Joint Committee Minutes

September 10 and 11, 2004
Denver, Colorado

Members Present

• Elizabeth Brodbine-Ghoniem, Area 1
• Mario Burgos, Efiling
• Tony DiMartino, Area 2 and Notices
• Gwen Handelman, EITC
• Cheyañna Jaffke, Area 7
• Robert Meldman, Ad Hoc
• Paul Nagel, Schedule C Non-filers
• Tom Seuntjens, TAP Chair
• Teresa Smedley, Area 4
• Leonard Steinberg, Payroll Taxes
• George Sullivan, Area 3
• Bruce Twomley, Multilingual
• Sherry Whah, Area 6
• Lillian Woo, Area 5

Members Absent

• Skip Eshelman
• Jim Grimaldi
• David Meyer

Staff Present

• Bernie Coston, DFO
• Sandy McQuin, TAP Manager
• Patti Robb, Note taker
• Barbara Toy, Program Analyst
• Nancy Ferree, TAP Manager
• Judi Nicholas, TAP Manager
• Sandra Ramirez, TAP Manager

Guests Present

• Christopher Lee, Attorney – Advisor
• Tom Sherwood, Denver LTA
• BJ Burleigh, Secretary

Friday, September 10, 2004

Welcome / Announcements / Review Agenda
Tom Seuntjens said that Bob Meldman will be facilitator / timekeeper for the meeting. Three recommendations will be added to that portion of the meeting.

Roll Call (Quorum is Nine)
Quorum met.

Bernie Coston introduced Christopher Lee, Attorney and Advisor, who recently joined the staff of the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS). He is instrumental in working side by side with Coston and is Nina Olson’s, the National Taxpayer Advocate’s (NTA’s), direct counsel. There are six special counsel positions working with Olson on issues for the annual report to Congress. In relation with Low Income Tax Clinics (LITC) and the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP), legal or other advisory questions go to Lee. He is also working on Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) issues for Olson.

Coston gave an update on recruitment. At this point, Olson has blessed the list of selectees and alternates and the list was forwarded to Treasury. He again thanked all who worked on recruitment. Members and staff expended a lot of time and effort in interviewing and working in a fast paced environment. Now selections need to go to Treasury for the final selection. Coston will follow-up with Treasury next week. There will be fifty-four people coming on board as new TAP members for the November annual meeting. Cheyañna Jaffke asked if the chairs could be informed of new members. Coston said yes, but after names come back from Treasury. TAP staff will notify selectees first and then provide the names to the chairs. Some of these people will turn down the position when they are called and staff then needs to go to the alternate list. Sherry Whah asked how many of the fifty-four are alternates? Coston replied the fifty-four are actual selectees and the alternate pool is beyond that number. Seuntjens asked if any of the new selectees later resign how quickly can TAP go to the alternates and replace the departing member. Coston replied immediately, the alternates already had the fingerprinting and tax background checks and the list of alternates has also been sent to Treasury for approval. . Handelman asked if there were alternates for every state, and Coston replied yes, states with only one representative have one alternate; states with more members have more alternates. Paul Nagel said now that program managers are tracking attendance on a quarterly basis, are the chairs going to get a copy? Seuntjens replied that this was already the procedure and any chair not receiving the report should check with their analyst. After reviewing the list, chairs should advise Seuntjens and Coston if a member is not participating since non-participation is grounds for possible removal. Coston did take look at the attendance and approached some members as to what their intentions were and asked some to step down. Some have agreed.

Leonard Steinberg said member, Gerald Gensiejewski, from Area 2 and Ad Hoc wrote an email proposing that the alumni of TAP should be considered as a non-legal resource for area or issues that are being worked and did TAP have response. Lee answered that the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) covers advisory groups and government cannot expend resources on a group not chartered. There are a couple exceptions to FACA that might apply; one, that Government agencies can ask individuals, but alumni would be considered a group because of their prior interaction with TAP. Or, groups can organize on their own and ask for a meeting with IRS and can become involved with TAP in that way. Steinberg asked if staff could maintain a list of Alumni. Lee responded that there is already a list of TAP/CAP alumni on the TAP website. Lee suggested maintaining a list of alumni who are willing to be contacted. Individual to individual is acceptable. Coston added that alumni can not be part of any recommendations or part of a decision. Seuntjens said the new TAP handbook will list member’s knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) and can include the alumni.

Mario Burgos asked if there was a current list available of who was extending their term a year. Coston said there had been some changes but we will get out a new list.
ACTION: Toy will get an updated list of who is extending their term to chairs.
ACTION: After Treasury makes their selections for new panel members, Coston will distribute the alternate list.

Seuntjens asked how far ahead of the November meeting, will new members be informed? Last time, people were notified the week of or the week before the annual meeting. Coston will follow-up with Treasury on Monday and will make it very clear it is important to know well in advance. Coston will make it a high priority but can not dictate the pace to Treasury. Coston’s personal objective is to let people know by the end of September which gives people a month’s notice. The notification letters are ready to go as soon as the selections are made.

The staff has been working on the annual business meeting. November 3 is orientation for new members. Current members are not expected to attend this session which will cover travel, FACA rules and regulations as related to advisory committees, and their roles and responsibilities as far as working with the business units. The actual meeting will be November 4, 5, and 6. The main section of the annual meeting will cover new chair elections, training sessions on areas defined as critical needs for membership, and announcing the new issue committees. Michael Chesman and Sue Sottile are looking at potential issues for committees. Some current issues may not be the proper issue anymore; IRS uses the strategic plan of operating divisions and marries that with the critical issues to address. Members will travel into Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, November 3, and return home the afternoon of Saturday, November 6. The meeting will be all day on Thursday, Friday and a half day on Saturday.

Burgos felt some issue committees lent themselves more to tax practitioners than taxpayers so when you restructure, make it more obvious to members so they can select the best issue for their interests and skills. Sandy McQuin added that this was discussed during the last staff meeting and that TAP need to identify skill sets and make it clear during selection what the focus of the issue is and if the program owner has identified a particular skill set needed. Steinberg asked about issues that will last more than two to three years like Notices and asked if a standing committee was considered. Coston replied definitely, but it all falls back to the operating division and what will they support. Gwen Handelman expressed concern if some issues were identified as being practitioner orientated. Lay people, with help of staff and practitioners, can come up to speed on this type of issue and give the true citizen input. Coston said the skills set needed and the focus of the issue may just need to be spelt out. Judi Nicholas suggested using the payroll tax committee as an example; the focus was to reduce burden for small business for payroll, but almost no small business owners were on that committee. Burgos asked why have issues for TAP suitable only for practitioners where the focus is on the general public Instead IRS should use a FACA practitioner groups. TAP needs to identify issues that lend themselves to taxpayers. Nagel added that the turnover of program owners slows down the pace of the issue since each owner has a different agenda. Coston has already talked about the turnover with Chesman and Sottile. Steinberg said as tax practitioners we are advocates for taxpayer not for ourselves as practitioners. Teresa Smedley added that the one thing that has impressed her on this panel is the different perspective average taxpayers who may not have any tax law training bring to the issues. The learning curve is a little steeper for them but they do contribute. Smedley doesn’t just represent practitioners; she also provides the perspective of all her clients as taxpayers.

Seuntjens asked to see a copy of the draft agenda for the annual meeting prior to the October Joint Committee meeting. Burgos asked to get the descriptions of the new issue committees, as well as the program owners’ objective and goals before the annual meeting. Nicholas said staff would like to have the program owner descriptions of issue committees far in advance and also have program owners spend a few moments during the annual meeting talking about their expectations so members have enough information to make an informed decision.

