Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
Joint Committee Meeting
Crowne Plaza, Dallas, Texas
October 12 - 14, 2006

Thursday, October 12, 2006
Friday, October 13, 2006
Saturday, October 14, 2006

Designated Federal Official:
Bernard Coston, TAP Director

Joint Committee:
Larry Combs, Chair
Paul Brubaker, Vice-Chair
Paul Duquette, Chair, VITA
Jerry Fireman, Chair, TAC
Tom Karwin, Vice Chair, Area 7
Sonny Kasturi, Chair, Burden Reduction
Howard Margulies, Area 1
Patrice Marker, Chair, Ad Hoc
Paul McElroy, Chair, Area 2
Mary Ann Motza, Chair, Area 6
Ralph Rivera, Chair, Area 5
Ferd Schneider, Chair, Area 4
Max Scott, Chair, Notices
Beadsie Woo, Chair, EITC
J.T. Wright, Chair, Area 3

Members Absent:
Dorothy Havey, Chair, Area 1
Bob Meyers, Chair, Communication

Staff:
Judi Nicholas, Seattle TAP Manager
Nancy Ferree, Plantation, FL TAP Manager
Sandra Ramirez, Brooklyn, TAP Manager
Sandy McQuin, Milwaukee TAP Manager
Barbara Toy, Milwaukee, Analyst
Patti Robb, Milwaukee, Secretary
LaVerne Walker, National Office, Secretary

Guests:
Laurel Cummings, Local Taxpayer Advocate
Peggy Guinn, Taxpayer Advocate Service Manager

Guests via Conference Call:
Howard Guthmann, Area 5 Member
Bill Matheny, Area 3 Member
Wayne Whitehead, Communication Committee Member 

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda

Bernie Coston said the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) did not spend its full budget for traveling.  He is concerned that money allocated for outreach was not spent last year.  He brought this to the Joint Committee’s attention so TAP can better utilize its allocation for the coming year.  Another reason TAP did not use all its money is because there was not a full contingency of panel members last year and only one Joint Committee meeting was held during the year.  This meeting is in the 2007 budget.  TAP has asked for $520,000 for travel next year.  But, TAP will also have a full roster next year, so TAP needs to spend outreach and travel dollars wisely. 

The annual meeting will be discussed tomorrow.

Seattle hired a new analyst, Janice Spinks who reported last week.  TAP still has an opening for a Senior Analyst in Washington, D.C.  This person will work closely with the Joint Committee.  I will discuss this with the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) when I meet with her next week.

The names have been approved by Nina Olson, NTA, and are now in the process of going to the Treasury and the Commissioner for approval.  Coston has confirmed that the list is in the hands of the persons from the Commissioner’s office and Treasury where it needs to be.  The approval of members is done by the Secretary of the Treasury.  Coston had to send quite a bit of background information about TAP for the new Secretary.   The list includes replacements which TAP will use if members resign.  There is one state and Puerto Rico that will not have members. 

TAP has formed four teams of members and staff for the following:

1. Vision statement
2. Member position description
3. Member evaluation
4. Measures

Max Scott asked what is the reason for the evaluation and how will it be used?  Coston replied that it will be used as a tool and a basis of discussion with members who are not engaged.  Coston stated that it isn’t fair that we have people on the TAP not pulling their weight.  Coston also stated that staff needs to be evaluated as far as meeting members’ expectations and the members should bring it to Coston’s attention if they see problems. 

Part of the problem with members not being engaged is because it takes awhile for new members to become comfortable and feel they are part of the team.  MaryAnn Motza asked if TAP staff could encourage those on the replacement roster to participate in the conference calls.   They could attend as members of the public.  The feedback from new members is that the initial training is overwhelming.  Coston thought this was an excellent point and added that another thing to do is to have a fast track training process to bring replacements up to speed.  Ferd Schneider wanted to know if TAP could invite the replacements to some face-to-face meetings.  Coston said no because it isn’t in the budget.

Coston introduced Laurel Cummings, the Local Taxpayer Advocate (LTA) from Dallas, Texas. 

Wayne Whitehead joined the meeting via conference call.  First, he gave a brief overview of what a vision statement should be.  A vision statement is a realistic look into the future─it stretches the imagination.  The best are short and memorable.  Key is the leader sets vision and moves the organization toward it.  Vision statements are measurable in a subjective manner.  He used Microsoft’s vision statement as an example:  a computer on every desk, a computer in every home. 

The proposed vision statement: 

The Nation’s most recognized and respected voice of the federal taxpayer.

A good vision statement should always be us, not you or me, as we are all looking toward the same goal. 

Larry Combs questioned who should approve the Vision Statement for TAP.  Coston is the director but is the Joint Committee as a group, the leader?  Coston and staff provide the continuity to the panel but the chairs, the Joint Committee, are the leaders.  Coston agreed and wants to make choosing the Vision statement a joint process.  Judi Nicholas pointed out that Whitehead had said a vision statement is made by A leader.  Whitehead stated that it is difficult for a group to devise a vision statement; each person would come up with a different or slightly different vision.  Combs said the bottom line is this is a group of volunteers, and if they don’t buy into it, they won’t fulfill the vision. 

Combs said he likes the vision statement and asked for other comments.  Coston added that the vision statement should be the driving force behind the organization.  The fun thing about a vision statement is the challenges it presents.  If approved, he will present to the NTA who has the final say.  Paul Brubaker said an organization needs to have a champion that will be there long term and likes the idea there is a person who can steer toward the vision.  Paul McElroy commented that the wording should be:  “To be…”  Jerry Fireman is concerned that it is too focused on internal issues.  Shouldn’t it address what TAP will accomplish for the taxpayer?  Also, TAP is not the only voice of taxpayers.  J. T. Wright agreed with Fireman.  The vision should be the broad guideline for our activities.  TAP is the vehicle that seeks the information and issues the taxpayer has, and, as a member, he is charged to see that the IRS acts upon TAP’s suggestions.  Tom Karwin stated this Vision statement is about reputation rather than accomplishment and shouldn’t the focus be on what TAP wants to accomplish.  Patrice Marker disagreed since a vision statement shouldn’t be too specific.  Wright agreed; it should be broad.  Schneider stated that someone not familiar with TAP who reads this statement could see TAP as a lobbyist.  Scott agreed with the vision statement.  This is where TAP wants to be and if TAP gets there, TAP has accomplished everything it wants.  Combs asked Nicholas to take all the comments back to the team for another look. 

