Joint Committee Minutes

September 5-6, 2003
Hotel Teatro, Denver, CO

Members present:

• Mario Burgos, E-Filing
• Justin Doucette, Area 6
• C. Morgan Edwards for Phil Bryant, Notices
• Walter Fish, Area 1
• Gwen Handelman, EITC
• Ed Hanna, Area 3
• Cheyanna Jaffke , Area 7
• Sharon Lassar, Multilingual
• Bob Meldman, Area 4 and Ad Hoc
• Paul Nagel, Schedule C Non-Filers
• Tom Seuntjens, TAP Chair
• Leonard Steinberg, Payroll Taxes
• Lillian Woo, Area 5
• Sandy McQuin, Acting TAP Director

Members Not Present:

• Mary Balmer, Area 2
• Phil Bryant, Notices

Staff Present:

• Barbara Toy, Program Analyst
• Patti Robb, Note Taker
• Nancy Sitzberger, Acting TAP Manager

Guests:

• Martha Curry, National Office A
• Nancy Ferree, TAP Manager
• Karen Kraushaar, Comm. & Liaison
• Judi Nicholas, TAP Manager
• Sandra Ramirez, TAP Manager

Quorum
14 Members present; quorum of 9 met

Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda
Seuntjens welcomed Sandy McQuin as acting director. McQuin is excited to be here and have the chance to be acting director. McQuin stated that the National Taxpayer Advocate, (NTA) is anxious that you know you have her backing. Your time is valuable; we want to use it wisely; and TAP staff is here to ensure things go smoothly.

Review of Assignments

1. The draft annual report is due by October 1 to Toy. Remember, you will be making a 10-minute presentation at the annual meeting. The final report is due October 15.
2. All area chairs should have reminded their committee members about the annual meeting.
3. On tracking the elevated issues, McQuin was asked by the NTA to develop a tracking system for both items sent to NTA that require a response as well as the tracking system McQuin is developing with Mike Chesman and Sue Sottile. Seuntjens stated that the Joint Committee is still waiting for the status and acknowledgment of elevated issues and wants to be kept appraised of the status of every issue.
4. The next action item was assigned to Lowe and was a request for information about rolling out new programs to small or mid-sized businesses. Nicholas reported that an article was prepared for suggestions on how to get IRS changes out to small businesses using the “What's On TAP” paper (Area 4) for soliciting suggestions. Ad Hoc had only received a couple responses. Ad Hoc has forwarded the information to Marjorie Miller.
5. As far as the marketing materials, Nicholas reported that all the materials submitted on the Ad Hoc Committee list were on the approved list. Nicholas added that prototypes would be brought to the annual meeting so everyone knows what they are and choose what materials they want.
6. McQuin said that Nina Olson responded to Handelman. Olson will raise the NTEU issue to Treasury and the partnership council. Handelman said that Area 3 raised this issue back in June and had asked that Colleen Kelly address the panel at the annual meeting. It has not moved forward and Area 3 is frustrated. The protocol is that TAP should establish a relationship with NTEU. McQuin will continue to update the Joint Committee on this issue.

There are close to 20 vacancies on the panel now. Toy made a list of all the vacancies and potential vacancies and forwarded the complete list of alternates for those positions to Olson. Olson took the list to Treasury and we are hoping to get approval for the alternates. However, they have not been contacted for over a year so they may no longer be interested. Seuntjens instructed the chairs to contact members who have not participated in panel work and find out what their intentions are; do they intend to retire from the panel? This needs to be done quickly so we can get replacements if necessary and the new members can attend the annual meeting. McQuin will do exit interviews with the panel members who resigned and adding that National Office was still working on the issue of panel members moving to a different state. Seuntjens believes they should be representing their current area and if that state has no vacancies that should be placed on the alternate list. Seuntjens stressed that all committees need full support and all members need to be active. Nicholas added that she sent out a letter to one disengaged panel members that could not be reached by either telephone or email. The letter asked the member what their intentions were towards the panel and stated that if we don't hear from you by a certain date; we will consider the no response as a resignation from the panel.

ACTION: Nicholas will forward the letter to the other program managers to be used for other members who are not responsive.

Seuntjens reminded the area chairs to check with the chair of the member's issue committee chair since there are some members involved in either their area or issue committee but not the other. Program managers should confirm that both chairs agree on the non-participation and that the area chair has tried to communicate with the panel member before sending out the letter. Steinberg added that panel members who are not fully participating in both committees should not qualify for the three-year term.

