Joint Committee Teleconference Minutes

May 20, 2003

Members Present:

• Mary Balmer, Area 2
• Phil Bryant, Notices
• Mario Burgos, E-filing
• Martha Curry, DFO
• Justin Doucette, Area 6
• Gwen Handelman, Earned Income Tax Credit
• Ed Hanna, Area 3
• Sharon Lassar, Multilingual
• Robert Meldman, Area 4
• Paul Nagel, Schedule C Non-filers
• Tom Seuntjens, TAP Chair
• Leonard Steinberg, Payroll Taxes
• Charles Taylor, Area 7
• Lillian Woo, Area 5

Members Absent:

• Walter Fish, Area 1

Others in attendance:

• Emily Roberts for Chris Lowe, Ad Hoc
• Nancy Feree, Program Manager
• Barbara Toy, Program Analyst
• Sandy McQuin, Program Manager
• David Meyer, Vice-chair Area 2
• Patti Robb, Note Taker

Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda

Quorum: 14 members present, quorum of 9 met

Review/Approve Minutes
Committee reached consensus on approving April 22, 2003 teleconference minutes.

Meeting Satisfaction Surveys
Seuntjens told chairs that If they are not already using the survey form, it would be a good idea to use for your own committee. Feedback is valuable and could improve the progress of your meetings. On our survey for our face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC, two areas had low scores. To Seuntjens, anything scoring below a 4 is unacceptable. One low score was in meeting pace. As leaders, we all have a lot of enthusiasm and desire to participate but that tends to make us stray and slacken the pace. In the future, Seuntjens will keep more in focus. Do not think him as rude if he interrupts, but remember he is trying to keep committee on focus and keep up the pace.

October Annual TAP Meeting
Seuntjens spoke to Nina Olson and it was always her intention to hold an annual meeting in October and she has requested that Henry Lamar, the Deputy National Taxpayer Advocate will locate the funds so we can have the annual meeting in October. It is still uncertain about the second Joint Committee face-to-face meeting but we need to set dates for October and no longer try to hook up with one of the tax forums. Seuntjens asked Martha Curry if she knew when the IRS Annual Business meeting was being held in October. Curry replied that there was no definite date nor was it certain a meeting would be held. Seuntjens stated we can readjust the dates when the meeting is scheduled but for now let's set a date for the October Annual meeting. Seuntjens proposed Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, October 8th, 9th and 10th and Saturday the 11th for committee meetings and asked for other thoughts. Nagel preferred staying with the original dates of October 2nd through 4th. Seuntjens had forgotten that date was tentatively set. Taylor also prefers the 2nd through 4th. Steinberg suggested starting Wednesday and going through Saturday and Lassar agreed. Balmer would be flexible for either date; Handelman had no preference and thought it more important to schedule in conjunction with IRS executive meeting and shouldn't that be part of our response to the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA)? The plan is to travel on Wednesday and have a full day on Thursday. Steinberg thinks full days for program owners and executives are needed. Seuntjens recapped that the first choice would be the 2nd through 4th and meeting would be three full days, second choice would be to tie in with executive meeting. Also, the meeting should be held in Washington, D.C.

Monthly Committee Reports Action Items

Committee on content and use of Form 8867 (preparer's checklist)
Handelman requested all committee chairs solicit feedback from the practitioners on their committees and thanked Barbara Toy for sending the request out to all practitioner panel members. Handelman has received only one response so chairs please mention to your committee members again. Steinberg has responses but they are verbal. Handelman asked if Steinberg would mind writing them up in an informal email and Steinberg agreed.

Orientation of TAP Members/Presentation of Issues
Nagel feels non-tax professionals don't speak up because they are uncomfortable about the topics and would like to have an orientation for non-tax professionals at the October meeting. Seuntjens stated we should consider adding training or a general overview of tax law and the IRS at orientation for non-practitioners. Steinberg suggested surveying entire panel for interest. Topics should include IRS terminology, procedures, and language. Seuntjens replied that this was a tall order and how much time would it take? IRS 101 could take quite a bit of time --a quarter of day.