There will be a conference call to discuss the two issues having to do with the third party authorization.  Combs discussed the ground rules.  The committee will first listen to both speakers and then discuss whether the two issues should be combined or, whether either, or both should be elevated. That will be in the discussion.

Bill Matheny will be the first speaker on the conference call for Area 3 issue and Harold Guthmann will be discussing Area 5’s issue

Matheny said the Area 3 recommendation pertains to the checkbox authority on the Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.  Area 3 recommends the period of time for the authorization be extended from one year from the due date of the return to one year from the extended due date of the return.  The recommendation came about partially because of Hurricane Katrina.  Those affected by the hurricane will have the authorization expire prior to their extended due date.  The IRS has been reluctant to extend the scope of the check box authority beyond processing; however, this proposal just recommends the authorization be in place for a full year.  Sonny Kasturi has received feedback from the practitioner community on expansion of the checkbox authority and this recommendation falls short in this respect.  TAP should not be worried about what the IRS wants to do but should be concerned about the burden placed on the taxpayer.  The checkbox authority grants the same authority as the Form 8821, Tax Information Authorization. 

Combs asked Matheny “If the Joint Committee decides both issues will be elevated, should they be combined?”  Matheny felt that they should go separately because they are very different issues, Area 3’s is about expanding the authorization period and Area 5’s is about expanding the authorization period but also expanding the authority. 

Guthmann joined by conference call to discuss Area 5’s recommendation.  Guthmann said that in most people’s minds, the checkbox authority and POA are identical.  TAP believes that check-box-authority is a more efficient way to handle taxpayer problems and should replace the Power of Attorney (POA) where practical and appropriate.  Taxpayers have, in effect, given the same level of approval for the check-box-authority as for the POA.  Name, date, signature and identification number are the same for both.  In TAP’s collective experience, the third party designee is the tax preparer in at least 95% of the cases.  TAP’s suggestion will simplify the resolution of all problem issues and in TAP’s collective experience, the current time limit unrealistically expects the IRS to contact taxpayers within one year of filing the return.  More often contact does not occur until the second or third year after filing.  In addition, TAP’s plan provides for an affirmative revocation of the authority.  This requires each taxpayer to be responsible for protection of their privacy.  Also, the check-box-authority is easier and less discriminatory for lower-income and unsophisticated taxpayers because of its simplicity and lack of legal requirements.

Kasturi would like the checkbox authority to last for the life of the return. Guthmann feels TAP needs both recommendations.  Combs stated that he checks the box authorizing his preparer to provide processing information to the IRS but he does not want his preparer to represent him in front of the IRS.  This recommendation gives the practitioner the right to negotiate with the IRS for the client. 

Combs asked Guthmann if the issues should be combined.  Guthmann suggested presenting Area 5’s recommendation first and then Area 3’s in case the Area 5 recommendation is not accepted. 

Combs asked for comments on the recommendation.  Sandy McQuin asked the committee to look at the response from the IRS.  The Form 8821 and the checkbox authority do not include everything the Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative covers; the Forms 2848 and 8821 are very different.  The Form 2848 asks for the tax periods and also contains a signed statement from the representative that he/she is able to practice before the IRS. 

Combs asked for comments recarding the Area 3 issue.  Brubaker questioned the wording of the proposed solution and Wright clarified that the intent was to propose extending the authorization which is now one year from the original due date, generally April 15th of the return to a year from the extended due date of the return to provide a full year for processing the return.  Paul Duquette stated that when he checks the box he expects it will cover the return until it’s processed.  It was suggested that Area 3 change the proposal to cover the life of the return and Brubaker suggested not worrying that it may be rejected.  Brubaker stated that from personal experience, he has prepared three years of tax returns for taxpayers and the first two years are automatically invalid for the checkbox authorization.  Kasturi stated that TAP should not be worried about what the IRS wants but should make recommendations that reduce taxpayer burden.

Barbara Toy pointed out that the IRS’ response expresses concern about employees inadvertently disclosing information if the authorization period is changed to a flexible date.  In her opinion, the barrier is not insurmountable because IRS employees could be instructed to check for the valid due date on the taxpayer’s account.  That information is shown on the taxpayer’s account.  Toy suggested Area 3 address the barrier.

Brubaker suggested changing wording to include the processing time of return.  Combs asked if the Area 3 issue should be elevated as stated or sent back for the definition to be modified.  Beadsie Woo asked if the recommendation was the best thing for the taxpayer or is it what the IRS will accept.  The reply was both since it gives taxpayers who file after the original due date the same benefit for those who file by the original due date.  Kasturi pointed out that if the Joint Committee passes both of the recommendations, Area 5’s will render Area 3’s moot.  Combs agreed and decided to discuss the Area 5 issue before finalizing this one

Duquette added that just because the IRS rejected a similar recommendation, does not mean this should not be approved.  Ralph Rivera asked if TAP wants to send both recommendations.  Area 5’s goes beyond Area 3’s.  Schneider added that the first issue arose because of the Katrina issue and he believes it is ready to go as is.  Schneider prepares returns for his relatives about 15 returns a year.  He is able to provide information to the IRS that helps complete the processing of the return but is not qualified to have the POA to represent the taxpayer.  Kasturi favors sending back to the Area to be rewritten to clearly state what TAP is asking IRS to do.  Some members felt the issue should be separated into two parts, extending the authorization term and increasing the authority.  Combs asked if the issue was ready to elevate as written.  Only Rivera agreed that it was ready.  Combs then asked if the proposal should be sent back to the committee to separate.
DECISION:  Joint Committee reached consensus to send Area 5 #3712, POA, Third Party Designee back to Area 5 to separate extending the authorization term and increasing the authority issues and to rewrite for more clarity.