7. Seuntjens asked for a copy of the charter to be distributed to the Joint Committee but we are still waiting. Seuntjens did attend one IRSAC meeting. Handelman learned through a former student that IRSAC also has an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) subcommittee. Handelman suggested that TAP and EITC work together but was told we couldn't.
8. McQuin is working with Chesman and Sottile to set up regular scheduled conference calls.
9. Discussed developing tracking system earlier.
10. Regarding the action item on the marketing strategy, a subcommittee of Ad Hoc is fine tuning the strategy now and will be presenting it to the full Ad Hoc Committee in October. Nicholas will work with Karen Kraushaar.
11. McQuin stated that Kraushaar will work with TAP on news releases and this will be discussed later in meeting.
12. The letter to counsel has been forwarded.
13. Financial Literacy letter has been forwarded and TAP should have response in next couple weeks.
14. Phase In/Out Proposal--Ramirez found inaccuracies in this report which she will have corrected and then forward to Toy for formatting and submission.
15. Breakdown of top 50 issues on SAMS. Seuntjens asked that this be made a top priority and it will be reassigned to McQuin.

Review/Approve Minutes
Motion to approve August minutes, seconded, and consensus reached.

Marketing Campaign
Seuntjens introduced Kraushaar and stated that Kraushaar would be working on the marketing campaign and both an internal and external communication strategy. Kraushaar stated it was a delightful opportunity to work with the committee and a marvelous example of how important it is that a group having a national reach gets the word out to both the public and internal audience. Kraushaar attended this meeting mainly to listen and hear what the members' experience has been with the media and to determine how to plan the communication strategy to get the TAP message out.

Kraushaar would like to be viewed as an in-house consultant to get media attention and to fend off negative attention. She stated that whenever you are dealing with media you need both a defensive and offensive strategy. For the last five years, government has had to focus on a defensive strategy but believes we need to change to a proactive strategy. TAP is a good offensive strategy since TAP has just recently reached the critical mass with representation from all states.

Kraushaar has been working with media for 20 years, starting with the Detroit News and then moving to Washington bureaus. She then chose to work with the public relations side of the business which in her view is one of the most interesting games in media.

Media has been deeply shaken by the Jackson Blair scandal with the made up quotes and interviews. Editors ignored warning bells and the scandal served as a wake up call for newspapers of “record” to wake up and police themselves. In addition, self help books advocate to tune out negative news and not listen to the media. Twenty four hour internet news, satellite and cable news provide another area of competition that newspaper editors have never seen before. Media is bombarded by inputs from all different sources--congressional representatives, charities, school boards, etc. What they have in common is trying to get their message out to the media. Kraushaar's job is to get TAP's message out; to let people know the importance of the organization and how the public can help. The internal audience of 110,000 employees and 2,000 in Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) is another large audience that TAP needs to reach.

Kraushaar then asked for a show of hands for Joint Committee members' comfort level when the phone rings and it is a local newspaper reported. Eight members had a high level of comfort, two medium, and 2 low level. Seuntjens who has a high level of comfort offers to call the reporter back and then takes the time to outline what he wants to say and then calls back as quickly as he can. Kraushaar agreed to offer to call back or to have you must air points already prepared, know what messages you need to get out. Her key role is to help create and provide the tools for TAP to turn media contacts to your advantage. Lassar suggested figuring out what the reporter's bias is so you can frame your response accordingly. Kraushaar stated your bill of rights, or one tip for media success is to find out who the reporter is working for, is the reporter a staff reporter or a free lance. If unsure, call the paper or organization to find out if they are on staff. Fish mentioned how difficult it was to get media attention in the New York , New Jersey area and McQuin added that this was TAP's biggest problem, how to get media attention. What hook or spin to put on our message to get it into the papers. Steinberg suggested emailing or calling news reporters who handle tax news, explain who you are, and offer to be a source if a story arises. Steinberg has also sent in response to published articles; he hasn't been published yet but hopes to establish a relationship. Meldman stated that after offering report a free lunch there was one very good article published but that was the extent of the coverage. Kraushaar stated that what TAP is experiencing is part of the unprecedented competition that the media is involved in and that the last thing TAP should do is to issue another news release that ends up on the cutting room floor. Best way to get TAP message in to the right hands is for members to develop a personal relationship with their local news persons. Reporters are not invulnerable to praise, fifty percent of their contacts is complaints. Pick up the phone, praise an article they have done on tax issues and add by the way have you thought of this aspect or this is how TAP could have helped. McQuin pointed out that TAP's message is not only to make people aware of TAP's successes but also to get people to pick up the phone or visit the TAP website to bring TAP their grass roots issues.

