job of prioritizing issues; some were too taxpayer specific, and others beyond scope of everyone's knowledge. Area 2 will continue to do outreaches and start prioritizing issues and get better at addressing those with higher priority. We will establish working sub committees on:

• Form 1041, U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates & Trusts, instructions are very difficult to follow.
• EFTPS
• IRS telephone system - improve instructions for phone prompts, inconsistent answers, improve training, long hold times. This has been problem for long time and best we can do is just make this a continuous issue
• Direct debit Installment Agreement - received comment that those using direct debit to pay the installment agreement are not receiving a monthly statement of account and our proposal will be that IRS provide that monthly summary

ACTION: Toy send format for self-assessment report to Mary Balmer and David Meyer.

Multilingual Initiative (MLI)-Sharon Lassar
Lassar said MLI has gone through process of defining their mission and just recently had a face-to-face meeting. Financial literacy is a part of MLI and includes: education about our tax system, information on English as Second Language (ESL), which is free of charge and open to any one, and lessons on how to get a flu shot. Committee found an ESL teacher in St. Louis that would help develop a continuing education program that teaches people to file tax returns. MLI is looking to set up pilot system with someone in St. Louis. If it works, it will be rolled out nation-wide. Another issue involves the executive order for translating vital documents. The discussion on what documents should be translated and what is necessary for legal translation are interesting discussions. Taylor asked if the committee is working with other agencies that have already translated forms, because California has a lot of those agencies. Lassar replied that they are surveying other public agencies for their input. The CAP in Brooklyn had initiated kiosks for multilingual. The kiosks provide basic information on how to file, where to file, and things of that nature in more than one language. Steinberg replied that the kiosks are still installed.

Schedule C Non-filer - Paul Nagel
Nagel reported that small business filers, self-employed sole proprietors, and non-corporate entities, have different filing requirements than W-2 filers. Filing is required if self-employment income is in excess of $400; this creates a burden for taxpayers. Non-corporate identities doing service work get Form 1099 Miscellaneous if payment exceeds $600 a year. Inconsistency with those numbers and to get social security credit for 2003, the minimum is $890 (this amount is inflation adjusted) is one cause of the non-filing problem. The issue committee is making a recommendation for all three numbers to be the same. The SB/SE Schedule C committee relieves the time commitment problem by holding subcommittee conferences where most of work is already done, and only having full committee conferences to report to the full committee. Another related issue is estimated tax; the rate for self-employment tax, 15.3 %, is higher than the tax bill for most people. And, when the preparer hands them the tax return with the amount owing because no estimated tax is paid, do they file it? The preparer does not know. The payment of the extra tax is burdensome for many people, so is there another way to encourage and educate about estimated tax payments? Another cause of non-filing is that people avoid the Form 1099 by asking for payment of $599 or asking for a cash payment, so education is another subcommittee. Steinberg added that pointing out advantages of reporting all income is part of education and outreach. Now taxpayers can have their own individual 401k plan to shelter income. Closing the gap in filing requirement and social security might help. TIGTA reported that objections to the recommendation to close the gap between the filing requirement and social security were from the Social Security Administration, not the IRS. It's really an issue of money. Chesman interjected that the IRS supported the recommendation to close the gap in its written response to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), but the objection to changing the law is from the Social Security Administration. Handelman suggested another carrot--education on the benefit for low-income earners eligible to claim EITC. Handelman raised the issue if the committee had considered another reason for non-filing-the misclassification of independent contractors vs. employees issue. Nagel replied that the program owner stated that was not the focus of this issue committee. Chesman added that SB/SE and Burden Reduction were the main sponsors of an effort to improve the system for measuring taxpayer burden. The old system is very static and truly does not measure burden. It takes it account number of lines on forms but not how many lines are skipped. The new system is more elastic and a good model. It doesn't focus on number of lines, but different kinds of taxpayers and their burden and what if situations. The IRS accounts for about 80% of the burden on individuals. What this new methodology came out with is that the burden for W-2 individuals remained about the same, but about doubled for self-employed; nothing changed except the measurement. So not only do self-employed have additional burden, this group of taxpayers also have more fraud. Any time we focus on self-employed and reduce burden, IRS reduces tax burden overall.