Discussion returned to the Area 3 issue.  Kasturi suggested combining the two issues regarding extending the authorization period.  Schneider objected to the delay this would cause and feels the recommendation is ready to go after a change of wording in the proposed solution.  Maryann Motza agreed and added that most returns will be processed within that year and would like to see the issue elevated.  Rivera expressed concern that TAP is not presenting a unified front to the IRS.  Karwin suggested sending forward and indicating that TAP is still looking at this issue.  Schneider felt this should go forward because it addresses the issue originally brought to TAP.  It also benefits the many people affected by disasters, those in the military overseas and other persons who filed for an extension of time to file.  Combs asked if the committee had consensus to elevate with the change in wording. 
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus to elevate Area 3 - #3921, Expanding Third Party Authorization with addition of clarifying verbiage.

McElroy stated that Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) and Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) volunteers are not allowed to complete a Form 1040 Schedule C Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship).  The volunteers can do a Form 1040 Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business, but the form is limited to expenses less than $5,000 and only one Schedule C-EZ can be attached to a return (multiple Schedules C can be attached if the taxpayer has more than one business).  The restriction on preparing the Schedule C is from the IRS; it had been allowed in TCE when the preparer had the knowledge and training from a source other than TCE.  Area 2 is recommending that volunteer preparers be able to do a Schedule C with some restrictions on types of expenses. It is also recommended that Schedule C-EZ be changed to increase the limit on expenses to $10,000 and to allow more than one Schedule C-EZ.   Kasturi presented his minority report attached to the recommendation.  He does not think this proposal is prudent at this point because it opens an avenue for cheating.  Schneider disagreed.  Woo said the recommendation does not provide an opportunity to cheat but expands the free tax preparation to many low-income self-employed persons.  Fireman asked if there were different levels of documentation required for the Schedules C and C-EZ.  The records required to be kept are the same for each schedule; the difference is for the C-EZ, the expenses are reported on one line and not in detail. 
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus to elevate Area 2, #3634 Free Tax Preparation for Self-employed recommendation as written.

Howard Margulies summarized Area 1’s proposal.  Area 1 is suggesting IRS change the software so the forms can be downloaded and mailed to the IRS or be electronically filed.  The forms are machine read and the form that is found on irs.gov can not be used for filing since it is not machine-readable.  The forms must be ordered from the IRS and then mailed.  Schneider stated that Area 4’s #3705, OCR forms Availability should be combined with this recommendation because it is basically the same issue.  Area 4’s recommendation is to add a link on the irs.gov screen when the forms open so the taxpayer can easily order the forms.  Combs asked if the issues should be combined.  Consensus was reached to combine the Areas 1, 3, and 4 referrals.  It is suggested that the write-up include both long term and short term or interim solutions; a phased-in approach.  Combs then asked if the referrals should be sent back to the areas for rework.  The chairs asked for time to get together to discuss the combining and then present to Joint Committee later in the meeting.
DECISION:  The Areas 1. 3. and 4 chairs will get together today and discuss the possibility of combining #3734, #3758, # 3908, Downloadable Forms, and #3705, OCR Forms Availability.  The issue will be addressed again  later in the meeting.  

McElroy reported that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has the ability for small employers to submit Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, on-line.  IRS does not allow this for the Information Reporting Forms (Forms 1099 series).  The forms can be submitted online but it has to be done through an authorized provider and there is usually a fee involved.  Area 2 proposes that the IRS adopt a system similar to SSA which allows small businesses or charitable institutions to submit the information returns on-line.  This referral needs clarification─the issue goal statement needs to be rewritten for clarity.  The number of forms was questioned of why the area recommended 20 forms rather than the 249 and it was suggested to consider removing the number altogether.  Toy stated there is one barrier not addressed in this referral and it is that the IRS is not allowed to compete or interfere with private businesses.  The Social Security Administration is a quasi-private business almost like the post office and does not have the same restriction
DECISION:  Consensus reached to elevate Area 2, #3747, Form 1099 Electronic Filing after suggested wording changes and the committee addressing the barrier brought up by Toy.    

Schneider said that Area 4 is proposing that a checkbox be added to the Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, to allow people to request an instruction booklet for the next tax year. Scott agreed although having the instruction booklet seems to defeat the purpose of IRS going all electronic, most people still want the paper instructions even when they file electronically.  Schneider said this recommendation addresses taxpayers’ needs as well as preferences.  Marker questions whether there is enough room on the Form 1040 to add a checkbox.  However, the recommendation is timely as the IRS is in the process of a complete revision for the Form 1040 and could work this into it.  All members agreed this is a good recommendation. 
DECISION:  Consensus to elevate Area 4, #3718, Form 1040 Instructions, Lack of Availability recommendation as submitted.

Maryann Motza stated that Area 6 had originally elevated this in 2003.  That is why the title is inconsistent with what the area is recommending and will be updated.  The original recommendation was to allow day care providers to apply for a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) using a proposed new Form W-7P, Application for IRS Provider Taxpayer Identification Number.  Area 6 then found out that provider’s can use the Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identification Number, to apply for a TIN.  Area 6 changed the recommendation to adding a line or two to Form W-10, Dependent Care Provider's Identification and Certification informing the providers that they can request a TIN so they don’t have to provide their Social Security Number to their clients as required on the Form W-10.  This could help prevent identity theft.  Area 6 thinks the benefits clearly outweigh the barriers.
DECISION:  Consensus to elevate Area 6, # 1182, ID Theft – Need for Provider TIN after Toy does the minor wordsmithing and checks the IRS response date for accuracy. 

Area 1 had a productive year.  Area 1 submitted the downloadable forms referral to the Joint Committee and has five more recommendations to address on tomorrow’s agenda.  Area 1 held a Town Hall in Rhode Island that 90 taxpayers attended.  In addition to the referrals on this agenda, Area 1 also had a Form 1040 Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, proposal elevated previously.  Area 1 is currently working on estimated tax payment information being available on-line and looking at Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) issue for people who don’t have a Social Security Number.  The Area is also looking at the issues with returns being submitted through an intermediate service provider.