Balmer asked what kind of basics are you thinking of--tax law? What could be done in two hours? Steinberg replied that they were considering things more like terminology or how Offers in Compromise work. Balmer thought this type of information should be clarified when you are working on an issue. Seuntjens added that it is the responsibility of the chairs or presenter to give a good background as you get into the issue. Before elevating the issue, everyone should be at same level of understanding to make sure there is true consensus. There is no way you can do real justice to any particular issue in the time that could be allotted at the annual meeting. Nagle spoke to non practitioners as to why they were so quiet during meetings and was told it was because they were not comfortable talking tax terms with tax professionals. Seuntjens replied that two to four hours of training will not take away the shyness or discomfort. Chairs need to keep encouraging them to ask questions, to get the information they need. Handelman added that we have to continue to remind nonprofessionals that their opinion is particularly valuable. We need their perspective, we, as tax professionals, have a certain amount of mind set and need that outside view. A survey is good idea to find out if members think their participation would be enhanced by a two-hour 101. And if they do, what subjects would they like to have covered? The Joint Committee could meet during this time frame and set up alternate training for other panel members. Seuntjens told Handelman that these are very good points and asked who for other thoughts on this? Steinberg asked what training IRS provided for their people? Meldman stated the little book that CCH sent out is as close as you can get to a summary form; the tax training session is a five semester course. Steinberg doesn't think the training should have that much depth. Meyer said in only a few hours you can do not more than scratch the surface; handing out materials as needed is a better idea. Burgos stated that from a non practitioner stand point, he has no interest in sitting through this training. When I don't feel informed about one particular topic, I get information from the web site, the Local Taxpayer Advocate, or TAP staff. But in all seriousness, it would be helpful to know what resources are available and how to get needed information.

ACTION: Toy get list of what types of forums and information is out there to Joint Committee.

Seuntjens added that our jobs as chairs is to keep encouraging, coaching, and educating everyone. At the same time, making sure some members aren't way out in front or way behind-bringing everyone together. Consensus reached on surveying members.

ACTION: Each Area Chair should do a simple survey of committee members; would you like additional orientation on IRS? What are the areas of interest?

Monthly Committee Reports Action Items
Committee members would like clarification of IRS' role with TAP and, TAP's overall direction as a result of the Joint Committee face-to-face meeting.

Seuntjens would prefer to wait until minutes are out and asked for clarification of the question. David Meyer answered that when he left the meeting, he was more confused with what we were supposed to be doing particularly with IRS deciding on the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) pre-certification before TAP input. Meyer's impression is that the IRS is really running this group and TAP has two purposes: 1) To assist IRS with our expertise as practitioners and members of community, and 2) Bring forth grass roots issues. But, when he sat through the meeting, it seemed to him the Service was running the show. Thought we were independent. What is our continued role? Seuntjens replied that the IRS was pretty much the show on day one. But, if you were there on day two, the Joint Committee got back to the issues. Proposals come before the Joint Committee and we make recommendations to the IRS. It really hasn't had a chance to work yet. Mike Chesman and Sue Sottile will be our ears at the IRS. Handelman added that there is a misperception about the EITC issue committee. The committee was disappointed that the task force came up with their recommendation before we were consulted, and the committee is still working their issue. Meyer stated that there still seems to be some lingering confusion regarding EITC and certification of preparers. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is still active but there are some concerns on how effective we will be until we see feedback. Seuntjens asked Balmer and Meyer to call him to discuss issue further.

AMT
Lillian Woo stated she had nothing further on AMT at this time. The subcommittee needs to bring their report to Area 5 first. But, this issue since it is legislative will not come to the Joint Committee but directly to the NTA. What the subcommittee has done is track all AMT legislation. This issue is not a new position for either TAP or Taxpayer Advocate Service. Seuntjens added that it's still a priority issue. Woo will keep the Joint Committee apprised. Last week, there was a long article in the Wall Street Journal regarding the impact of AMT.