SB/SE E-File Committee - Mario Burgos
Burgos reported that their issues are more systemic. The largest question is the marketing problem. SBSE constitutes only 7% of eligible taxpayers file electronically. How do we increase this? Burgos questioned whether it was really an issue of marketing since most preparers are aware they can file electronically. The IRS is doing a fantastic job of educating the public. Our first task was to look at the marketing materials and web site. The committee looked at materials and provided some suggestions. They are basically great materials. Another subcommittee, E-file for Dummies, is doing a tremendous job working with the program owner who provided a technical writer to work with this committee. The marketing subcommittee surveyed preparers and the responses were very telling and matched what IRS marketing program already knew. The committee did a good job and reached about 1,000 to 2,000 people in a short amount of time. The committee has discovered reasons why it is not happening and is questioning whether the committee is still necessary. Burgos is eagerly awaiting the results of the conference call and what the direction of the committee will be for the next six months. Chesman stated that in his opinion much of what IRS had done for e-filing is advertising not marketing. It is not creating demand for a product. It's like selling life insurance to the young and healthy. People have reluctance to let IRS have this information electronically, but there is no doubt in my mind that this can be overcome. Burgos said this leads nicely to our face-to-face in June in Atlanta. Originally, we planned to hold the face-to-face in conjunction with the Tax Forum but changed to June on Kinney's advice. Steinberg raised the issue of the cost of e-filing individual returns and problems encountered using commercial software. Burgos stated that free filing actually has more to do with W&I. From Burgos' survey, he found out that cost was not really an issue to high-end preparers. Steinberg stated another problem with e-filing is not being able to file electronically if you need to do manual overrides using certain software. Kinney stated that IRS provides specifications for tax preparation and transmitting software, but the software companies add their own features. Chesman stated the demand for a change in software has to come from its main customers, the preparers.

Self-Assessment Forms
Seuntjens asked members to complete a separate self-assessment form for each day of the meeting.

Approval of April Teleconference Minutes
Postponed until May 20, 2003 teleconference.

Term of TAP Appointments
Seuntjens proposed changing the term of TAP appointment to start staggered terms so that the entire the membership would not turnover in same year. His proposal: At the end of the second year of this current term, one third of the panel members volunteer to stay on one more year. One half (one-third of the whole panel) of the new members will need to sign up for a three-year term. That way only a third of the membership will turn over every year, so the panel will not lose effectiveness. This makes the transition period much easier and shorter. Steinberg believes the plan is great for TAP, but asked if there was any thought of continuity in the program owners. Sottile and Chesman replied that the intention is to keep personnel as consistent as possible. Handelman inquired about filing vacancies. The reply was that's an ongoing issue and Temple needed to develop a process. As far as filling vacancies, Temple knows there are some alternates that can fill them, but needs to have Treasury make final approval. Consensus was reached on forwarding the proposal about the one-third turnover and having the system in place by October so the recruitment process can start.

May 3, 2003
Washington, D.C.

Members Present:

• Mario Burgos, E-filing
• Justin Doucette, Area 6
• C. Morgan Edwards, Notices
• Walter Fish, Area 1
• Robin Gausebeck, Area 4
• Gwen Handelman, Earned Income Tax Credit
• Ed Hanna, Area 3
• Sharon Lassar, Multilingual
• Chris Lowe, Ad Hoc
• 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:

• Martha Curry, Program Analyst
• Patti Robb, Note Taker
• Barbara Toy, Program Analyst
• Sandy McQuin, Program Manager
• Patti Robb, Note Taker

Members Not in Attendance:

• Mary Balmer, Area 2

Transmittal of Documents and Email Communications
Due to volume of email, TAP staff should be consistent in labeling email as either ACTION or INFO as appropriate. For Joint Committee, any documents over 12 pages should be posted to TAP Speak and a hard copy mailed out to members. All attachments should be in Word, Excel, or a format compatible to Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat.

ACTION: All TAP members should adopt the use of the "Action" or "Info" labels for their email subject line.

ACTION: All Joint Committee documents over 12 pages should be posted to TAP Speak and a hard copy mailed to members. All electronic documents should be compatible with Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat.

TAPSpeak Discussion
Joint Committee members discussed TAPSpeak and whether it would complicate matters by adding extra steps and would prefer everything on email. Others felt emails were an intrusion and would prefer checking TAPSpeak. It was agreed that both sides would be helped if a link feature back to the item was added to the email notification so members can easily located the items without looking through all of TAPSpeak. It was agreed to slowly incorporate the use of TAPSpeak by starting with posting the following: agendas, calendars, draft minutes, final minutes, and the monthly summary reports. It was also suggested to add links to forms and publication sites so all information is reachable through one site. The discussion turned to training the remainder of the TAP members in using TAPSpeak. It was agreed that the Area chairs in conjunction with the analyst will bring the training to their area committee members.