TAP members should respond to any tax related national news story and put a local and TAP spin on it. But, it needs to be done quickly within 48 hours and there might not be time for Kraushaar to get a news release out to all the local media outlets or even to all TAP members. It was suggested Kraushaar develop generic news releases that members can insert their name and information and send to local media and she agreed. At some time down the road, it would be ideal situation, if news release directly in response to the article could be distributed. Members also need to have written guidelines on what they should be doing and what they should avoid doing.

ACTION: Kraushaar will work with McQuin to develop:

• Pocket-sized Quick Media Tips
• Clear fact sheet on who TAP is and what TAP does
• Generic News Release 

October all TAP Meeting Agenda Items – Expectations of Chesman/Sottile
Seuntjens stated that TAP has already forwarded recommendations and wants to know the status of the issues--Have they received the issues? Are they important to them? How was the proposal received? Even if negative, TAP wants to know. Also, we need to know the process of providing feedback to the panel? Fish said his committee had put many hours into issues that were elevated and wants to know what is happening to keep the interest level high.

Steinberg said he had heard that as TAP heads into our second year, the issue committees may not change but their direction might. Steinberg believes the redefinition should be a joint project between the program owners and the issue committee. McQuin stated that the program owners have been asked to provide more information and clarify exactly what the issue committee is about so members can make a better decision on choosing a committee. But bear in mind, that the issue committees are put forth for a reason and the IRS is more likely to commit to working on those issues that fit best into their strategic plans. Doucette stated that last October, we were given a very broad description of the issue committees but with parameters. He prefers IRS gives the broad scope and let the committee members decide the focus.

Doucette wondered if the three issues elevated by Area 6 would be addressed since they did not fit into the strategic plan. He wants to talk about the process from start to finish. Also, how do Chesman and Sottile fit into TAP procedures? Why are issues sent to them and not the NTA? How do they fit into TAP relative to Treasury and the NTA?

Woo agreed that TAP needs to have feedback on the elevated issues. There has been some talk about possibly forming another committee around the issue Area 5 elevated on free filing but we have not heard anything--how do issues redefine themselves?

Meldman wanted to ask what to do when we contact the program owner while doing research and never receive a response or hear they are not interested in the issue, where do we go from there?

Lassar asked what the incentives are for a program owner to see that TAP is successful. Do they answer to anyone? Is there any accountability between the program owner and the reason they are assigned to an issue? Who decides what we are supposed to accomplish?

Edwards stated the issue behind the Notice committee is so complex. There are more than 200 notices and the process for changing a notice is so complex. Do we know what we should be working, just on the notices or improving the process? Where do we fit in? If program owners don't draw us into the process should members bring themselves in?

Burgos wondered if requesting a response within 30 days is realistic because neither Sottile nor Chesman are decision makers.

Hanna stated that TAP needs feedback on both area and issue committee recommendations graded on how much priority it will be given. Handelman added that panel members know IRS has limitations based on resources but panel wants to know if their proposal would receive high or low priority. Jaffke wanted to know what consideration would be give to forming issue committees in areas with a high amount of interest such as installment agreements and can panel have some inputs on which issues become committees. Toy stated that the program owners in the Small Business/Self-Employed (SBSE) and Wage and Investment (W&I) Operating Divisions along with the NTA determined the seven issues to be worked by TAP. McQuin added that staff could not possibly support more than seven issue committees. Nicholas said that the Ad Hoc committee is probably the most underused and that the Joint Committee should hand off some of these issues to them. Handelman would like the program owners to be very specific about what the assignments are and what are the expectations for these assignments? Also, IRS has various task forces working on issue similar to TAP's issue committees. Is there any way TAP can have representation on these task forces? Edwards added that many of the task forces meet for two weeks or more. What about the budget? McQuin stated that panel members could possibly meet with the task force for a shorter or via conference call. Steinberg asked if we can't participate in the task forces, can we supply information so there is no duplication of effort.

Conference Call with Mike Chesman/Sue Sottile to Discuss Expectations
Based on the discussion, the Joint Committee framed the following questions or comments for Chesman and Sottile.

1. Seuntjens --Who will ensure program owners are responsive to our recommendations and describe process?
2. Doucette --Overview of Chesman and Sottile's role as liaisons from their perspective and how it fits into TAP relative to NTA and Treasury.
3. Lassar--What are incentives for issue committee Program Owners to make TAP successful to accomplish their strategic goals?
4. Seuntjens --Who identifies the issues for 04? Will they remain same—or be refocused and what level of participation should current committee members have in this process?
5. Steinberg --Program Owners should provide parameters and issue committee members should have role in narrowing or choosing the focus.
6. Handelman --Regarding the Issue Committee Proposal form, who completes, who selects? The form should describe the associated strategic issue and be specific about expectations for assignments and activities.
7. Meldman--Regarding research and analysis—where do you go if your program owners are uninterested or unresponsive?
8. Woo--IRS has task force teams on same issues as some TAP Issue Committees can TAP members serve on theses teams or at minimum could teams share summary or what level of participation should there be?