• Outsourcing of Tax Return Preparation
  Coston talked about outsourcing of tax preparation. He spoke to NTA Olson on this issue and at this point in time, she does not want TAP to become involved. Maybe at some point in the future, but not now. Handelman would like Area 3 to present their opinion and offer support to the NTA on this issue and asked to see examples of letters other committees have sent to NTA regarding legislative issues. Nancy Ferree said she has some examples in her office and will distribute them.
  ACTION: Ferree will provide Handelman with copies of legislative proposals other committees sent forward to the NTA.
  
  Handelman said the proposal has two parts; one is a proposal to clarify regulations about unauthorized disclosure of return information and the other is to amend Circular 230. The minority report focused on amendments to Circular 230 which pertains only to those tax preparers who are authorized to practice before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Discussion followed on whether Olson’s decision was based on the subject of the issue or whether it was outside of TAP’s scope. Coston did not have clarification on Olson’s reasoning for her response. Panel members expressed concern if Olson would direct the TAP on which issues to work and to avoid. Bruce Twomley thought Olson’s decision a very odd state of affairs and made the decision looks arbitrary or secretive. It was troublesome to him because of the work and thought invested in this issue. There is the risk for advocates getting too bureaucratic and the other side is the risk of getting too chummy and abandoning issues that are troublesome to the agency. Handelman said Ferree already raised the issue whether or not this proposal was in the scope of TAP. It does not require a legislative fix but they are legislative regulations, and while the IRS has a role in revising them, it is actually Treasury who would make the change. Handelman agreed with Twomley that an issue should not be discarded because some one at IRS has a problem with it. Smedley’s understanding was that the NTA would answer the question on whether or not the issue is within the scope of TAP. Smedley, speaking from the point of view as a taxpayer, said she would like to be informed if someone shares my confidential tax information with some one outside this country without my knowledge. The push/pull here is whether this is legislative or not. Meldman said there is a simple solution; it doesn’t have to be sent as an official TAP issue. Meldman suggested sending the proposal along with the minority report to Olson. Olson then has all the information before her and she, as the National Taxpayer Advocate, has all kinds of venues to act on it. Burgos and Nagel both recommended the issue being brought back to the Joint Committee. Seuntjens suggested bringing the proposal back to Area 3 for a decision on whether it should go directly to Olson or brought back to the Joint Committee, both avenues can communicate to Olson. Handelman said Area 3 made the decision to bring to Joint Committee believing it to be their only choice. Sullivan added that by the comments made at their last meeting, he did not know which avenue Area 3 would take but knows they will not drop the issue. Twomley’s concern is that if the procedure is for comments to go straight to Olson, the process becomes invisible to the rest of TAP. Ideally recommendations, need to go through the TAP system. Lillian Woo agreed with Meldman--reword the proposal and send to Olson. This issue is a logical subset to an assignment Olson gave to Ad Hoc earlier. Ad Hoc was assigned the confidentiality and disclosure requirements for practitioners and outsourcing is a logical subset. Copy all TAP members to keep everyone informed. Seuntjens said the proposal can also be brought to the Joint Committee and the Joint Committee to forward to NTA as spokespersons for all of TAP. Olson would be best program owner for this type of issue. Handelman felt it would be a stronger recommendation if it goes through the Joint Committee and asked that the issue be added to the recommendation part of the agenda. This was agreed upon.
  
• One last item for National Office Report
  Coston announced that TAP has about 90% of tax checks back for the new panel members.

Review of Assignments

• TAP 04-010, Taxpayer Rights under RRA98
  Twomley asked about the status of the response to the Taxpayer Rights under RRA98 issue. It has been almost twelve months and TAP still has not received a response. Coston stated that TAP did receive a response from the NTA but reply did not match the proposal. There was a misunderstanding of what TAP proposed. Coston will follow-up.
  ACTION: Coston will follow-up for a response to TAP 04-010, Taxpayer Rights under RRA98.

• Berkey’s assignment on the Media Guide
  In the absence of Berkey, Ferree and McQuin handed out a sample of the pocket Media Guide and discussed its purpose. The pocket guide is designed is to help members do an outreach. There is a tear-off strip on the end so you can keep the section on communication tips but leave the talking points and the rest of the information behind. This guide will also be used by Communication and the Local Taxpayer Advocates in their outreaches.

• Review of IRSAC / IRPAC Reports
  The original assignment was to have staff in National Office review Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) and Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC) minutes and to keep the panel updated of any issues they are working that are related to TAP projects. TAP may be able to provide information on issues TAP is currently working even though IRSAC and IRPAC did not indicate they wanted TAP input.
  ACTION: Coston will assign someone in his office to review IRSAC and IRPAC reports and report back to Joint Committee.

• Other Assignments
  Completed activities will be removed; uncompleted activities will remain until completed. Whah stated that she discussed the On Hold for Toll Free issue with the Area 6 member who brought it forward and the remaining members of the area and decided that the issue would need to be reconfigured due to changes in the toll free system.
  ACTION: Toy to elevate Lien Processing and Identity Theft.

Review / Approve Minutes
Minor changes were suggested for the August minutes. Minutes were approved with changes

Area 1, 2, and 3 Chair Reports
Seuntjens stated this oral report is intended to be brief but is a lead in to the written annual report which is due October 15, and the oral report to be presented at the national meeting. Chairs should use the September committee meeting to have the whole committee provide input to the annual report and help put the right emphasis on this annual report.

• Area 1 – Brodbine-Ghoniem
  Elizabeth Brodbine-Ghoniem filling in for Jim Grimaldi reported for Area 1. Area 1 is working together on the annual report; writing the annual report is part of the Area 1’s face-to-face meeting at the end of the month. Area 1 has put together three proposals--advertising TAP in the TAS Publication 1546, this proposal began much broader, advertising in all publications and instruction booklets, but narrowed down to advertising in the TAS publication, the elimination of the Form 2868, Application for Additional Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and making a six month extension automatic and combined into one form, and adding additional lines to the Schedule D form for carrying over the capital loss from previous years.

• Area 2 – DiMartino
  Tony DiMartino reported for Area 2. Area 2 worked on the proposal for adding an option that allows taxpayers to designate a percentage and is still waiting for a response. Another proposal is changing the Form 104, Tax Return for Estates and Trusts. The committee first looked at recommending a 1041EZ limited to estate filing only. One subject matter expert from IRS thought it could be done, but another expert consulted later thought it too complicated and the EZ could never be done. Area 2 then shifted to separate instructions for simple estate filing of the Form 1041. Other current active issues include: Dr. Perros suggesting a standing issue committee to review forms and publications, similar to the notices team; an Area 2 subcommittee requested change in the TAP name because of confusion between TAS and TAP. Area 2 has been active n outreach. Dice Bobb was on some radio programs in North Carolina and spoke at a local Kiwanis club. Steinberg involved in practitioner forums. Area 2 members also participated in the nation-wide tax forum several. Other members were active in outreach to local church groups, other community groups, and nation-wide practitioner forums. Area 2 has subcommittee formed to leave blueprint of lessons learned, a summary of committee recommendations so far, and recap of success what worked well for groups and what did not work well set of program for the new members. Chair will include summary of lessons learned in the annual report.