ACTION: Staff will request LMI to add a link feature back to the item on email notifications and to make the calendar available in word format for those members who prefer a printed version.

ACTION: Area Chairs in conjunction with the analyst will bring the TAPSpeak training to their area committee members.

Mid Year Assessment Report on Individual Committees

Area 1-Walter Fish
Area 1 has 3 subcommittees. One for phase-outs which identified 20 or 30 areas with income phase outs and the only one linked to inflation is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Another committee is looking at the 9\11 grants--some to individuals are exempt, some not; grants to corporations are taxable. The committee is looking at equity as well as education. Fish requested more IRS support on outreach. Some members are getting a lot of contacts, others not getting enough outreach. Seuntjens said that the Local Taxpayer Advocate (LTA) should have contacted each panel member. Chairs should check back with their members and if it hasn't happened, contact staff. Temple reminded the panel members that the LTAs were asked to share their outreach plans, but that the program manager for their area is responsible or finding other outreach opportunities. Also, it doesn't mean members need to attend every outreach but just so members are aware of them.

SBSE Payroll Tax Committee--Leonard Steinberg
Margie Kinney is the program owner for this issue committee. Our issue is the confusion caused by different filing requirements that leads to non-filing or errors in filing. The committee is looking at small businesses and self-employed, not payroll services. The subcommittees are: Federal and state combined reporting, and deposits. Deposit subcommittee has two issues, incentives for using e-file and practitioner signatures on returns. The Third subcommittee is surveying business owners and professionals about reporting payroll taxes. On the reporting side, working on linking states that have filing requirements and the federal. Assessment: two of the sub committees are doing outstanding work. The other should improve over the next six months (Fed/State). The issue is much larger than we thought and we have had communication problems. It is a large problem; each state has different reporting systems and it is difficult to synchronize of the individual states. Nagel asked if the committee considered the problem of classification of employees vs. independent contractor. Steinberg replied that committee is addressing only employment taxes. Hanna asked if it was determined how to deal with the privacy issue with the various states. Steinberg stated that privacy issue has not been brought up and he would pass on to committee. Part of the problem with combined reporting is the format; the states and federal government require different information and different formats.

Area 3 - Ed Hanna
All committee members are participating except for some who said issues are too technical. The committee is trying to cut issues into bite-sized items, which help. Area 3 has monthly meetings and subcommittees have more communication in between. To shorten conference calls, we ask the sub-committees to submit information to everyone before the meeting so the issue can be covered in the few minutes allotted.

Area 4-Robin Gausebeck
Gausebeck highlighted a couple of things from the report. One ties into yesterday's discussion, What's on Tap, a monthly column for practitioners' newsletters. The column covers what issues TAP is working on and contact name. Area 4 has an issue to elevate and others under consideration. One is the fact that people over 65 can not use TeleFile because of the difference in the amount of the standard deduction. In addition, and this ties in with Arlene Kay's mention of notices where the Social Security Number (SSN) could be seen; refund check envelopes. The window on the envelope is large enough that you can lift a corner and see the SSN. Area 4 is also looking at improvements to the W4 Form worksheets to help people more accurately determine number of withholding allowances. Sharon Lassar and Justin Doucette stated their committees were working similar withholding issues and Doucette wondered if issue matrix was working as intended.

ACTION: Areas 3, 4, and 6 should take another look at withholding issue and determine which area should take lead on issue.

ACTION: All chairs should recheck issue matrix for accuracy and look again for duplication of issues.

Area 5 - Lillian Woo
Lillian Woo used the self-assessment format. Area 5's DFO and analyst provide extraordinary support. Area 5 members are able to reach consensus easily and work well together. Area 5 contact with their local taxpayer advocates has been cordial but now we have so many outreach opportunities, we must turn some down. As far as disappointments, we can now remove the number one disappointment, (demand on member's time) since Area 5 decided to address only two issues at a time. For the second disappointment (not having same level of experience and skill in group dynamics and problem solving), members have rallied and combining skills and experiences now work together. Area 5 has found that building dynamics and problem solving skills has worked best in subcommittees. Steinberg interjected that it appears best practices have evolved in each committee while dealing with some of these difficulties and asked for best practices be put together and disseminated so they could be raised for discussion on other committees. Seuntjens replied that part of value of mid-year assessments is that chairs read, make notes, and try to implement some of these best practices.