Sottile stated that from her perspective is if we see recurring issues, we would propose to include them as issue committees or work them through Ad Hoc. Next year, issues will be realigned with our priorities and budget. They will also be data driven.

TAP will get feedback. It is my understanding that area committees identify grass roots issues and work issues locally. Seuntjens replied that TAP is currently not getting enough feedback. McQuin, Sottile, and Chesman should work together to set up a feedback mechanism that provides more than a notice of general reassignment. Sottile stated that steps would be taken and she would work with McQuin going back to the original design and that assured members that their proposals were being taken seriously.

Doucette commented that TAP is lacking an overview of the structure behind TAP. At the October meeting, we would like a top to bottom overview. Where do you as liaisons fit in? Chesman replied that they were the bridge between TAP and SBSE and W&I. Doucette added that panel members need to be reminded of this at the annual meeting. When TAP elevates an issue, we need to know we used all resources available. If you decide not to elevate an issue, then where do we go? Chesman replied that our funding is limited and it depends on the scope of the recommendation. We will owe you an explanation as to the status of where we are on the issue – what happens and why.

Lassar asked what incentive program owners have to make TAP successful Chesman and Sottile both replied to come to them both have some influence within our areas to make things happen. However, when a choice has to be made between priorities it sometimes depends on the budget. Sottile added that program owners were picked that were receptive to working with TAP. Steinberg asked about working with the program owners on defining the issues and asked if the program owner would listen? If not, Steinberg feels members might lose interest. Chessman replied that so far, the committee members have not been shy about sharing their ideas and he would expect that to continue. The program owner should be prepared to discuss the viability of looking at the issue being presented. We should have a good dialog as to what is possible and what cannot be done due to lack of resources. Folks should want to work where they can have an impact. They need to realistic. Chesman asked if the current chairs were continuing. Seuntjens replied that the majority are and all chairs are looking to correct the lack of involvement and get all members interested. Handelman stated that issue identification should be as specific as possible and hopefully not exclusive. Give us a chance to suggest variety or direction. Sottile replied that W&I is always open to reasonable requests. Handelman added that issue committees are not getting written feedback in response to their written proposals. We do not get feedback to our recommendations.

Meldman said that generally he finds program owner responsive and cooperative. But what if they aren't and this question is directed more at the research phase in the areas before the issue is worked? Chesman –replied that any problems should be brought to his or Sottile's attention. Woo asked how TAP can establish a more cooperative relationship between the task forces and committees? Sottile thought there were regulations regarding this issue. McQuin asked that if not full participation at some point during deliberations the task force could contact TAP for input or to share information. Sottile will speak to NTA at the annual meeting about this. Chesman added that if third parties are prohibited from being part of a task force discussion, TAP should still be able to give input. McQuin asked Chesman and Sottile to please keep TAP in mind when new task forces are formed. End of conference call.

Fish asked for feedback on all the elevated issues at the October meeting. A discussion on how the acceptance of TAP proposals is so closely tied to the budget and if it doesn't fit into IRS's scope, TAP may be looking at time frames for implementation that goes for years. Seuntjens did not think most recommendations would be limited by the budget. However, it needs to be a concern and should be addressed. Burgos also said maybe we should get rid of the area committees and all become issue committees to work IRS strategic priority issues. Handelman agreed with Burgos and suggested it might be more rewarding that way, TAP could still provide a geographic balance. But, Handelman asked if there wasn't a way for TAP to affect IRS' priorities?

Sitzberger briefly explained how IRS does their strategic plan. The first step is to do an environmental scan for trends to look at when doing the plan. TAP elevated issues should be fed into this environmental scan.

Meldman did not support getting rid of area committees; we are all TAP – taxpayer advocates, not IRS.

Edwards mentioned that he hasn't seen area local issues brought to the table. Most area issues have become national in scope. McQuin replied that TAP staff will be working with you on outreach activities. The more you get out there, the more issues you will get. There will be an outreach workshop at the annual meeting. Nagel mentioned that the Schedule C Non-filer Committee is concluding the work it was assigned and what will happen? Nicholas mentioned that one or two subcommittees are close to concluding but there are large untapped areas.

ACTION: Nagel will forward his concern on the work done on Schedule C Non-filers to Chesman.

Hanna questioned if Chesman and Sottile were the correct two people to send our recommendations to? McQuin replied, yes, they are the liaisons to the operating divisions although they are not the direct managers to the program owners.