McElroy reported that Area 2 has gotten 36 new issues this year.  Area 2 has a screening subcommittee which reviews the issues and makes recommendations to the full committee to drop, put in parking lot, or make active.  Area 2 elevated seven issues last year; three were approved prior to this meeting.  The committee had 73 outreach events through September.  The area lost three members during 2006.  One of Area 2’s best practices was having a screening committee.

Wright reported that Area 3 started the year with 28 different issues which they pared down to a manageable list which resulted in higher quality work.  Area 3 is still seeking ideas for effective ways to do outreach.  Area 3 teamed with Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to hold a town hall meeting in Jackson, MS which really helped get the word out about TAP.  Scott visited his congressional and senator representatives in Louisiana and conveyed the TAP message.  He also attended the tax forum in Atlanta.  Area 3 developed a template for a letter of introduction for TAP members to introduce themselves.  
ACTION:  J. T Wright will share this template with the Communication Committee by sending to Judi Nicholas.

This team was formed because it is TAP’s believe that volunteers want feedback on the job they are doing.  The team has looked at both what to evaluate and how to rate─numbers; fair, good, great; etc.  Duquette said the team would like input from Joint Committee about evaluating TAP members.    Evaluating will be done by staff, the chair, vice chair, and listening to what their peers are saying about them.  The purpose is to look for ways to improve the program, positive things not ways to put people down.  Brubaker mentioned a Rubric tool that shows ways to evaluate on different criteria that is objective rather than subjective.  Need to evaluate members’ performance in both area and issue committees, as well as smaller groups, the subcommittees.  Woo stated that training on using the Rubric tool is needed if TAP plans to use it.  Nicholas suggested staying away from very bureaucratic rating systems since TAP is a volunteer organization.  She also expressed concern that if the process is too cumbersome, she would not have the time to evaluate each volunteer on her committees.  Fireman suggested staying away from numerical ratings and just stating whether or not expectations were met.

Coston said right now, TAP members are only evaluated based on their attendance and participation in conference calls and other meetings.  TAP needs a tool to use to sit down with members to talk about problem areas.  Margulies said that fixed criteria for evaluation can cause trouble.  Some people deal well with writing up issues while other deal well with people and perform better at an outreach—TAP needs both types.  Wright suggested that committees should also do an evaluation of their work; is it being effective, how could it be more effective, etc?

The team has not met yet.

The team met last week and is looking at TAP’s mission statement, vision, goals, and the 2007 NTA objectives.  These will be used as drivers as the team moves forward.  The team will meet on a monthly basis and the next meeting is November 7.  The team will also be looking to the other people who volunteered for this committee as resources. 

Issues should not be presented to the committees without staff research for duplication.  Staff should check the list of TAP issues, issues in the parking lot, the database, and recommendations already elevated to the IRS.  Schneider suggested simplifying the issue categories.  The List of TAP issues is a little cumbersome to review for duplication.  It was suggested to include only the active issues on the report.  Motza suggested a better approach to keeping the active list and the parking lot manageable is a periodic review by each area committee.  Area 6 just completed this process closing  or dropping many issues. 
ACTION:  Toy will include only the active issues in the List of TAP Issues report but also run a list of issues in the parking lot by date received.

Scott stated that issues can stay in the parking lot for a long time and how is submitter notified.  Nancy Ferree replied that TAP sends an initial letter to let them know it is in the parking lot, or when the issue is closed.  If the committee decides to work the issue, another notification letter, email, or phone call is initiated. 

The identification of duplication of issues should happen through the staff and should happen before issues are worked.  Motza suggested that areas that do not have many issues should look at the parking lot.  In her experience, there are issues the committee members want to work that don’t get worked because of lack of time.  Area 6 is never lacking for issues and many are valid issues.  If the issue is valid, Area 6 puts in the parking lot.  It doesn’t matter where the issue is worked just that it is worked.

Staff has raised an issue regarding frequency of meetings.  Sometimes committees just meet every month even though they really don’t need to since most work through subcommittees.  Staff has proposed that TAP adopt a formal process that the full committees meet every other month and the subcommittees meet the opposite month or every month as needed.  Woo stated that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Committee adopted this policy last year which worked well.  Coston added that the change would not only benefit staff but also address the concerns of panel members who feel they are spending way more than the stated 300 hours per year.  A concern was expressed that not meeting every month would make members feel not connected and that in some committees very little work is being accomplished in subcommittees.  Preference is for each committee to decide how often to meet and not making a policy.  However, there is agreement that committees need to be flexible and not meet if there are no decisions that need to be made.  Coston stated that his purpose is to have quality meetings, TAP needs to work efficiently and smarter.
DECISION:  TAP will not have a formal policy on setting the frequency of full committee and subcommittee meetings; however, committees need to be flexible and not meet if there are no decisions that need to be made or work to be done.

The best thing Area 4 did was work together on the response to the Commissioner regarding VITA issues.  Second, was the town hall meeting in Cincinnati.  Area 4 sent three referrals to the Joint Committee one was approved this morning.  Area 4 started the year with 17 members and lost four of the second year members and one of the new members.  Area 4 had its first face-to-face meeting in July which was too late in the year; the committee never got working together as a team.  Schneider detected a lack of enthusiasm in the members this year partially due to losing members and the late face-to-face meeting.  However, he felt it was partially his fault in not knowing how to motivate the members.  It’s hard to find incentive for volunteers.  He recommends that part of the chair training this year be on how to motivate volunteers. 

Area 5 submitted two or three recommendations to the Joint Committee; one of which was the free file report for the Commissioner.  Area 5 had over 30 outreach events that reached over 300 people.  The area also was short some members which created problems in working as a team.  One of the area’s best practices is to invite a local taxpayer advocates from each state in the area to join the conference call each month. 