• Area 3 – Sullivan
  George Sullivan reported for Area 3. A subcommittee consisting of Owen Oatley, George Sullivan, and Program Analyst Sallie Chavez produced a rough draft of the area’s portion of the annual report. They rough draft will be on the agenda for the next Area 3 meeting. The full committee will work out the details. There will be input from each member plus the subcommittees’ chairs. The annual report will have information on outreach performed and recommendations for next year’s outreach program. Sullivan will not be attending the annual meeting and Buck Paolone will be representing Area 3. Each member was asked to complete a self-assessment and bring to the face-to-face meeting. Area 3 is preparing an additional issue to elevate, however hurricanes have prevented work completion.

TAP Handbook
Seuntjens acknowledged Woo, Jaffke, Sandra Ramirez, and Tersheia Carter for the effort on the handbook. Woo reformatted the document so it has the same look and feel of the staff Standard Operating Procedural book. This objective of putting all the information new members need expanded from the effective committee’s document to an all encompassing handbook for members. The handbook will be included in the national meeting binder with dividers for the national meeting agenda, materials for the workshops, area, and issue committee meetings, and the handbook. National office already ordered two-inch binders with divider tabs and is looking at including cd-roms of the NTA’s Annual Report to Congress. Brodbine-Ghoniem asked if the handbook will be available electronically as well. Seuntjens replied, yes it is our objective to have it on TAPSpeak. It should not be in a PDF file as it will be a living document and will need to be updated or changed from time to time.
ACTION: Staff will ensure an electronic form of the handbook is available on TAPSpeak soon.

Brodbine-Ghoniem suggested adding a tip in the handbook about getting information via Email. There are a lot of emails coming through so it may be best to encourage members to have a separate TAP email address so they know the information pertains to TAP and is not accidentally deleted as spam. Also, when possible have hyperlinks. Ramirez said the staff manual has hyperlinks and the same links would carryover to the TAP member handbook. Nicholas mentioned that the handbook will be presented to the new members as part of orientation. Jaffke suggested adding the information on established TAP email protocol. TAP should be in the subject line of email messages. We need to add this to the communication chapter.
ACTION: Nicholas will add email protocol to staff procedural manual.

Seuntjens said to look at major topics on the handout. Those are the tab levels in the handbook. Handelman suggested having operating procedures included as a whole in the appendix. Nagel noticed there was no information on the outreach of TAP chair as national spokesperson. There is nothing on individuals with subcommittee participation, legislative issue procedures, or procedures for contacting Olson directly. Handelman suggested not mixing outreach and communication. Burgos said kudos to whoever put this document together. Seuntjens said most of this came from the TAP Guidance Document and the staff operating procedure outline. Steinberg suggested it was standard in having TAP’s mission statement and objectives placed in the beginning of the document. Smedley noticed secretaries were not included. Handelman said there was no reference to vice-chair. Seuntjens said the document has to be a “living” document as there is some talk of the vice-chair being groomed to take over the chair role; the chair should copy the vice-chair on all correspondence. Nagel said you need to add best practices too.

Area 4, 5, and 6 Chair Reports

• Area 4 — Smedley
  Smedley said Area 4 had been spending the last six months wrapping up old issues and trying to determine whether any new ones can be wrapped up prior to the end of the year or be put in the parking lot for new committees to consider. Among the issues Area 4 elevated were the lien desk recording issue, the innocent spouse issues, the married filing separate issue, and the VITA/TCE test/retest issue. One new issue Area 4 worked on in conjunction with the Payroll Committee was the Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate. That issue was wrapped up a week ago. Area 4 is still waiting for a response to the “Just in Time” which is over a year old and was a hold over from the original Citizen Advocacy Panel. Area 4 held their final face-to-face in July in Louisville, Kentucky. Area 4 started working on our self assessment for the annual report. Each member wrote up a paragraph on their issue and submitted to Delzer for compilation. Area still has one active issue—Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA)/Medicare Claims which are claims for foreign nationals who should not pay FICA but have trouble getting it refunded to them after it is withheld in error. Area 4 will try to have that last issue wrapped up at the September meeting.

• Area 5 — Woo
  Woo said Area 5 looked at ten issues since May. Three were dropped, three were elevated, three will be elevated, and one is still active. Outreach is active; one Area 5 member attended the first tax fraud festival. Area 5 started working on the annual report in August which is being consolidated now. Area 5 completed the self assessment. All the new issues were put in the parking lot to be considered by the “new” panel.

• Area 6 — Whah
  Whah reported that the Area 6 committee is cleaning up the issues in process. Outreach is different in Area 6; some only outreach on one-to-one. Some members have health problems which has stopped their outreach programs. Area 6 has started an outline on the communication strategy--what TAP members could do, whether the focus should be one on one or groups, news articles, etc. The strategy will further identify who in community to reach out to. Area 6 is working on the self assessment report and it was forwarded to one individual to compile. Whah asked each person to write a brief description of the issue(s) they brought forward.

Annual Meeting Reports
Whah asked if the self-assessment should be a part of the oral report at the national meeting. It was agreed that the information should be shared within the committee and not in the written annual report or the report presented a t the annual meeting. Smedley thought there were a lot of good proactive comments on things they would like change in the IRS and would hate to see that information go nowhere. Seuntjens clarified that he meant the actual scoring part of the self-assessment and not necessarily the comments. Meldman asked if for the benefit of the new members if things should be kept upbeat. Burgos said you need to set realistic expectations but you need to present accomplishments. Don’t do the numbers but there are ways of paraphrasing comments to suggest improvements. McQuin added that success stories will be incorporated and available during the meeting.

Seuntjens suggested using facilitators at the issue and area committee meetings during the annual meeting. Handelman asked if it could be a staff member as it can be difficult for a fellow panel member to step into the role. Steinberg thought it unnecessary since at the Designated Federal Official (DFO) played the role of facilitator. Coston replied that by his own observance some DFOs might step in and take that role, but others don’t. Self-facilitation by the DFO or another member may work on some committees, but it is difficult for a non-chair member to suggest using a facilitator so a directive on use is helpful. McQuin added that there may be certain times facilitators may be needed for example, just in the beginning.

Recruitment
During the break, Coston looked at the numbers related to alternates and reported there is 66 alternates on the list to Treasury for approval. DiMartino asked if some applicants were offended that they were alternates and Nagel inquired what their term would be if they were brought on as an alternate. McQuin replied some are offended some not but the emphasis is on how few vacancies on the panel. Coston added that some on the alternate list are fantastic candidates but there is no opening. Alternates will have a three year term with the new term beginning as they are brought on boar.

Review and Approval of Area Recommendations

• Expanding Third Party Designee Authentication — Hanna
  After discussion and a preliminary show of hands that the proposal could not be accepted as written, the Joint Committee with the agreement of Ed Hanna who was teleconferenced into the Joint Committee face-to-face meeting decided to break this issue's proposals into separate issues.
  
  The first proposal was the expansion of the third party designee authorization from one year from the due date of the return, excluding extensions, to three years. Although some members expressed concern that preparers might change during the period, the members agreed that the one year excluding extensions was too short. A return filed by October took a few months to process and it was not unlikely that a return processing error notice and responses to that notice would go beyond the one year time frame. Expanding the third party designee authorization to three years passed by consensus. Vote 14 thumbs up.
  ACTION: Toy will separate the four proposals, format the Third party designee authorization expansion to three years and elevate the proposal to the IRS.
  