October All TAP Meeting Agenda Items
Seuntjens announced that Nicholas will act hostess during the meeting. Nicholas suggested that instead of having the self-introduction one after another, we should ask the new members to introduce themselves and then each person should introduce themselves during the area committee reports. A discussion followed on seating arrangements and whether the seating should be open or by area. One concern was that new members would feel more comfortable if they would be seated with their area committee another that members might prefer sitting with their issue committee. The decision was to leave at open seating but ask the chairs to mentor the new members and introduce them to the other members in the area committee. Discussion returned to self-introductions and how the introduction of committee members would fit into the 10 minute allotted time for the reports. Consensus reached to have self-introduction and Nicholas will ask each member to say their name, occupation, state, area and issue committee assignment.

Steinberg asked if Treasury representative and commissioner would take questions. Probably not because of time frame, but anyone who wants to make sure they cover a particular subject should send in the question prior to the meeting.

There was concern that current issue committee chairs would be making the selection of an issue committee prior to their reconfirmation. Chairs who are not reconfirmed may want to change their committee selection. It was agreed that the issue committee reconfirmation should be one of the first items on the agenda and chairs who are not reconfirmed could move to their second choice issue committee.

Bob Meldman made motion for Joint Committee to endorse the reconfirmation of Seuntjens as chair, Nagel seconded the motion. Motion was withdrawn.

Next, discussion turned to logistics of reconfirmation. First, there will be a vote on reconfirmation. If Seuntjens is reconfirmed, no further action is necessary. If not, Nicholas will announce that members interested in placing their names on the ballot, should submit their name to staff. Candidates will be given time to address the entire panel on Friday evening and ballots will be collected and counted on Saturday morning and the name of the new chair will be announced at close of business on Saturday.

ACTION: Based on the eight questions submitted to Sottile and Chesman, Toy will rewrite the objective for their portion of the agenda.

Fish suggested members have their issue selection forms at the time of the presentations and hand them in at the end of the day and this was agreed to. Handelman asked McQuin what would be covered during the Administrative Issues part of the agenda. McQuin replied that the new volunteer agreement and a few travel issues. Handelman suggested another issue that continually comes up is being reimbursed for other supplies such as envelopes or paper. Nicholas mentioned that the agenda did not have a place for questions and answer period for members and that would be added. We will use the same method we used last year--members write down their questions and place them either in a box or on a flip chart and we will set aside time on the agenda to answer the questions.

Discussion then turned to putting aside a time on the agenda for asking panel members to vote on a term for chairs because the terms were not set by either the guidelines or by charter. It was decided that this type of decision was better made by consensus since everyone can leave the room feeling they were part of the decision and had the opportunity to speak on the issue. With the size of the panel reaching consensus would be very difficult and Handelman stated certain things like elections lend themselves to a vote by majority so couldn't the policy be for elections use a majority vote and other decisions be made by consensus. It was agreed that reaching consensus with the entire panel would not work but changes to procedures should be made in the Joint Committee who represent all members by consensus.

Doucette motioned to set the term of chair as two years from the date of election. Motion seconded; discussion ensued. Concern was that if the chair was not competent, two years would be too long and a one year term with possibility of a second one year term was better policy. Others preferred two year term with right to impeach chair.

Workshops
The name of the “Getting to Grass Roots Issues” was changed to Media Relations.

There followed a discussion about the strategic planning process and how that fit into TAP. TAP would like an understanding of the IRS operational priorities, as well as how TAP can influence them. It was decided that the objective and title should be changed to reflect a brief overview of the strategic planning process and how that fits into TAP writing proposals.

Nicholas mentioned that our intention was to complete all the objectives and survey members on which workshops they would like to attend. Based on interest, we may drop workshops or run some twice.

Steinberg asked that we should be sure to have flow chart and the mission statements of the overview of the IRS.

Issue Committee Meetings
Seuntjens added that this issue committee meeting will be a chance to dialogue with the program owners and possibly new members at a face-to-face meeting.

Committee Reports
Seuntjens cautioned chairs to watch their ten minutes very well and plan very closely because we would have a time keeper. Burgos wanted to make sure all chairs celebrate the successes of the panel regardless of what frustrations there have been in the past year.

September 6, 2003

Continuation of Administrative Items
Seuntjens asked that either the program managers or the program analysts should conduct the reconfirmation process.

Monthly Committee Reports Action Items
Seuntjens would like the format of all elevated proposals to be consistent, polished, and professional looking. Some of the proposals are missing key parts such as summary of issue, the background of the issue, or does not identify the author.

ACTION: Toy will send out format for proposals to Joint Committee members and all program managers.