Area 6 worked on the Commissioner issue regarding Internal Revenue Code Section 7216.  Motza also worked with Brubaker, Wright, and Teresa Smedley on a response to the IRS Oversight Board on performance measures.  The area hosted a town hall in Fargo, ND which brought in a number of grass roots issues.  Area 6 was active in outreach about 106 events reaching over 1,000 people.  However, not every member participated in outreach.  There is a concern that the area did not elevate many issues.  Part of the problem is due to the sheer volume of work.  Also, our face-to-face meeting was held in August which was too late.  As a best practice, Area 6 did clear the list of active and parking lot issues, closing many they did not have merit.  In addition, Area 6 recommends holding the face-to-face meeting earlier in the year to help motivate members to participate.

The Communication Committee suggested having a subcommittee of the Joint Committee work on the annual report rather than just the TAP Chair.  The committee would like to use the report as an outreach tool but last year’s report had a negative tone that was not conducive to outreach.  One suggestion was to have an executive summary to hand out at outreaches.  Combs asked if the committee wanted to try a different process this year.  Kasturi stated that each chair should write a report on their committee and the TAP chair should pull together.  Then after this consolidation, the Communication Committee should review.  Brubaker asked if anyone was eager to be a part of the process and no one volunteered.   
Friday, October 13, 2006
Peggy Guinn, a TAS Case Worker Manager attended the meeting with Laurel Cummings.

McElroy said that Area 2 is recommending that anyone who makes estimated payments be automatically entered into the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS).  In addition, the committee is recommending that IRS eliminate the waiting period for individuals.  The IRS approves businesses and other entities right away but for individuals performs bank verification prior to sending out a Personal Identification Number (PIN).  Kasturi explained a system the Federal Government has called Treasury Direct and why couldn’t IRS use this same process for instantly verifying the bank information.  Schneider did not agree that automatically issuing a PIN is a benefit and would prefer that PIN numbers not be mailed automatically.  Scott agreed and stated he prefers a check-off box to request a PIN.  Combs asked McElroy if he thought Area 2 would be willing to modify the proposal.  Rivera had a problem with eliminating bank verifications.  Schneider had a problem with unrequested PINs being mailed out.  However, all agreed the waiting time should be eliminated.  Paul Brubaker stated that the IRS already has a process for verifying the routing and account numbers for individual tax returns and why not duplicate the same process for EFTPS. 
ACTION:  McElroy will bring Area 2’s #3736 EFTPS back to the committee for revision.

Brubaker discussed the problems people have using the IRS’ toll free lines with the menu and not having access to a real person.  IRS should offer the option to press 0 to talk to a person.  Scott expressed the concern that too many people will want to talk to a person.  Woo disagreed; she prefers not to talk to a person if she can get the information needed automatically.  Nicholas stated that pressing the 0 doesn’t mean you will reach a person that can answer your question; the caller might need to be transferred to someone who can.  Brubaker said Area 2 addressed that issue by requesting the person handling the calls be a screener who knows where to transfer it.
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus to submit Area 2 #3925 – Option for Access to Person on IRS’ Toll-Free as written.

Area 6 is proposing the IRS form a task force on quality improvement of customer service which includes improvement of customer service for telephone, web and walk-in service.  Area 6 suggests that IRS work with partner organizations listed as part of the task force.  Brubaker stated that working with the IRS this year on the partnership council makes him believe this idea will be received well.  Area 6 did extensive research on this issue and believes it is best if IRS discusses customer service issues in a public forum. 
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating the Area 6 #3249 Improve Quality of Customer Service recommendation.

Margulies reported that Area 1 is proposing to eliminate the existing option to use Form 8453, U.S. Individual Income Tax Declaration for an IRS e-file Return, which would reduce burden on tax preparers and IRS.  Toy stated that this needs to be re-worded because The Form 8879, IRS e-file Signature Authorization, needs to be signed as well what is different is that the Form 8879 does not have to be mailed to the IRS service center.  Kasturi stated that his Area worked on a similar recommendation earlier and asked if this recommendation conflicted.  Toy replied that the earlier recommendation was specific to VITA and asked IRS to prohibit volunteer sites from using the Form 8453.  IRS replied that volunteers would continue to have all options available for their clients; the form 8453 is an option not the preferred method.  Marker suggested the recommendation be rewritten to state “reduce the use of the Form 8453 rather than eliminate.”  Brubaker stated that he would not like to see the Form 8453 eliminated because it is necessary for some taxpayers to use; however, he would like to see the Form 8879 used more.  He believes that the emphasis should be on training and getting the word out about the proper use of each of the forms.  He stated that there is conusion concerning the uses of the Form  8879 due to lack of training.  Combs asked if there was anyone who objected to elevating this recommendation. 
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus on returning the Area 1 #3934 Form 8453 Usage Reduction to the committee for revision to put the emphasis on using the Form 8879 rather than eliminating the Form 8453.

Howard Margulies stated that most people on installment agreements with the IRS are not aware of how much interest they are paying.  The monthly notice sent to the taxpayer does not indicate how much interest is charged.  Area 1 recommends that IRS break down the interest charge on the reminder notice.  The benefit to the IRS is that many taxpayers would find another way of paying the amount due after they realize how expensive it is.  Combs asked if there were objections to elevating this recommendation to the IRS.  Members suggested wording changes.
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating the Area 1 #3558 CP-521 Interest Rate recommendation with the agreed upon modifications.

Letter 2645C is also called the stall letter.  IRS uses the letter to let the taxpayer know it needs more time to review the return.  The letter does not state that interest and penalties will continue to accrue nor does it inform the taxpayer to continue to make payments to avoid additional penalty and interest.  Members suggested minor revisions to the referral.
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating the Area 1 #3518 2645-C Letter, Improvements to Language recommendation with the agreed upon modifications.

Those who file Form 1040 showing a balance due can send the tax payment with the tax return.  However, if the taxpayer needs to make an estimated tax payment, the estimated tax payment must be sent to a different address than where the tax return is sent. Brubaker suggested deleting the first paragraph of the proposed solution because it is repeated in the background and is not the solution.
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating the Area 1 #4008 Form 1040V and Estimated Tax Payments recommendation with the agreed upon modification.

The IRS web site allows a search by form and publication numbers or by topic, but the web site makes it difficult to search by “keyword,” such as the words contained in the titles of the forms and publications.
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating the Area 1, 4015, Forms and Publications, Search by Keyword recommendation with the agreed upon modification.