  The second proposal up for discussion was the "Third Party Designee, Automatically receiving copies of Notices." Bob Meldman asked if Hanna was proposing expanding the type of notices included in the authorization or just who should be sent the notices. Hanna replied that who should receive notices; who should be primary contact was split from additional authority. To be clear, the third party should be co-recipient of IRS notices about math errors, offsets, and return preparation. By checking the box, the practitioner should be notified automatically at the same time as the taxpayer. Burgos asked for clarification of those who opposed and why. Steinberg is opposed because he is concerned about subsequent years. The taxpayer could change preparers and for privacy issues, it should be up to the taxpayer to decide who should address the notice. Meldman stated that tax practitioner is not getting a new power; the designated party can already request the notices. Steinberg’s concern is if the third party designee is not a practitioner. Teresa Smedley asked how the authorization is cancelled. The third party authorization has to be revoked in writing not through phone call. Steinberg’s concern is for the taxpayer and long term consequences. Burgos said that from my standpoint as a taxpayer, if I receive a copy of the notice, I can still choose to bring to someone else. Sherry Whah added that she does not believe the taxpayer would be at risk since the information was on the return and the preparer would have access to all that information through preparation. Another concern raised by Steinberg is that the check box has now become part of the return and is automatically checked and how many taxpayers are aware of all the implications? Seuntjens asked for another vote, there are still two thumbs down. Those for the proposal felt receiving duplicate notices was authorized by filing the Form 8821, Tax Information Authorization, and if the third party designee checkbox was equivalent this option should be available by checking the box on the tax return. Reasons given against were privacy issues if the taxpayer changed practitioners or third party designee was not a practitioner.
  
  Handelman suggested a minority report since an overwhelming majority agreed to the proposal. Burgos agreed because otherwise Joint Committee becomes roadblock to elevating area recommendations. Jaffke suggested this only be done if there is a super majority. Jaffke and Steinberg were asked if they can live with a minority report; they agreed, and will write the minority report.
  ACTION: Steinberg and Jaffke will write minority report for aspect of the Expanding the Check box Authorization proposal for notices to be automatically sent to both the third party designee and taxpayer.
  ACTION: Toy will format the proposal for the Third Party Designee Authorization to include the automatic sending of processing notices to the third party.
  
  The third aspect of the proposal, expanding the authority to include underreporting or non-reporting received 11 thumbs down. The reasons given were privacy rights and risks to taxpayers discussed earlier and the belief the designation should only include information that was provided during return preparation. Part of this concern is the IRS recent tightening of rules on who can be assigned a power of attorney --only those covered by circular 230 and are authorized to represent the taxpayer before the IRS.
  The fourth aspect on extending the authorization to estimated tax payments for the next tax year was also not passed by a vast majority voting thumbs down. This was based on the right of taxpayers to change practitioners from year to year and the fact the designee is not necessarily a practitioner but could be a neighbor or relative.

• Schedule K-1 — Hanna
  Hanna explained that the committee was not asking for the basis to be reported on the schedule but reporting any items that could affect basis, either increasing or decreasing, for that year. The benefit to taxpayers is they have the information needed to report the correct basis. Both IRS and taxpayer are assured the correct basis is reported. The main objection to this proposal is that taxpayers did not want to be forced to provide more information than the IRS required. Tax return preparation requires many worksheets and balance sheets to support the return. Taxpayers need to keep these records to support the tax return but not necessarily submit the information to the IRS. The majority of the joint committee felt the right not to disclose additional information to the IRS outweighed the burden on taxpayers who do not keep the necessary supporting documents and voted thumbs down on this issue (10 thumbs down, 4 thumbs up).

• Tax Transcripts to Taxpayers — Woo
  Lillian Woo presented Area 5’s proposal recommending that IRS field offices resume providing taxpayers with the tax return and tax account transcripts. In 2003, the IRS discontinued providing transcripts to taxpayers who came into the Taxpayer Assistance Centers. Taxpayers need the transcripts for a variety of reasons and it is a hardship now to have to wait two weeks for the information. The solution is we would like the transcripts issuance reinstated. Consensus reached to elevate.
  ACTION: Toy will format the proposal for elevating the Tax Transcript proposal and elevate to the IRS.
  
• IRS Correspondence/Change of Address — Woo
  Lillian Woo presented Area 5’s proposal regarding taxpayers’ change of address. The committee looked at many ways for IRS to ensure taxpayers get interim correspondence. IRS uses two direct means of changing the address, correcting the address by filing your tax return or filing the change of address form. The IRS also uses the postal service address information but the name on the tax return and the postal records must match exactly. Area 5’s proposal is to recommended clearer instructions on the tax forms and instructions on the importance of IRS having taxpayer’s correct address. Consensus reached to elevate.
  ACTION: Toy will format the proposal for IRS Correspondence/Change of Address proposal and elevate to the IRS.

• SB/SE Training Reduction — Woo
  The proposal is to require 40 hours of Continuing Professional Education and limit self study to between 25 percent and 50 percent of that time. Burgos asked how does this proposal benefit taxpayers. Meldman feels this is a primarily a personnel issue and may involve the union and is not within the scope of TAP. The Joint Committee agreed this issue did not fit into TAP’s mission and could not reach consensus on elevating. (Vote 3 thumbs up, 9 thumbs down)

• Married Filing Separate Notices — Smedley
  Smedley reported that this was a recurring issue for a particular taxpayer. Area 4 believes this is more of a personal taxpayer problem but the proposal is adding warnings to tax instruction to notify taxpayers of potential problems when they are married and filing separate returns. Handelman suggested specifically mentioning Form 1040 and Form 1040A instructions. Smedley agreed to the change and without further discussion the Joint Committee agreed to elevate the proposal by consensus.
  ACTION: Toy will format the proposal for elevating the Married Filing Separate Notices proposal and elevate to the IRS.

• Changes to Interactive Installment Agreement Website — Jaffke
  Area 7 acted as a focus group for the program owners on improving the Interactive Installment Agreement Website. Many of the changes suggested were not doable with the present IRS technology; however, the suggestions were still provided for when IRS was able to change the program platform. This proposal is the formal written referral. Joint Committee reached consensus to elevate.

• Improvements to CP521 Notice — Jaffke
  During the focus group session, the program owner also requested feedback from Area 7 on the CP 521 Notice. Area 7 first suggested changing the notice to be more like a monthly mortgage statement showing the amount of payment, interest, and penalty due along with the balance remaining. However, it was explained that that couldn’t be done and Area 7 decided to provide suggestions while staying within the confines of the present format. This proposal should also go to the same person that gets the interactive installment agreement write-up. Members of the notice issue committee requested a copy for the TAP Notice Committee as well as the Notice committee of the IRS. Joint Committee reached consensus to elevate.
  ACTION: Toy will obtain the name of the program owner from the Area 7 analyst for the Interactive Installment Agreement and Improvements to CP521 Notice proposals.
  ACTION: Toy will format the proposal for elevating the Interactive Installment Agreement and Improvements to CP521 Notice proposal and elevate to the IRS a copy of the CP 521 Notice proposal should be forwarded to the TAP Notice Committee.
  ACTION: Ferree will forward copy of the “Improvements to CP521 Notice to the program owners of the notices issue committee.