Certification of Practitioners
Steinberg attended the New Jersey Association of enrolled agents meeting and handed out surveys on the certification of non-professional practitioners. Level of anger and frustration out there among practitioners is very high. The National Association of Tax Professionals is also very hot under the collar about some practices of franchised and store-front preparers. People are not getting the type of services they are entitled to and combining this with EITC fraud, it really became raucous. They want something to be done and feel that the longer the IRS procrastinates, the worse the problem will get. It is a major issue for the State of New Jersey. Seuntjens thanked Steinberg for the update. We will forward to Lowe and Ad Hoc. Please send a copy to Handelman too.

Seuntjens, Olson, and Deryle Temple wanted to follow-up on survey regarding certification of preparers. Lowe, as chair of Ad Hoc, wanted to bring the issue back to the Joint Committee but since Ad Hoc is an issue committee and Olson is the owner, it was decided to forward the information directly to Olson but keep Joint Committee informed.

Capital Loss Limitation
Seuntjens said that at our face-to-face meeting, we talked about Jim Abraham's work on many different issues. Many were legislative, and because of the memo, we are not going to work these issues. Meldman sent Abraham's information to NTA on May 5, 2003 for her comments. Hopefully she will acknowledge. Seuntjens thanked Meldman for sending Jim Abraham's issue to Nina Olson.

ACTION: Curry will follow up with Temple to ensure Olson has received the Capital Loss Limitation Issue.

National Office Report
Seuntjens is still waiting for Temple's follow-up on the following issues and wants the Joint Committee to be aware of the issues:

1. Address selection/replacement of panel members so all states are represented.
2. Elevation of issue process. The Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating two issues to IRS. Toy was asked to format the issues and to elevate through Chesman and Sottile. Temple said she would work with Chesman and Sottile to develop best process. This process needs to be brought back to the Joint Committee and clarified so the Joint Committee can reach consensus on the process and elevate the issues.
3. Seuntjens is waiting for an internal report on National Office concerns and issues that Temple agreed to share with Lowe and himself.
4. According to charter and TAP Guidance Document, the TAP chair and vice chair have designated role as liaisons with other IRS advisory groups: ETAAC, (TE/GE)ACT, IRSAC, IRPAC. In addition the TAP Chair and Vice chair are the points of contact with the TAP staff, TAS, SB/SE, W&I, and other IRS Operating Divisions and Functions and Treasury to provide briefings on TAP activities, next steps, and action items. Seuntjens asked Temple for a copy of the charter last January and February. Seuntjens did attend one meeting with IRSAC, but thinks, Chris and him need more involvement, more interface, more executive focus, and an inroad to these people.
5. Marketing strategy. The Joint Committee heard from NTA that TAP needs a marketing strategy and the Ad Hoc Committee was asked to develop but Temple pulled it from Ad Hoc until she develops a strategic plan on appropriate TAP level of involvement for developing marketing strategy. Seuntjens believes Ad Hoc should continue to work the issue.
6. Regular scheduled conference calls were supposed to be set up with Temple, Chesman, Sottile, and Seuntjens; this has not been done.
7. Reconfirmation of issues committees. Some don't have as strong a focus and the question raised was do we have the right issues or should we refocus?

Seuntjens wanted the Joint Committee to hear that he has mentioned the above issues to Temple in the past and wants her to know that they are on the board. Seuntjens then asked if any of the chairs had other issues? Woo asked Temple about filling vacancies in TAP, some were never filled and we now have one or two other vacancies. Temple indicted she would get to it when she got to it. Where are we with this issue? Balmer received an email from a program manager stating there were no funds to reimburse for outreach activities. McQuin interjected that she would clarify but her understanding is that travel, other than local travel, has to be approved by Temple, not that there are no funds.

ACTION: McQuin will get clarification on travel funds for outreach activity.