Most IRS notices are in English and taxpayers in the United States do not have the option to have correspondence sent to them in Spanish.  There are Spanish versions for use in Puerto Rico.  Area 3 recommends sending notices out in Spanish when requested.  A question was raised about having notices available in languages other than Spanish.  The answer is that these notices are already available to the IRS in Spanish for those in Puerto Rico.  IRS does not need to create a new product but make the existing product available to more taxpayers upon their request.  There was some discussion on whether the notices designed for taxpayers in Puerto Rico would be applicable to taxpayers residing in the United States.  It was agreed that there could be some difference but the recommendation would apply only to those notices that are applicable to taxpayers residing in the United States.  
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating the Area 3, 3604, Spanish Correspondence Availability recommendation.

IRS’ forms and publications are confusing and not easily understood.  IRS personnel charged with the writing of forms and publications do not have educational backgrounds in the areas of English and Journalism.  Area 5 is recommending that IRS choose people with backgrounds in English and Journalism rather than their technical knowledge.  A question was raised about the reference to the Deere Corporation.  McQuin explained. 
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating the Area 5 #3755, Forms & Publications Employee Background recommendation after adding the clarifying language.

McElroy presented the revised version of the Form 1099 electronic filing referral.
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus on elevating the Area 2, #3747, Form 1099 Electronic Filing recommendation.

Nicholas went through the proposed agenda.  Schneider expressed concern about the orientation being so short and suspects orientation will continue in the area meetings.  Combs agreed and added that the idea behind the combination meetings is to continue orientation and to combine it with team building.  In addition, staff will have conference calls with the new members prior to the annual meeting to address some issues normally done in orientation such as travel. 

The NTA will be the keynote speaker of the Plenary Session and the Commissioner and a representative from Treasury have also been invited.  Combs will speak about last year’s TAP activities and discuss the chair and vice chair responsibilities.  Next, the election process will be covered.  Woo questioned the time allotted to vote for candidates.  She referenced the process last year and stated that she could barely hear or talk to people before the election.

During the Area Committee meetings, the other members will attend an outreach workshop, one for new members and the other for returning members and the vendor will do a TAPSpeak presentation.  Chairs will work with managers and program owners to set committee agendas. 

Issue committee assignments are happening right now.  Everyone should have received an email from Coston and members will be assigned based on their response. 

Coston is still trying to arrange a meeting with the Commissioner for the new Joint Committee on Thursday afternoon, after the end of the meeting.

Coston said there were some obstacles when devising this agenda to meet all the requests of the Joint Committee and it is still a draft.  Members very clearly let staff know they wanted to take an active role in this meeting.  Also, all members requested more time to meet in committee meetings.  There is time to work on issues in the committee meetings.  Motza liked the new agenda and the fact that staff took the committee’s suggestions into consideration.  She also liked the writing class which should help make members more productive much faster.  Coston added that staff also listened to the suggestions about reducing the amount of time for speakers and eliminating the chair reports.  Volunteers are needed to help teach the new members, the writing class, and the outreach workshops.
ACTION:  Coston will send out solicitation next week to solicit for volunteers to help with the annual meeting.

Ferree, Brubaker, Meyers, MaryAnn Delzer, and McQuin were part of the Orientation planning team.  First, the team held a conference call with any members who were interested to give their input on how the orientation should look.  Next, they looked at what was important to learn during an orientation: 

1. The social aspect─where do I fit in the organization
2. The cause and mission─ why am I here , what does TAP do, what IRS does
3. The system─how will I do this, what does it look like

Returning TAP members will play a large part in orientating the new members.  It was agreed that orientation was too long last year and too much information was imparted at one time.  Staff will discuss travel and some other administrative issues with the new members before they come to this meeting.  Brubaker stated that this orientation is designed so new members can be active members of TAP right after leaving Washington. 

There is a lot to learn to become an active TAP member.  That is the reason Coston pushed to extend membership from a two year to a three year term and it is also the reason for the one third turnover in membership each year. 

Motza said that mentoring received a very low score in the Communication Committee survey of last year’s new members.  The process needs refining for this year and TAP needs to set up basic requirements.  The most important guideline is that the mentor should want to mentor and not volunteer because they feel obliged.  Also, not every new member wants a mentor.  Brubaker asked for some best practices.  Here are some suggestions for a good mentoring program:

• The mentor should call the assigned person before the annual meeting
• Mentor should make themselves available to new members
• Have a handout on what the mentor can do for you and here’s when you turn to the committee chair and here’s when you consult staff 
• Think of when you started in TAP, what would you have wanted to know?  
• A mentor for issue and area committee. 

Nina Olson, the NTA, held an interactive television meeting yesterday with all of her employees regarding the realignment of some of her staff.  The NTA talked about TAP and the success that TAP has had   She also talked about the meeting with the Commissioner and the TAP’s position paper that went to the Commissioner and its quality.  She also mentioned the town hall meetings. 

Brubaker wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the team who prepared the response to the Oversight Board regarding the proposed IRS performance measures.  Brubaker, Motza, Marker and Wright worked together to respond to the Oversight Board within a very short turn-around time.  The 09/15/2006 report to the Oversight Board is on TAPSpeak in the TAP Elevated Recommendation folder in the Reading Room.  TAP received good feedback on the quality of its responses. 

Area Chairs were to poll their committees to find out members’ thoughts on how early in the meeting the election should take place for the TAP chair and vice chair.  Margulies said Area 1 members preferred holding the election early before the area and issue chairs are elected.  The meeting begins on Monday.  If the candidate speeches are given Monday afternoon, members have the Monday night social to talk to the candidates and the voting could be completed prior to the start of the meeting on Tuesday.  There was a discussion of leaving the polls open until after lunch.  However, that would impact some area committee meetings.  It was decided to leave the polls open until the morning break which allows the areas to choose their chairs and vice chairs in the late morning.  Members will be given the first part of the break to vote and the chair and vice-chair will be announced at the end of the break.