• Marketing TAP — Jaffke

• Advertising TAP in Publication 1546 — Brodbine-Ghoniem
  Burgos said he really didn’t think marketing TAP is an IRS problem; it is more up to us if we want to advertise TAP. Brodbine-Ghoniem said if you are already including a list of tax tips, why not include TAP and suggested looking at Area 1’s proposal on including TAP’s message at the same time. Burgos thought it was the worst way to advertise—in his experience, the worst way to find volunteers for Junior Achievement is getting lumped with 30 other volunteer opportunities. It’s best to do it alone. Handelman agreed. Burgos said what is most important is for TAP members to get out and doing something. Meldman asked if Area 7 could adopt the language in Area 1’s proposal. After more discussion and suggestions for improving the language, the committee took a break. During break, Jaffke and Brodbine-Ghoniem wrote the following to replace the wording in the original proposals:
  
  SPEAKUP
  
  The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is an independent panel of citizen volunteers appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to make suggestions for improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. Panel members from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico will not only listen to what you have to say but will also give your suggestions a voice. For more information call us at 1-888-912-1227 or visit our website at www.improveirs.org
  
  Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) – An independent panel of citizen volunteers who make suggestions for improving the way IRS does business. Contact TAP at: 1-888-912-1227 or www.improveirs.org
  
  Smedley’s concern is addressing the Area 1 issue and the concern about including information in TAS publications because of similarities in name and there is already considerable confusion between TAS and TAP. Handelman said there is virtue to having longer versions and shorter versions. And, McQuin said to keep in mind that while not identical, every TAP message should be consistent. The Joint Committee passed both proposals with the rewritten phrases by consensus.
  ACTION: Toy will format the proposal for elevating the Marketing TAP and Advertising TAP in Publication 1546 proposals and elevate both to the IRS.

• Simplify Form 1041 Instructions — DiMartino
  DiMartino presented Area 2’s proposal on simplifying the Form 1041 proposal. The issue was previously discussed during DiMartino’s Area 2 report. The Form 1041 instructions are quite complex and give instructions for each line contains separate instructions for every type of estate and trust that can use the form. Depending on the interpretation of the instructions, the form could be filed incorrectly. To improve filing accuracy, Area 2 proposes separating the estate filing information in the instructions. Joint Committee agreed to elevate the proposal by consensus.
  ACTION: Toy will format the proposal for elevating the Simplify Form 1041 Instructions proposal and elevate to the IRS.

• Outsourcing of Tax Return Preparation — Handelman
  The outsourcing of Tax Return Preparation proposal was placed on the agenda. The Joint Committee agreed by consensus to forward to Olson with the minority report attached.
  ACTION: Toy will format the proposal for elevating the Outsourcing of Tax Return Preparation proposal, attaching the minority report, and elevating to the Olson.

Area 7, Schedule C Non-filer, and E-file Chair Reports

• Area 7 — Jaffke
  Area 7 sent four recommendations to the Joint Committee. Area 7 is proud of its accomplishments and the praise received from IRS when it accepted Area 7’s proposal. In the beginning of the year, Area 7 set outreach goals for the committee and individually. For the most part, Area 7 reached or exceeded our goals. The committee identified both passive and active outreaches; he passive would be simply leaving TAP materials. The annual report has been completed but still needs to be compiled.

• Schedule C Non-filers — Nagel
  Nagel reported for the Schedule C Non-Filers committee. A couple weeks ago, at the Denver face-to-face meeting, three issues were elevated to the program owners. The first issue is SS4, Application for Employer Identification Number, and the questions to how wages are reported. The committee provided information to the IRS and that issue is closed. The second issue was the1099 information reporting forms and the IRS matching program and how the information form the matching program is tied to correspondence. Better definition of what partnerships and corporations to exclude from the reporting program and what is contract labor. Another issue which will be adopted in 2004 is maximum for total expenses on determining if the Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business, can be used will change from $2,500 to 5,000. Another proposal is to include the benefits of claiming social security credits for reporting income even if it is not reported to the IRS on information reporting form and other ways such as information on the Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, about the benefits and consequences of not filing.

• E-Filing — Burgos
  Burgos reported that E-filing has increased and the E-filing Committee jokingly added that the E-filing Committee was taking credit for that increase. The committee had two goals; 1) to create an e-file for dummies which title has changed to “E-file made easy” website, and it is up and running, and 2) to have input in the creation of a marketing package going to V-code people (people who prepare their return using electronic filing software but print them and mail them instead of filing them electronically). The IRS will be sending out the marketing package to practitioners who are v-coders and will track to see the difference in the amount of hits to the website. The annual report will be completed by October 15.

What’s On TAP — Smedley
Area 4 articles will be distributed to sources already identified after Berkey finishes reviewing them. Ad Hoc suggested they become the owners of the “What’s On TAP” effort. Ad Hoc would solicit articles from all the members or ideas for articles. They would also pull ideas from elevated issues and then send the articles out for publication. Smedley has a concern about this once a commitment is made to fill a column on a periodic basis, the commitment must be met. Area 4 assigned each of their interested members a month and they wrote the articles. Each month has to be assigned and someone needs to follow-up and ensure the assignment is done. Meldman said the Ad Hoc subcommittee proposed to write the articles and members would just have to submit their ideas. Woo added they would basically use the elevated issue template but finesse it a little. Smedley asked if the articles would be aimed at practitioners. Meldman said no. The Ad Hoc committee articles would not be local articles but geared to a national audience. Any area would be welcome to use the articles to send locally. This will not put any strain on the Ad Hoc committee members; members will be informed this is part of the commitment if they choose Ad Hoc. Ad Hoc will continue to ‘tap’ past members. Larry Lexow from Area 4 and the Ad Hoc committee is very interested in following up on this issue as it was all his idea in the beginning. Ad Hoc will mainly rely on active members though. Ad Hoc made a commitment to write the articles but would welcome articles from everyone. Handelman said Ad Hoc would have to send out guidelines to all panel members.

Discussion of Responses from IRS

• 03-011, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number — Brodbine-Ghoniem
  Rather than accept the response received from the IRS, the committee will research further and probably amend the original recommendation. The issue is closed for now and will be reconfigured.

• 04-028, EFTPS Information Access Period — Brodbine-Ghoniem
  Area 1 proposed an extension of 36 months. The response from IRS was the system cannot be expanded to the recommended 36 months, but agreed to expand to the 24 months. Committee accepted response.
  ACTION: Toy will close issue 04-028 on the Tracking Database.

• 04-036, Form 656, OIC Revisions — Woo
  The committee felt the response was inadequate so proposed to write a response. In the meantime, the OIC Portfolio manager agreed to conference into an Area 5 meeting to discuss the issue and proposed response is withdrawn from Joint Committee consideration. Keep open.

• Various #s Freefile Alliance — Woo
  Last year, Area 5 elevated five recommendations on individual Freefile. A response was received but it misrepresented some of the recommendations. A response back to the IRS was sent through the Joint Committee. During this time the program owners changed. A conference call was scheduled with the new program owners and Area 5 is currently reassessing the minutes from the call. This issue is still open.