Hanna is still trying to find out extent of third party check-box authority and Nagel added that committee would like official response from IRS. Toy stated that it is her understanding, but she has not been able to obtain written verification, that the check box third party authorization is not considered to grant the rights of a power of attorney. Therefore, the information is limited only to the information that was included or should have been included on the current year return. It is IRS' position that increasing the third party authorization to the power of attorney level would require legislation. IRS does not support changes to the legislation because of the disclosure and privacy issues it would raise.

ACTION: Toy will obtain Counsel advice on the third party check box authorization for the Joint Committee.

Mario Burgos has three issues for Temple:

1. Including links to document on TAPspeak in the notification emails. The request was forwarded to National Office and Burgos is waiting for Temple's decision. Mario won't use TAPspeak until he gets response.
2. At face-to-face, Margie Kinney gave a list of points to consider when elevating issues to Small Business/Self-Employed (SBSE).
3. As a Joint Committee member, Burgos is really disappointed that Temple will not be here as the Designated Federal Official. With Burgos's experience running a non-profit, he wouldn't have an executive committee meeting without being present. It's bothersome to him that Temple is not present, it sends the wrong message to him and across the board.

Seuntjens agreed that this was discouraging and Justin Doucette echoed Burgos' comments. Burgos added a positive note, that a conference call on e-filing to get direction and focus is scheduled. Seuntjens understands that Temple can't manage 14 groups, but she should be on this call. Meldman asked if this is not her function, what is her function? To Doucette, it seems the TAP panel is the most out of the loop about what is happening with the panel. Seuntjens agreed that Temple should keep us informed. Handelman said Temple attended both days of their EITC meeting and she is going to be doing a lot of traveling. Seuntjens agreed that Temple is active with EITC and has spent time with other committees. But there are open issues that need to be addressed. Handelman asked what he meant, do you mean that TAP is not being involved in reorganizing issue committees? It really wasn't contemplated that members would be involved because the issues arise from the IRS strategic plan. Other topics TAP wants to address should come though area committees. Seuntjens said that Handelman was correct in that view but there are issues out there that can be addressed. Although TAP might not be part of decision regarding the issues chosen, we can ask for the decision before October so members can be educated and select an issue during the October all TAP meeting.

Nagel asked how much input TAP has in selecting replacements and Seuntjens replied that we can give input if we sit in on new interviews. Seuntjens is trying to get answers so TAP can go forward.

Balmer brought up SAMS. Every issue that comes through from the areas should be researched in SAMS. So, if your analyst is not doing already, talk to your analyst.

Seuntjens stated that was good advice for avoiding duplication.

Burgos stated it is troubling that we are waiting for responses to ACTION items and would like to make a suggestion that action items become part of the agenda.

Seuntjens will keep track of the issues and bring them up if they are missed. All persons assigned an action item will report on the status at the meeting.

ACTION: Toy will add "Report on Action Items" to each agenda.

Seuntjens challenged the area committees to bring issues forward. Each area chair should address idea of having at least one or two more issues before the annual meeting. Now, is the time to start bringing issues to Joint Committee and would like to have them by September so they can be communicated to whole panel at October meeting.

Seuntjens asked for update on TAPSpeak. Toy trained the analysts and it is now up to the analysts and area chairs to bring to all panel members.

Meldman inquired about dealing with inactive participants. Seuntjens said the Joint Committee talked about this at the face-to-face. First, chairs should contact individual to find out why they are not participating. Talk to their other chair (issue/area). If both chairs agree it is a problem and can't resolve, they should bring the matter to Seuntjens. Seuntjens may decide to have the Joint Committee hold a vote to remove the member but the decision ultimately goes back to Treasury.

Meeting Adjourned.

Assignments:
Area Chairs

• Each Area Chair should do a simple survey of committee members; would you like additional orientation on IRS? What are the areas of interest?

Curry

• Follow up with Temple to ensure Olson has received the Capital Loss Limitation Issue

McQuin

• Get clarification on travel funds for outreach activity

Toy

• List of types of forums and information is out there to Joint Committee
• Obtain Counsel advice on the third party check box authorization for the Joint Committee
• Add "Report on Action Items" to each agenda.