3-19 Schedule K-1s for S Corporations is being elevated
Handelman provided the legislative background that does not require a balance sheet if total receipts are under $250,000. The downside of the legislation is that shareholders will not have the information they need to calculate basis when they sell. Fish wondered why the amount of loans paid off was necessary only need to know balance at end of year. Lassar recommended scratching that part.

Steinberg suggested it would be clearer to number items if more than one aspect is covered in a proposal. Lassar offered to reword the proposal.

Discussion interrupted by telephone call; Meldman joined by conference call so agenda was changed to address Area 4's issues.

Just in Time Policy
This proposal revolves around Package X and other information that goes out to Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA). The subcommittee originally looked at the Form 5500, Annual Return Report of Employee Benefit Plan, Form 5500, Annual Return Report of Employee Benefit Plan but found out it was a one-time problem and dropped the issue. Steinberg suggested TAP monitor the issue. Basically, the problem is with the publishing of the forms in the Package X. The forms are available electronically but not in the published format. Many practitioners still find the hard copy of the Package X helpful so we are not proposing eliminating it but publishing it in a loose-leaf format rather than a bound version.

Seuntjens motion to elevate proposal; Nagel seconded, and consensus was reached .

ACTION: Toy will format the proposal on Just in Time to Sottile.

Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax
The subcommittee recommended a communication and educational campaign to help small non-profits to learn and fulfill their filing obligation. Nagel moved to elevate; Handelman seconded, and motion passed by consensus.

ACTION: Sitzberger will locate the owner of the Form 990 issue.

ACTION: Toy will format and forward the Form 990 Proposal to program owners.

Review Third Party Authorization
Hanna presented the proposal to increase the authority of the third party authorization by check a box. The Joint Committee has recently submitted a request to Counsel to answer specific questions. This proposal was returned to Area 3 to hold until Counsel advice was received.

Communication between TAP and IRS employees
Area 3 recommends that all employees be informed about TAP. TAP wants employees to feel comfortable in coming to TAP and we release there is a reward program for employee suggestions, but we still believe employees may want another avenue. There was question of whether this proposal was already covered by Ad Hoc and Kraushaar's marketing strategy but it was decided elevating the proposal would only show the importance of communication. Ad Hoc should continue to work on the strategy but acknowledge that this proposal was sent forward. Consensus reached to forward proposal.

ACTION: Toy will format the proposal on Communicating with IRS employees to Nina Olson. 

Telephone Listing/Answer Quality/Complaint Process
Panel members Tim Jarrell and Buck Paolone have been working the toll free issue all year. Part of the problem is that IRS employees give their name and badge numbers at the beginning of the phone call and callers might not realize its importance. Our recommendation is that there be recording advising callers to jot down the employee's name, badge number, date, and substance of call. The committee also recommended having a routing system to tax experts and giving callers the option to call an employee directly if a second contact is necessary.

Meldman would not want to be bound by anything that took place during a telephone conversation. Steinberg and Doucette suggested also recommending jotting down call center. McQuin mentioned that the proposal to put the local telephone number in the phone book was made into law. It was then questioned how some of the recommendations in this proposal compared to the proposals from Area 3 on the toll free number. Jaffke pointed out that Area 7 had also considered some of these recommendations but dropped them after talking to an IRS subject expert who said IRS did not have technology. Area 6 is also working on similar issues. It was decided Area 6 would take the lead on all issues having to do with placing the caller on hold and that Steinberg , Balmer, Jaffke, and Hanna would have a conversation on the remainder of the toll free issues and decide who would take the lead on the issue.

Handelman stated that this duplication pointed out that the issue matrix was indeed not working. Seuntjens stated that areas can work on similar subjects but at least need to have an understanding of what segment the other area is working and how they complement each other. McQuin added that toll free proposals may have to be separated because different portions would have different owners. For example, the routing problem and hold issues would go to one area, the information about local telephone numbers to another. The analyst for your area will provide that information to you.

ACTION: Doucette will incorporate all aspects of the holding process for the toll free system in time of the September 21 st meeting.

ACTION: Toy will format proposal and send out to committee members by September 12.

3-19 Schedule K-1s for S Corporations is being elevated
Lassar reread the proposal with the adjustments. Doucette felt this was increasing the burden on owners of s corporations and he does not necessarily want to release any more information to the IRS than he needs to. Seuntjens added that it seemed to be more of a benefit for tax preparer's and that TAP is not advocates for tax preparers by tax payers. Lassar stated the benefit to taxpayers is that if you don't have knowledge or proof of you basis, your basis is zero. Doucette replied that he had plenty of proof in his filing cabinet to prove basis but he doesn't choose to disclose it. Lassar replied that we are trying to save taxpayer from themselves. Hanna stated this discussion had occurred in the area and the intention was not to place a burden on the taxpayer but be helpful. Handelman added that this was good support for the importance of including the background in any proposals sent forward. Motion was made to elevate proposal, motion was seconded, and motion failed.