• Non-response on Elevated Issues
  The Just in Time issue and two others will be addressed by Denise Fayne, Director, Forms and Publications. Fayne has suggested conference calls to address the outstanding issues regarding forms and publications. McQuin pointed out that that the response may not be writing, but you may get more from a call than a written response. TAP may have the expectation of a written response but the IRS may not realize TAP is expecting a written response. TAP doesn’t know if the IRS program owners are aware of TAP expectations. Chesman and Sottile agreed to respond according to the response agreement when the issue is elevated through them. But a focus group is a different issue. Coston said when the IRS comes to TAP as a focus group; TAP is not the only ones approached. IRS may not be able to provide detailed response on each of the focus group’s proposals. Smedley said it was her understanding that a written response is required. However, staff referred back to the minutes of the last Denver Joint Committee meeting and the discussion with Sottile and Chesman. The minutes of that discussion do not reflect an agreement to written responses, just the time frames. Woo agreed, saying on one hand courtesy dictates a written response; however, workload needs to be considered too. If the Program Owner allows the staff to transcribe the call, that can serve as a written response. McQuin said she agreed that TAP’s hard work should be recognized but is afraid if TAP pushes too hard on insisting on written responses, TAP may just get “cookie cutter” responses. Seuntjens said TAP needs to go back to Chesman and Sottile to express their concern. Meldman suggested taking minutes during the calls and sending the IRS a copy stating: “Here are your recommendations” and if you don’t hear back consider them accepted. Smedley said she is very frustrated on this issue, one issue elevated over a year ago has no response and members involved are rotating off with no closure on the issue.
  ACTION: Coston will follow-up on non-responses to TAP recommendations.
  Handelman said the EITC Committee has open lines of communication with program owners except for the lack of written response. It was the Committee's understanding that program owners knew that they should respond in writing to written Committee proposals, so the Committee has never specifically asked for written responses. Handelman suggested a report once a month, a couple times a year, or even once a year.
  ACTION: If issue committees get responses, forward them to Toy. She does not track them but does note responses are received and the information appears on the TAP Recommendation Summary and in the Annual report.

• Adding Long Term and Short Term Capital Carryover Lines and Worksheet to Schedule D — Brodbine-Ghoniem
  Elizabeth Brodbine-Ghoniem presented the Area 1 proposal on Adding Long Term and Short term Capital Loss Carryover lines and a short worksheet to the Schedule D. Essentially the recommendation is taking the worksheet from Publication 550 and overlaying it on Page 2 of the Schedule D. Jaffke commented that both lines would not be needed because under Section 1211b, short term loss gets netted over to long term and there is only one amount to carryover. Steinberg agreed with Jaffke and added that losses are cumulative based on next year’s gains and losses so number normally changes each year. Joint Committee also felt providing worksheet was the same principle as providing the basis information on the Schedule K-1 and did not favor providing anymore information to IRS that was already required. As for adding a line, Jaffke could not remember without a Schedule D in front of her but believes this information is already required. Brodbine-Ghoniem will bring the proposal back to a committee for revision and if resubmitted attach a Schedule D for reference.
  ACTION: Brodbine-Ghoniem will bring Adding Long Term and Short Term Capital Loss Carryover lines back to Area 1 for revision.

• Eliminating Form 2688 and Increasing Automatic Extension to Six Months — Brodbine-Ghoniem
  Form 2688, Application for Additional Extension of Time to File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, covers the additional two months extension after the Form 4868, Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, if field for the automatic four month. Area 1 is recommending going to an automatic six month extension, similar to corporations who had at one time had two different extensions, by filing only one form. Additionally, the application for 2688 in reality is never really denied if filed timely. Meldman asked if the change required legislation. Steinberg replied no, not if the extension remains at the six months. Jaffke noted that the State of California already grants the automatic six month extension of time to file. Joint Committee agreed to elevate the proposal by consensus.
  ACTION: Toy will format the proposal for elevating the Eliminating Form 2688 and Increasing Automatic Extension to Six Months proposal and elevate to the IRS.

Notices, Multilingual, and Ad Hoc Chair Reports

• Notices — DiMartino
  DiMartino reported for the Notice Issue Committee. The notice committee subdivided into five groups; 1) Language Standardization, 2) Quarterly Strategy Team, 3) Document Assessment Tool (DAT) subcommittee, 4) The Notice Process Improvement Initiative Team (NPIT), and 5) Dynamic Project Team (DPT). The committee observed and assisted in the testing of an IRS notice and was very impressed by the process. The TAP office received the language standardization guide consisting of 320 pages and the committee has proposed changes to the guide. The IRS needs to get back to us with their decision on the committee proposal. The Document Assessment Tool subcommittee prepared scoring standards for scoring notices committee. The notice Committee and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) worked in conjunction to propose changes to some of the notices concerned with the credit and IRS adopted the proposals. The committee also assisted IRS in scoring seven notices in the CP 500 (Math Error Notices) series. The NPIT subcommittee is working with program owner, Jim Cesarano. The Dynamic Project Team observed and was impressed with the extent and depth IRS worked with the public to help identify problems with the CP 500 series. Full committee prepared the self assessment reports which will be consolidated.

• Multilingual (MLI) —Twomley
  Bruce Twomley reported for the Multilingual Initiative (MLI) committee. The Multilingual Initiative is an ongoing process and not a finite work product. Twomley made a pitch to continue the MLI committee as the committee is engaged in a number of ongoing issues. For example, Linda Bader has worked with an English as a Second Language (ESL) expert to develop an ESL tax curriculum, and the project is now in the process of being funded. The committee has also monitored some LITC's efforts to provide tax education through ESL programs. Additionally, MLI and the committee are working with the Office of Citizenship and an ESL specialist for the purpose of providing basic tax information for limited English proficient (LEP) immigrants. This is an example of the opportunity for cooperation between federal agencies for the purpose of distribution IRS LEP material. With the Office of Citizenship in mind, the program owner requested the committee to comment on a set of basic, bilingual pamphlets prepared by MLI to provide information about the IRS. The form of the pamphlets is very useful with one column in Spanish (for example) and a second column right beside the first column conveying the same information in English. The good news is one of the pamphlets calls attention to the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS). The bad news is the pamphlet neglects to discuss Taxpayer Assistance Orders administered by TAS, and this omission is likely to generate a comment from the committee. Randy Swartz (Director of the LITC program) addressed the committee and invited cooperation between the LITC program and the MLI committee. Mr. Swartz also alerted the committee to two issues: (1) the IRS is prohibited from advertising LITC's, and (2) TAS is prohibited from referring clients to an LITC. The committee has also requested a report from the program owner on the use of KIOSKS as part of the multilingual initiative in light of some skepticism about a broader use of KIOSKS and their cost effectiveness. Bruce Twomley will provide the first draft of the committee’s annual report and invite edits and contributions from the rest of the committee.