Combs suggested having candidates declare prior to the Annual Meeting.  However, the chairs found during the polls that most members wanted to give the new members the opportunity to have a leadership role.  There were some who felt the TAP Chair or Vice-chair roles should be reserved for returning members and new members interested in leadership roles should start by running for chair or vice-chair of an Area or Issue Committee. 

The Joint Committee then discussed having a nominating committee or a group to seek out and ask qualified people to run. Because of the perception that nominating committees precludes certain people from running and that they end up putting certain people in office, the idea of a nominating committee was rejected.
DECISION:  It was decided that candidates should announce prior to the meeting and those who declare by December 1, 2006 will have the opportunity to sit on the orientation panel.  However, anyone can run as long as they declare their candidacy before the speeches on Monday.  There will be no nominating committee and the election will be held on Monday with the polls closing during Tuesday’s morning break.
ACTION:  Coston will send an email to all members describing the duties of the TAP Chair and Vice-chair and asking those who are interested to declare their candidacy.

Tom Karwin stated that this defines the function of the Communication Committee─what it does and what it does not do.  A responsible party is identified for each strategy.  The Communication Committee is responsible for many of the strategies; other responsible parties are the Joint Committee, the area committees, and staff.  It is organized into two sections:  External Communication Objectives and Internal Communication Objectives.

The Communication Committee defined the priority recommendations as:

• 1st level (8 identified) either mandated or highly desirable items
• 2nd level (25 identified) a necessary action
• 3rd level (16 identified) important, but relatively new item
• 4th level (6 identified) value unknown
• 5th level (1 identified) TAP poster, skeptical if it has real value or difficult to value

The Communication Committee first tried to identify everything TAP has been involved with or should be doing.  As the strategy evolves into a work plan, some of the strategies maybe dropped.  Duquette questioned why the issue committees weren’t mentioned especially for the partnering.  The VITA issue Committee is very involved in partnering.  Nicholas replied that the committee envisioned TAP as an organization developing these partnerships.  It is also a high level strategy.  Coston applauded the Communication Committee for the strategy; it is in direct line with the TAP objectives.  Karwin said next steps include adding target dates to the strategies which will show if it is a realistic document.  Woo said this is a great document and her only observations are the majority of things have a 1, 2 or 3 level of priority and can’t see how it will work to have so much a top priority.  Karwin replied that this is where the target dates come in and also we factor in the workload.  The present priority values are reflective of the value not the workload.  The document is not set in concrete; it’s more of a target the Committee is shooting for.  Wright commended the committee for the work but asked if TAP has the funds and how will this be implemented?  It will take a lot of work.  Karwin replied that the funding and amount of work will help decide what gets done and what doesn’t. 

Karwin said that the Communication Committee needs to have the Joint Committee approval of the direction the strategy before it takes the next step which is to develop the work plan.  Kasturi suggested the Joint Committee take time to review the document before approving it.  Wright said it is a great outline and the Joint Committee needs to look at the practicality as to the implementation of these strategies. The Communication Strategy will be discussed further tomorrow.

After the Communication Committee has completed the strategy each of the responsible parties will need to complete their own work plan. 

The assessment for the Joint Committee is due to LaVerne Walker by Monday, October 16, 2006.  The form is included in this meeting’s material.  The Self-Assessment/Annual Report covers the new TAP year which is January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 and is due to Toy by December 31, 2006. 

The Area or Issue Committee chair completes the top portion (the Annual Report) and asks for input from their committee members to complete the self-assessment portion (bottom of report).  The Area and Issue Committee Self-Assessments are also included in the package.  The chairs should work with the analysts to complete the report.  Each committee can decide how to complete and compile the self-assessment portion of the report. 
ACTION:  All Joint Committee members should complete the assessment for the Joint Committee by Monday, October 16, 2006 and send to LaVerne Walker.
ACTION:  All area and issue committee chairs should complete the Self-Assessment/Annual Report covering January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 and send to Toy by December 31, 2006.
ACTION:  Toy will make suggested corrections and send the Joint Committee Assessment, and the Area and Issue Committee Self-assessments electronically.

When TAP receives information about a minor problem from a taxpayer, there should be a way for the committee to write up a brief paragraph for elevation to the Joint Committee and then sent to the IRS.  For example, a link to a website does not work.  It would be an informational letter or note rather than a formal recommendation.  After discussion it was decided that there would be no formal process for this type of suggestion.  The format for recommendations should be followed as closely as possible and the recommendation or suggestion would be numbered and entered into the tracking Database.  The committee should draft a letter which will be reviewed by the Joint Committee and submitted, if approved, to the IRS under the TAP Chair’s signature. 
DECISION:  When a committee receives information about a problem that IRS needs to be aware of quickly such as an incorrect link on its website, the committee should draft a letter following the format for referrals as closely as possible.  The paragraph will be reviewed by the Joint Committee and submitted, if approved, to the IRS under the TAP Chair’s signature.   

Karwin reported that Area 7 has nine active issues; two are completed but not in time for approval at this meeting.  Area 7 had eight outreach activities in September reaching an audience of 895 people.  Area 7 changed the teleconference duration to run 90 minutes but usually finish in 60.  Members don’t feel they have to rush through any part of the agenda to complete the call within the hour.  Allena Kaplan, the chair of Area 7, contacts the lead person in each subcommittee to check on their progress.  Area 7 had some slowdown due to staff shortages but this should change soon with the addition of a new analyst.  This year the committee has committed to focusing on no more than three issues at a time.  The Chair and Vice-chair are working to encourage participation from all members. 

The Ad Hoc Committee had only three returning members this year.  The Committee had a slow, disappointing start and the concept of being driven by program owner was new.  The Committee is busy reviewing forms and publications many of which have a very short, one week, turn-around.  The Committee also participated in preparing the tax preparer regulation position paper for the commissioner.  The NTA asked the committee to review a financial literacy toolkit.  The committee has three issues in the parking lot.  The Forms and Publication Subcommittee is very active but the Multilingual Subcommittee hasn’t had full participation from the program owner.  One subcommittee member felt the program owner asked for TAP’s input because it was required rather than TAP’s input having value.