Fish suggested the proposal be modified by making this optional or requiring worksheet. Hanna will bring the matter back to Area 3 with the these concerns.

ITINs

Fish explained that the author, Elizabeth Brodbine-Ghoniem has a special interest in Low Income Tax Clinics and in low income taxpayers. This recommendation proposes a special marketing campaign to explain the proper use of the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. It was decided that the flyer was not really relevant and that references to the flyer would be deleted. Consensus reached on elevating the ITIN proposal.

ACTION: Toy will format the proposal and forward to Sottile.

Quality Control Process for Notices
Area 1 had an example of a notice that was sent to taxpayer about his installment agreement. The notice was compiled by using the IRS select a paragraph system. The notice did not provide the taxpayer the correct information. Area 1 found out from the service center that the IRS sent out the notices without a quality review system. But, the information was wrong there is a system. It is not a 100% review; it is a sampling system where only a certain number are reviewed. The proposal was changed to reflect this and change develop a quality review system is inadequate and needs improvement. Elevation of proposal approved by consensus .

ACTION: Toy will format the Quality Control Process for Notices and forward to Sottile.

Offer in Compromise
Area 1 proposed to increase the criteria for waiving the $150.00 waiver in compromise fee. Lassar moved to elevate with changes; Steinberg seconded, and proposal was elevated.

ACTION: Toy will format the Offer in Compromise proposal and forward it to Chesman.

Woo suggested the date of the area's approval also be added to the template so we have a clear path, we know where it came from and when. This was agreed to.

ACTION: Toy will add the date the area approved to the template and send out to Joint Committee members and the managers.

IRS Toll-Free Number
Steinberg stated that Area 2 already agreed to combine the toll free issues.

EFTPS Short Form Worksheet
This is a perfect example of form not following function. The phone prompts for the Electronic Funds Transfer Payment System (EFTPS) do not match the worksheets in the instructions. Area 2 worked with the program owner who has already agreed to make the corrections to the Voice Response System so the prompts match the worksheet. There was a discussion of whether the letter should still be forward and it was decided that it should and include an acknowledgement t and thank you to the program owner. Proposal accepted by consensus.

ACTION: Toy will format a letter to acknowledge the efforts of the program owners and to thank them and forward the letter to Chesman.

Steinberg talked to Meldman about the Form 990 proposal. Meldman did not know that non-profits is one of Steinberg 's specialties. Steinberg suggested a database that lists the tap member's functional expertise so members can use other members as resources. Steinberg could have assisted the subcommittee who worked the issue and have added to the discussion. Discussion started on how to develop but advice was to decide if you want and staff will get it done.

ACTION: Staff will develop a form for collecting the inventory of knowledge, skills, and abilities and find a way for the information to be easily accessed on TAPSpeak.

Nagel announced that one his committee members found an excellent resource on the IRS website called Understanding Taxes. Nagel was asked to make other members aware of its existence.

Financial Literacy
The Ad Hoc committee asked Woo to request that the Joint Committee endorse Financial Literacy as a top priority for TAP and place the endorsement in the annual report. Handelman stated the EITC Committee was also very interested in the Financial Literacy campaign as well as EITC literacy and their EITC committee had asked areas to partner with the local coalitions. Steinberg added that Nina Olson had also made Financial Literacy a topic of her report to congress and perhaps TAP could work with the NTA on Financial Literacy.

McQuin stopped to clarify what Handelman meant about the area committees hooking up with local coalitions to work on EITC outreach and financial literacy. The definition of TAP outreach is to go out and talk about TAP, what it's about and its mission and to gather grass roots information. It is not about spreading the word about EITC and Financial Literacy. It is not your role to say I am a TAP member and I want to talk to you about EITC. However, the partnerships are good in reaching pockets of people, we would not ordinarily contact.

Lassar went back to Woo's point about raising awareness of financial literacy. Lassar finds out that many do not mention your tax responsibilities and that it is important to stress tax filing obligations when talking about financial literacy.