• Ad Hoc — Meldman
  Meldman presented the Ad Hoc Committee report. Ad Hoc had a face-to-face meeting in August. They discussed their self-assessment during the meeting. They also made a number of recommendations to the NTA: 1) TAP Communication Strategy – including a list of things TAP Members can do and cannot do. 2) Elective process – Ad Hoc proposed that the chair for 2004-2005 be elected from the current panel members. The vice chair would no longer be the chair of the Ad Hoc Committee. The vice chair would be called the chair-elect and be selected from the new panel members or for those members whose terms last at least two more years. The chair elect would shadow the chair for one year and then would become the chair the following year. 3) AD Hoc would be the sole repository for legislative and regulatory issues. They would prepare the letter to the NTA requesting to work these issues and if agreed would work the issue, someone pointed out that if the Ad Hoc would have discretion on which issues were presented to the NTA, there should be consideration as to how members of Ad Hoc are chosen. 4) One analyst should be tagged to write thank you letters to all incoming private personal tax matters that are passed onto TAS. Staff noted that this procedure was already in place except each analyst was responsible for the letters in their area assignments. Handelman is not so sure people who are passionate about legislative or regulatory issues will be happy to turn them over to Ad Hoc. Smedley expressed concern about the new chair election process and about the chair-elect taking over as chair without another election in case the chair-elect is not found to be effective. There is also a concern that the chair is a current member and the chair-elect has to be new member. Seuntjens said that because existing members only had a year remaining there was no other solution for 2005. 2006 should go more smoothly. Smedley is also concerned about the legislative issue recommendation. TAP is not charted to deal with legislative issues. Her concern is members who are passionate about legislation; spending all their efforts on legislative issues and not wanting to work on regular TAP issues. Meldman said that person would be on the Ad Hoc Committee then. Woo added that this was to provide an avenue to get these types of issues in front of the NTA. This provides a conduit. If the NTA is in favor, the issue can be worked. If not, it will be dropped. Whah said Ad Hoc wanted to be the listening post for legislative issues. Brodbine-Ghoniem asked how thorough the legislative issues should be researched before sending the issue to Ad Hoc. Meldman said to send the thought forward as a summary statement. Toy mentioned that we already have an avenue for legislative issues, they can be sent up individually to the NTA, by committee, or through the Joint Committee. They get sent to the NTA who has systemic advocacy people to work them. She decides if they work the issues or not.
  ACTION: Coston will take this issue of Ad Hoc working the legislative issues to NTA.
  ACTION: Toy will add review of Ad Hoc recommendations to the October agenda.

September 11, 2004

Exit Interviews
Woo and Coston developed an exit interview survey. Its purpose is to look at various areas of member’s level of satisfaction as well as to approach things from a positive outlook. It is broken down into three areas: your participation on the area committee, your participation on the issue committee, and your overall satisfaction. It will be sent out to all non-continuing members. Brodbine-Ghoniem suggested continuing the positive tone by reversing the order for rating using excellent first and poor last. Should also include a blurb about how long it will take to complete the questionnaire. Coston said it will be totally confidential. Nagel suggested using the same wording on the first question in the area and issue sections. Coston said this was developed when some members said they dropped out because they felt intimidated by others having more subject knowledge than they had. This is important feedback. Woo said this is a draft. Whah thought something should be added about what was your best experience and about best practices Woo suggested for tallying purposes, the questions would have to be n the form of multiple choices. The committee then brainstormed their ideas for the multiple choices:

What did you like best?

• Making a difference
• Getting to know different people
• Face-to-face meetings
• Working with the IRS
• Advocating for substantive issues
• Advocating for the taxpayer
• Learning about issues
• Being told by the IRS that your recommendations were helpful
• Having an avenue to express concerns
• Interaction with other panel members
• Learning about the IRS

What could be improved?

• Teleconferences
• Lack of feedback
• Short deadlines
• Being told you cannot bring an issue to an issue committee
• Time commitment
• Communication
• Outreach opportunities
• Coordination with the LTAs
• Completeness, accuracy, and promptness of meeting minutes
• Marketing
• Continuity of program ownership

ACTION: Toy will send lists (What you like best / what could be improved) to Woo and Steinberg by 09/13/2004.
ACTION: Woo and Steinberg will revise the survey to encompass the Joint Committee’s suggestions.
From Woo’s experience a lot of polls are very difficult to quantify. The lists are easier to tabulate. Nagel suggested being able to select more than one.

Review of Annual Meeting Agenda
Coston said the staff is working feverishly on the annual meeting. The complexion will be very similar to the last one. There will be a half day orientation for the new panel members on Wednesday, November 3. The rest of the TAP membership will meet all day Thursday, Friday, and a half day on Saturday, November 4-6, 2004. The Joint Committee will meet briefly Saturday after the general meeting is completed.

Thursday: There will be speeches by the Commissioner, Secretary of Treasury, NTA, and the Small Business Self Employed and Wage & Investment Commissioners. The TAP chair will cover the annual report. There will be the issue selection process. A representative from the National Public Liaison will be there and there will be further discussion of partnering with IRPAC and IRSAC. There may possibly be an IRSAC volunteer talking about their role. There will be the chair’s annual reports.

Friday: Workshop sessions, for example, Media 101, Advanced Media, Public Speaking, Grassroots and Outreach, etc. Then issue committee meetings and election of the TAP chair.

Saturday: Area meetings and the Joint Committee Meeting.
ACTION: Toy to send PowerPoint template to chairs to use for the annual meeting.

Coston said he would like to have the final agenda ready by the October Joint Committee conference call.

October Joint Committee Teleconference
Steinberg questioned whether he should attend the October Joint Committee conference call since his membership is not extended. Coston replied that all chairs terms were extended through the annual meeting and all chairs or their representative should plan on attending the October conference call and annual meeting.
ACTION: Toy to remind current chairs that the committee chairs' membership are automatically extended through the annual meeting and to conference in on the October call.

Time Commitment
Coston said there was a lot of dialog back and forth about time commitment. This time staff made it clear during the interviews that it will be 300 to 500 hours. Members need to look at how you can best use your time expenditures. The charter says you will meet at a minimum once a quarter; it does not say monthly. Each member has an area committee and issue committee assignment, not to mention the sub-committees and outreach time commitment. That’s already three meetings a month, plus another one if you are a chair. Coston asked members to consider that TAP committees are not expected to meet every month. Don’t stretch yourselves so thin. Handelman said there really isn’t a need for some committees to meet on a monthly basis, but some are working so hard because it is so seductive when you know you are making difference. Maybe there should be a choice of only being on one committee. Steinberg said some members said they were busier on their issue committee than the area committee. As chairs, we do 350 to 400 hours easy. The quality of work that comes out of the committee is in direct correlation to the time expended. Brodbine-Ghoniem suggested the area committees meet quarterly and issue committees meet monthly. McQuin said these are important discussion topics during the annual meeting, as committees will be asked to set their meeting schedule for the next year. DiMartino said the lack of participation by some members was a problem causing other members to work harder. Woo thought it was necessary that every member be on an issue and an area committee. Seuntjens agreed on the value of both committees. It’s easier on the issue committee because the program owner tell you what your issue is while the area is a little more difficult.

Transition of Chairs’ Role
Seuntjens felt that a two year term should be the maximum term for all chairs. There is a need for the rollover to keep the vision and goals fresh. TAP wants a transition but not all at once. Chairs who have served two years should step down from their chair assignment; however chairs can become the chair of a different committee. All chairs should be elected every year but should not be the chair of the same committee for more than two years. Meldman suggested the current chairs take the time to mentor and work one-on-one with the new chair for an easier transition. Woo suggested extending the mentoring for each new member to have a big brother/big sister.

EITC and Payroll Chair Reports

• EITC — Handelman
  Handelman reported that the EITC Committee had two productive face-to-face meetings, which included serving via a one and one-half hour teleconference as a focus group for the Office of Legal Counsel on defining the EITC requirement that certain taxpayers care for a claimed child "as the taxpayer's own child" and offering oral feedback on online educational materials, including a toolkit for tax preparers and a prototype eligibility tool to allow taxpayers to determine online if they are eligible for EITC. Following each meeting, the EITC Committee submitted several sets of written proposals recommending improvements to EITC notices, educational materials, and EITC marketing and outreach. Among the disappointments were that another Committee member resigned due to family obligations; that program owner requests for feedback always come with short deadlines; and the lack of opportunity -- despite repeated requests -- to preview outreach materials prepared by outside vendors. Some members were particularly distressed at the lack of opportunity for the Committee to submit written comments on the online eligibility tool. In response, the program owners invited individual members to submit written comments, exemplifying the cooperative relationship between the Committee and program owners. Although the Committee has not received formal written responses from program owners, it has come to the attention of Committee members that Committee suggestions have been incorporated into EITC forms, notices, and educational materials, although in one case chief counsel's office rejected Committee suggestions. A draft annual report was circulated at the last face-to-face meeting for discussion, revision and approval, and responses to the self-assessment portion of the form were collected anonymously and compiled by Handelman.