ACTION: Toy will review monthly committee reports and mid-year assessments and consolidate best practices for discussion.

Area 6 - Justin Doucette
Area 6 is going along swimmingly with very efficient administrative procedures. Doucette personally liked Area 4's format for the mid-year assessment and suggested the possible inclusion in the annual report of an analysis of cooperation with IRS personnel, not tap staff. This speaks to; are we a joke? And if TAP is not to be taken seriously, maybe TAP should go away. Some IRS contacts personalize problems and become defensive; some contacts automatically say, no, we can't do that, instead of looking for how can they say yes. The TAP staff has done a stellar job of pushing back. When a commitment is made, it should be honored. The Taxpayer Advocate level of commitment is not there at all levels. Staff has been terrific but if you look through minutes and not all commitments are being met. Again I question what we are all doing here.

Area 7-Charles Taylor
Taylor reported that TAP staff support is tremendous and he commended the analyst, Mary Peterson's, support. Area 7 has 3 subcommittees: Marketing and Outreach, Budget Allocations, and Financial Literacy. The subject of Financial Literacy is topical right now in Orange County and there is Financial Literacy forum planned. Area 7 held a face-to-face meeting in Fresno; the media specialist in our area did a great job of getting us publicity. Area 7 is moving forward and will be more productive by take ideas from this meeting. Nagel noted that every area has a marketing or outreach committee and he wondered if it should be coordinated by Ad Hoc. Seuntjens replies that this is one of our jobs and each area has a different personality so having local marketing plan is good. Seuntjens reminded Taylor to work with Ad Hoc on financial literacy. Burgos volunteered to help out on this issue with Ad Hoc. Steinberg wondered if we have a definition of financial literacy. Deryle Temple stated we would find out. Seuntjens stated the issue is so massive there has to be one. Handelman stated that Treasury is also working a financial literacy aspect and has a program for low-income people to set up bank accounts. The EITC committee is interested in expanding that program to encourage direct deposits and movement away from refund anticipation loans. Edwards stated it would also stop the check-cashing gouge on refund checks. Seuntjens stated that Ad Hoc should pursue financial literacy issue with the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) and to keep Burgos and Area 7 involved as well.

ACTION: Temple will check to see what information the Taxpayer Advocacy Service already has on Financial Literacy and forward the information to Ad Hoc.

Format of annual report
Seuntjens stated the point of the chairs presenting the mid-year assessments was to help decide what data should be included in the annual report due in October. The formats should be consistent of each committee, but should be what works best for all chairs. Hanna's narrative is informative. Woo used the self-assessment form. Handelman used a revised version of the original format because the original was more appropriate for an area rather than issue committee. Fish suggested two reports--one for area and one for issue. Chris Lowe preferred Handelman's format. Steinberg asked whom the report went to besides the NTA. Lowe replied that the charter very clearly states the report goes to NTA, Treasury Secretary, and the IRS Commissioner. Steinberg suggested an outline or preview to grabs their attention. Seuntjens stated Handelman's report is inclusive. Doucette asked if we will be including issues in our annual report? Seuntjens replied yes, a brief synopsis. Doucette liked Handelman's format but not the overall grading. Steinberg asked in area of accomplishments, will they be broken out by area, issue, or put together? Seuntjens replied it was something that needed to be discussed, not necessary prior to October maybe November. Handelman did not believe ranking needed to be included but it was useful for me to understand how well my committee was proceeding. Seuntjens stated that self-assessments are amazingly honest and therefore good exercise but we don't need to pass on. Doucette wanted to take a step back on grading. My grading would be in levels;

• Committee Overall Grade 7
• Staff Support 10
• IRS Cooperation 2
• Chair 5

The point is overall grade is 6, but results or impact is different if we do grading at different levels. Seuntjens said we don't need grading but we do need to know your challenges and disappointments. Hanna suggests in lieu of numbers for grading, use narrative, it can be bulleted. There was a suggestion to change the disappointments category to "disappointments/challenges." Seuntjens suggested chairs do the grading but not necessarily include it in the report. Steinberg asked if there will be a personal presentation of the report. Lowe and Seuntjens replied that agreed it would be a good idea and will try for presentation. Seuntjens would like to have committees' final drafts for the annual report by the October all-panel member meeting. That gives Seuntjens two months to consolidate the TAP annual report. Seuntjens asked for consensus on using Handelman's format. It will be used for annual report and is due October 15, or by date of October meeting, whichever is earlier. The format doesn't have to be finalized at this meeting but chairs should start thinking about the different formats and what works best. Consensus not reached on format but agreed to due date.