Jaffke is also on the EITC committee and wanted to know why when she was doing an outreach on TAP, she couldn't be distributing information on EITC and financial literacy as well. McQuin replied because you are spokespersons for TAP not the IRS. Handelman asked as advocates for taxpayers, isn't it okay to distribute information that helps taxpayers. McQuin said we need to go back to original mission and it is TAP is here to listen to taxpayers and raise their concerns to the IRS. Discussion arose on how this was different than the Ad Hoc committee looking at the Financial Literacy campaign. Woo replied with the analogy that what Ad Hoc is saying is here's where the bus should be going, but we are not driving the bus. Seuntjens asked how panel could endorse and talked about the logistics of using Woo's metaphor and making this issue understandable to a roomful of people. Doucette stated that as representatives of the membership at large, the Joint Committee should make the endorsement. Jaffke's concern is that this was outside of TAP's mission to gather information, but Seuntjens explained that TAP already gathered the information and was now proposing a way to solve the problem but starting an education campaign. TAP is not conducting the campaign, but endorsing it. Doucette added that almost every committee had a subcommittee on educational campaigns.

Lassar proposed the following wording:

TAP endorses the National Taxpayer Advocate effort to promote financial literacy. Helping people understand their financial and tax obligations, rights and responsibilities and to identifying a process that promotes financial literacy.

Seuntjens asked where the proposal would be sent and Lassar replied that TAP would just adopt it and put it in the annual report. Woo said the goal is to have full panel endorsement rather than just Ad Hoc's. Lassar motioned to pass the endorsement of Financial Literacy as top priority, Nagel second, and it was passed by consensus to place endorsement in the annual report.

Fish talked about a conflict between an area and issue committee and asked that chairs be more careful to not schedule over each other's meetings. McQuin stated it is really not chair's responsibility but each panel member's when meetings are scheduled they should talk about any conflicts.

• ACTION: Staff will notify chairs if they notice conflicts when placing items on calendar.
• ACTION: Chairs should send any comments to Toy on items that need to be included in the Issue Committee Proposal forms by September 12.
• ACTION: Toy will forward Balmer's annual report as an example of how much detail is required.

Jaffke proposed added a field for issues considered but dropped on the issue matrix.

National Office is working on clarifying the communication channels.

Assignments:

All Joint Committee Members

• Chairs should send any comments to Toy on items that need to be included in the Issue Committee Proposal forms by September 12, 2003 .
• Draft of annual report by October 1, oral presentation of reported at all TAP meeting and final version to Toy by October 15, 2003 . (09/05/2003 and 09/06/2003)

Area Chairs

• Incorporate all aspects of the holding process for the toll free system in time of the September 21st meeting. ( 09/05/2003 and 09/06/2003 )

Kraushaar

• Work with McQuin to develop:
  • Pocket-sized Quick Media Tips
  • Clear fact sheet on who TAP is and what TAP does
  • Generic News Release

McQuin

• Track the elevated issues (including the four all ready elevated) and check the status every 30 days. Curry will provide a monthly status report to the Joint Committee: who has it, when they got it, and the current status.
• Follow-up with Nina Olson on protocol to follow when TAP works with NTEU.
• Address selection/replacement of panel members so all states are represented. ( 05/20/2003 )
• 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, and 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 he and Lowe need more involvement, more interfaces, more executive focus, and an inroad to these people. ( 05/20/2003 )
• Regular scheduled conference calls were supposed to be set up with Temple , Chesman, Sottile, and Seuntjens ; this has not been done. ( 05/20/2003 )
• Deliver a process and format for elevating issues in 30 days, June 2, 2003. (05/02 -05/03, 2003)

Nicholas

• Forward the letter to the other program managers to be used for other members who are not responsive.

Nagel

• Forward his concern on the work done on Schedule C Non-filers to Chesman.

Sitzberger

• Locate the owner of the Form 990 issue.

Staff

• Develop a form for collecting the inventory of knowledge, skills, and abilities and find a way for the information to be easily accessed on TAPSpeak.
• Notify chairs if they notice conflicts when placing items on calendar.

Toy

• Based on the eight questions submitted to Sottile and Chesman, rewrite the objective for their portion of the agenda.
• Format the proposal on Just in Time to Sottile.
• Format and forward the Form 990 Proposal to program owners.
• Format proposal and send out to committee members by September 12.
• Format the proposal and forward to Sottile.
• Forward Balmer's annual report as an example of how much detail is required.
• Format the Quality Control Process for Notices and forward to Sottile.
• Format the Offer in Compromise proposal and forward it to Chesman.
• Add the date the area approved to the template and send out to Joint Committee members and the managers.
• Toy will format a letter to acknowledge the efforts of the program owners and to thank them and forward the letter to Chesman.
• Insure Margie Kinney and Sue Sottile update definition of issues for W & I and SB/SE for presentation prior to October 2003. (05/02 -05/03, 2003)
• Work with Fish to separate two proposals on phase ins and outs. Then, format proposal on including a chart of all phase ins and outs and forward to Seuntjens for elevating. (07/15/2003)
• Get breakdown of top 50 issues on SAMS that are not assigned as a project to TAS employees. (05/02 -05/03, 2003)