• Payroll — Steinberg
  The Payroll Tax Committee has completed work on all of issues the program owner assigned. The committee request that payroll no longer continue. The committee was very successful on the reporting and deposits issues. The committee recommended a greater emphasis on Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS), better employer information, and training on reporting for payroll taxes. To that end, we served as a focus group for the issue owner and are taking responsibility for the new and improved Form 941, Employers Record of Federal Tax Liability, which will be effective January. Deposits – the way forms are written. Penalties – there are six different categories of penalties with four different percentages of penalties. The committee recommended simplifying the structure but this is regulatory so the committee also advocating for employers using EFTPS not being assessing a penalty if the employer has a good record for three years and makes a mistake. The Payroll Committee worked with an Area 4 subcommittee on the W-4 Form; the task was broken down into several sub issues. The recommendations included a check box on the W-4 for non resident aliens. The Area 4 Committee took over some of the W-4 issues. It is very complicated form and they recommended two different W-4s; a W-4EZ, and a W-4 EZ for single taxpayers only. Mary O’Brien is writing the recommendations on the W-4 Form. The committee is currently writing their annual report.

Annual Report Writing
Seuntjens reminded the chairs that their annual report is due to him by October 15, 2004. Seuntjens asked for volunteers for writing the annual report, a committee of no more than four people, himself and three others. Handelman and Whah volunteered, and DiMartino will ask David Meyer if we will help, too. Seuntjens asked McQuin if her office could provide staff support, and she agreed. It The committee reports are due by October 15, and it should take four to six weeks to compile, so the final report should be out to you in early December. Seuntjens asked Coston to go to the NTA to ask for the delegated authority to approve the report.
ACTION: Coston will ask Olson if he can have the authority to do the detailed pre-approval of the annual report.
Handelman asked if there would be any value for NTA Olson to see the individual committee reports. Coston replied that she would see the individual reports from the Annual Meeting. Steinberg asked if TAP could emulate the procedures that IRPAC and IRSAC follow when they elevate their reports. Seuntjens said TAP has a different routing path since TAP sends the report to Olson who sends it on to Treasury.
ACTION: DiMartino will ask David Meyer to volunteer to help write the annual report.

Miscellaneous
Steinberg recommended that all TAP staffs be expanded. They work way too hard. It is detrimental to the quality and quantity of work being generated. The rest of the committee agreed. Coston replied that he had just had a conversation with NTA Olson about this subject and she okayed adding one analyst to each office. Now the proposal needs to be presented to the advisory group for approval. Olson would also like to see each committee have two face-to-face meetings each year plus the annual meeting and recommends having one of the meetings earlier in the year. Coston said he and Manager Nicholas will be interviewing for a new analyst in Seattle to replace Anne Gruber. Analyst O’Brien has been working a Herculean effort to support all their committees.

Meldman asked for a round of applause for Coston and the job he did. We had an initial lack of support from National Office but that has changed. Seuntjens also came into the birth of a unique situation. We all struggled at first but have to give a lot of the credit to Seuntjens. Seuntjens said we have to thank the staff. They helped make this all happen.

Reminders:

• Joint Committee will not have a meeting on September 21, 2004.
• But, will have a meeting on October 19, 2004.
• The annual reports are due by October 15, 2004.
• No monthly reports are due for the October meeting unless you have an issue that needs to be elevated or issue committee work papers to attach.

Chair’s Role at Annual Meeting
Handelman asked what the chair’s role will be at the issue/area committee meeting during the annual meeting. Coston replied that chairs will be there as subject matter experts and he would like them to talk about best practices.

Meeting adjourned.

Assignments:
All:

1. If issue committees get responses, forward them to Toy. She does not track them but does note responses are received and the information appears on the TAP Recommendation Summary and in the Annual report.

Berkey:

1. Develop fact sheet of success stories for panel members to use as part of their outreach and to insert into press releases and will update to keep stories fresh (05-07-2004 to 05-08-2004).

Brodbine-Ghoniem:

1. Bring Adding Long Term and Short Term Capital Loss Carryover lines back to Area 1 for revision.

Coston:

1. After Treasury makes their selections for new panel members, Coston will distribute the alternate list.
2. Follow-up for a response to TAP 04-010, Taxpayer Rights under RRA98
3. Assign someone in his office to review IRSAC and IRPAC reports and report back to Joint Committee.
4. Coston will follow-up on non-responses to TAP recommendations.
5. Coston will take this issue of Ad Hoc working the legislative issues to NTA.
6. Coston will ask Olson if he can have the authority to do the detailed pre-approval of the annual report.

DiMartino:

1. Ask David Meyer to volunteer to help write the annual report.

Ferree:

1. Provide Handelman with copies of legislative proposals other committees sent forward to the NTA
2. Ferree will forward copy of the “Improvements to CP521 Notice to the program owners of the notices issue committee.

Steinberg and Jaffke:

1. Write minority report for aspect of the Expanding the Check box Authorization proposal for notices to be automatically sent to both the third party designee and taxpayer.

National Office Staff:

1. Review other IRS advisory group minutes for redundancy with TAP issues. National Office will serve as liaison with the advisory groups.

Nicholas:

1. Add email protocol to staff procedural manual.

Staff:

1. Ensure an electronic form of the handbook is available on TAPSpeak soon.

Woo and Steinberg:

1. Revise the survey to encompass the Joint Committee’s suggestions.

Toy:

1. Send an updated list of who is extending their term to chairs.
2. Elevate Lien Processing and Identity Theft
3. Format the proposal for the Third Party Designee Authorization to include the automatic sending of processing notices to the third party
4. Format the proposal for elevating the Tax Transcript proposal and elevate to the IRS.
5. Format the proposal for IRS Correspondence/Change of Address proposal and elevate to the IRS.
6. Format the proposal for elevating the Married Filing Separate Notices proposal and elevate to the IRS.
7. Obtain the name of the program owner from the Area 7 analyst for the Interactive Installment Agreement and Improvements to CP521 Notice proposals.
8. Format the proposal for elevating the Interactive Installment Agreement and Improvements to CP521 Notice proposal and elevate to the IRS a copy of the CP 521 Notice proposal should be forwarded to the TAP Notice Committee
9. Format the proposal for elevating the Marketing TAP and Advertising TAP in Publication 1546 proposals and elevate both to the IRS.
10. Format the proposal for elevating the Simplify Form 1041 Instructions proposal and elevate to the IRS.
11. Format the proposal for elevating the Outsourcing of Tax Return Preparation proposal, attaching the minority report, and elevating to the Olson.
12. Close issue 04-028 on the Tracking Database.
13. Format the proposal for elevating the Eliminating Form 2688 and Increasing Automatic Extension to Six Months proposal and elevate to the IRS.
14. Add review of Ad Hoc recommendations to the October agenda
15. Send lists (What you like best / what could be improved) to Woo and Steinberg by 9/13/04.
16. Send PowerPoint template to chairs to use for the annual meeting.
17. Remind current chairs that the committee chairs' membership are automatically extended through the annual meeting and to conference in on the October call.