ACTION: Toy will attach Handelman's format excluding information to minutes.

ACTION: Starting with attached self-assessment format send suggestions to change format to Seuntjens.

Administrative Issues

Definitions for TAP Issue Flow and Operating Procedures
Seuntjens stated issue flow matrix is part of issue flow and should be included in Definitions for TAP Issue Flow. Joint Committee did not take meeting time to discuss document and any questions regarding the document should be addressed to Toy.

Consensus reached on accepting Definitions for TAP Issue Flow.

Operating Procedures

ACTION: Chairs should take another look at the revised operating procedures with their respective committees.

Form 8867, EITC Checklist
Handelman's committee would like to have comments on the Form 8867, EITC Checklist from practitioner members.

ACTION: Handelman will forward email requesting comments on the Form 8867 to Toy.

ACTION: Toy will email request for comments to all members designated as tax practitioners.

Tax Forums
Deryle Temple reminded chairs to get names for members to attend the tax forums to the program managers. Due to budgetary constraints that limit travel, two members can attend each forum.

Filling Vacancies
As far as recruitment efforts and filling vacancies, there is already a process in place. Depending on where the vacancy is, TAP may have to recruit. Temple will work with chairs and manager in that area for recruitment and interview process. There are some application packages already on hand and Temple needs to ask Treasury if the existing packages can be used. Steinberg asked with issue committees being geographically dispersed, when someone leaves an issue committee, will the replacement also go into that issue committee? Toy replied that for the one vacancy filled, staff provided the alternate with the issue committee selection package but did let the alternate know where the issue committee vacancy was and strongly suggested the alternate consider choosing that issue committee. Nagel asked if the panel makes the final decision on member selection. Temple replied that Treasury does but we would ask for input from the area chair because the chair can indicate some of the needs to the group. There was discussion if panel members' choice would be equal to IRS' and Edwards stated that the choice is at the discretion of the Secretary of Treasury and not a matter of voting. Steinberg questioned whether the imbalance in members would be corrected. For example, New Jersey has two members and North Carolina has three. The imbalances occurred because of the panel members chosen under the prior Citizen Advocacy design and would be corrected as terms ended or vacancies occurred.

ACTION: Add note to prior action item: Toy should write proposal about panel member transitional terms and forward to Temple to take to Treasury.

At this time, Carolyn Lewis who is newly selected DFO for Area 3 stopped in briefly to meet the Area 3 members.

Prioritization of Issues
Seuntjens stated that now we have completed some of the administrative items that were on the agenda, which needed to be done to get the process moving. The previous CAP was organized differently so these processes needed to be set in place. The Joint Committee can now start moving the issues. Panel members, the experienced and non-experienced, the professionals and non--professionals and the diversity of members in the area committees is starting to work well and this takes time. Seuntjens is impressed that the area committees are starting to move issues forward. Second year should be better because we do not have the startup phase. The issue committees are also starting to work better with members and the IRS Program Owners to define the issue so committee can be more productive. Chairs of issue committees need to insure that Program Owners are responsive to their input.

For consensus on each issue we need thumbs up or down or sideways to test for consensus and forward each issue.

Preparer Record Keeping TAP 001-03

There was discussion about the choice of the original wording would suggest keeping an electronic version of the actual form, or printable version, or just the data and ability to replicate the return. The purposes of commenting on the proposed regulations is that the temporary regulations isn't specific on whether or not you need to keep paper products but does not actually say electronic storage is acceptable even though the preamble says that's the intent. Seuntjens questioned how critical is it if the proposal isn't specific about storage of data or form. Steinberg replied that if the practitioner prepares a significant number of returns, data takes up less storage space. Gausebeck thought the critical part was data storage so preparer has ability to recreate the return as needed and suggested adding a sentence to that effect. Doucette stated the proposal worded as electronic storage would encompasses all current formats plus any that may be developed. Doucette was also concerned that the wording did not suggest printable versions or the actual forms, because of the expense of maintaining the software for each of the tax years. After a long discussion, the wording was perfected and the Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating.

Seuntjens congratulated Area 3 on first proposal elevated by Joint Committee.

ACTION: Handelman will make revisions and forward to Toy for final format of Preparer Record Keeping TAP-001-03 and distribution.

Format and Tracking Proposals
Lowe suggested numbering each issue raised for tracking purposes i.e. short title no more than 4 or 5 words, then number TAP-001-03 (the 001 being the unique number of the proposal and the 03 for the year). The letter should be transferred to TAP stationery and contain TAP Chair's electronic signature. Copies should be sent to the National Taxpayer Advocate, Deryle Temple, and Michael Chesman. Numbered proposals should also be placed on the website and TAPSpeak. Lowe said the tracking number should also appear in the header of each subsequent page. Seuntjens suggested using pc for personal copy rather than cc.

Limitations on Income Tax Deductions on Capital Losses
Gausebeck, representing Area 4, recommended withdrawing the issue, Limitations on Income Tax Deductions on Capital Losses, as it is legislative and based on the Counsel opinion. Seuntjens replied that the Joint Committee needs to commend Abraham for all the personal efforts put into preparing this proposal. Gausebeck agreed to act as liaison for the committee in responding to Abraham. Burgos suggested sending the information to Olson per her invitation. There was discussion on whether the Joint Committee should act as a filter for determining if a legislative issue should be sent to Olson or not. It was decided that the invitation was not extend to TAP as a group so the issue will be returned to Area 4. Doucette suggested that the proposal should be numbered, logged in, and given consideration for inclusion in TAP annual report. It was suggested Abraham could bring to congressional representative but only as a private citizen and not as representative of TAP. Hanna reminded that issue was withdrawn so reaching consensus was not in Joint Committee purview.

Social Security Worksheet TAP-002-03
Gausebeck from Area 4 presented the Social Security Worksheet proposal. The social security worksheet in the instructions is visually confusing with the offset on line 1. While doing research for this proposal, committee member looked at the website version of the worksheet which has a different format and is not visually confusing. Basically, the recommendation is to make their worksheets consistent and use the format on the website. Taylor stated that the issue was not controversial and easy to implement. Seuntjens agreed and thought TAP could make impact with this suggestion but wondered how to address the letter. The letter should also acknowledge Dick Greenberg and Area 4 for the suggestion. Consensus reached on forwarding 13 thumbs up one sideways.

ACTION: Toy will reformat, Social Security Worksheet TAP-002-03 and elevate

Alternative Minimum Tax
Lillian Woo of Area 5 presented this proposal. Handelman stated that this issue was still on the NTA's active proposed legislation list. Woo stated the AMT sub committee is very passionate about this issue and track 28 bills that address AMT. The original purpose was to get AMT back on top priority list. Even though it wasn't dropped the committee will probably write minority report to be submitted to TAP or to NTA not espousing any particular legislation but their interest in the issue. If the issue is forwarded as a subcommittee of TAP, the Joint Committee will be copied.

Freefile
The Freefile proposal was submitted by Area 5. Steinberg suggested that there was a lot of cross issues in each of these recommendations and that each should be discussed separately. Woo agreed that the subcommittee has been getting input from other committees and the issues do cross committee lines. Lassar suggested picking one or two for this meeting and than addressing remainder at next Joint Committee meeting. Handelman suggested committee revisit issue in light of input from other committees. Seuntjens suggested sending back to committee. Woo suggested having members of the subcommittee on the Freefile alliance team would give them the opportunity to present their other proposals and this subcommittee will probably become an ongoing subcommittee for this issue. Seuntjens moved to accept and elevate the first proposal. Consensus reached on elevating the first proposal to include TAP members on the FreeFile process and performance review. With the implementation of this recommendation, the TAP team members would then be able to advocate for the for the other recommendations and improvements.

ACTION: Toy will reformat, FreeFile Alliance Team TAP- 003-03 and elevate the proposal to include TAP members in the FreeFile process and performance review.

ACTION: All committee members will forward all subsequent issues concerning FreeFile to Area 5.

PTIN for Child Care Providers
Justin Doucette of Area 6 is withdrawing this issue. He pers