Kasturi reported the Burden Reduction Committee is fortunate to have many returning members.  The Committee worked on five issues from the from program owner who drives the timeline.  Subcommittees worked these issues.  Two of the issues the committee worked on are the Subchapter S election and Innocent Spouse Relief.  The recommendations were well received by the IRS and the committee received a response from IRS commending TAP’s work.  Committee members have expressed disappointment that they don’t always see the recommendations implemented and some felt the committee was not fully utilized.  The program owner, Beth Tucker, praised TAP’s contribution in her Congressional testimony.

Communication Chair – Maryann Motza / Judi Nicholas 

The Communication Committee is a fairly new committee.  The committee was formed to address how TAP communicates internally and externally.  The committee developed the communication strategy presented today.  The External Subcommittee works on items outside of TAP such as developing the TAP Poster, the TAP website, the outreach tool kit which the team developed last year and updated this year, the pens, letter openers, and the success stories used for outreach.  One success story for TAP is the feedback that was put together for the commissioner.  The Internal Subcommittee’s key project was conducting a survey of the new TAP members.  The survey was very productive because it was conducted by subcommittee members calling the new members rather than sending out surveys to be completed.  Most new members were thankful that the subcommittee took the time to talk to them plus by asking follow-up questions, the team got very good results.  The subcommittee also worked to develop and then update the TAP Member Handbook.  The subcommittee has also worked to improve TAPSpeak making it more user friendly, more intuitive.  Berkey is working with the vendor to have some of the improvements made and the new version will be demonstrated at the annual meeting. Because of the negativity many members have toward TAPSpeak, the committee has suggested changing the name to TAPSpace.  It will be changed to TAPSpace if no one has already placed a claim to the name.  Nicholas added that as part of the strategy, the outreach toolkit will be updated each year and members should take a look at the materials and make recommendations to the Communication Committee for improvement.  Updating will be an annual activity.  Improvements are also being made to improveirs.org.  Motza added that some of the barriers members have expressed about using TAPSpeak are that the information on it is old.  This is not true but you need to know where to find the information.  Another project the Internal Subcommittee will be doing is having some standardization of folders so that TAPSpeak is easier to navigate.  Also there will be only one calendar.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Committee elevated two recommendations, one concerned an outreach plan to large corporations to inform them on how the EITC can benefit their workers and the second is an outreach to tax preparers.  The Committee is currently working on two projects a survey of tax preparers and gathering information on the largest groups of immigrants where they are located and how to target outreach to those groups.  The committee had a large turnover and with the number of new members, the committee had a very slow start.

Scott got this job by default after the chair resigned from the panel.  The committee scored 21 of 25 notices.  The notices are scored for their clarity; the lower the score the higher priority they receive for revision.  The committee formed a subcommittee that developed new training for new committee members on how to score notices.  Other subcommittees have worked with the program owners to redesign a notice.  It was a great experience and the committee hopes to have more opportunities to work on the revision of notices.  The committee also worked with the program owners to determine the value of stuffers sent along with IRS notices.  This will be a valuable project, looking at maybe $200,000,000 in savings.  The program owners have been very supportive of TAP and value the input.

The Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TAC) Committee is new this year and has a good working relationship with the program owner.  The committee is working on two projects; one is developing a survey of the IRS employees working in TAP and for the taxpayers using the TACs.  This will give IRS feedback from both sides of the counter.  The subcommittee worked with the IRS research staff including staff from TAS to structure the surveys.  The surveys are ready and the committee will be looking to all TAP members to help do the surveys.  The other project is a review of the Publication Method Guide which is the manual used by IRS employees to assist taxpayers in the TACs.  The subcommittee is working with the IRS employees who use the guide.  IRS is incorporating the teams’ suggestions into the revised guide. 

Duquette thanked all the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) members who worked so hard to make the Committee a success.  VITA was a new committee this year and it took awhile for the committee members and program owners to get on line.  The committee has three subcommittees:  an Ad hoc group that addresses issues as them come into TAP, a Training Materials Subcommittee and a Training Process and Method Subcommittee.  The committee worked well with the program owners and also worked with some of the IRS partners from the AARP Tax Counseling for the Elderly program.  The committee endorsed IRS’ Process Based Training which will replace the training method used for the last 30 years.  Team members also reviewed and provided recommendations for improving the facilitators’ guide, process based training publication, and the train the trainer program.  Two members, Brubaker and Elizabeth Colvin offered their sites to be part of the test pilot for Process Based Training.  Three members will attend the train the trainer session for Process Based Training in November and two members will attended the tax preparation software training program.  The committee worked to revise the certification test partnering with AARP TCE to put together a completely revamped test and a different of both taking and grading this test.  The committee also looked at the IRS’ on-line volunteer return preparation site, Link & Learn, to provide feedback. 

The committee went through the strategy line by line suggesting changes and asking for clarification.  Nicholas will make the changes.  The strategy will be reviewed quarterly to ensure it is accurate and the committee will keep the Joint Committee informed of changes and progress on the strategy.
ACTION:  Nicholas will make suggested changes to the Communication Strategy.

Changes to the recommendation were read orally. 
DECISION:  The Joint Committee reached consensus to approve the #3736, EFTPS Registration Procedure recommendation by concept.  Toy will email the final product to all Joint Committee members for review.  Feedback and corrections should be sent to Toy; a non response will be considered approval.

The Committee completed the work ahead of schedule and will not meet on Saturday morning.  Staff will be in attendance in case members of the public attend.

Next Meeting is November 1, 2006 at 10 a.m. ET or 1 p.m. PT.

DECISIONS:

• Consensus to send Area 5 #3712, POA, Third Party Designee back to separate extending the authorization term and increasing the authority issues and to rewrite for more clarity.
• Consensus to elevate Area 3 - #3921, Expanding Third Party Authorization with addition of clarifying verbiage.
• Consensus to elevate Area 2, #3634 Free Tax Preparation for Self-employed recommendation as written.
• The Areas 1. 3. and 4 chairs will get together today and discuss the possibility of combining #3734, #3758, # 3908, Downloadable Forms, and #3705, OCR Forms Availability.  The issue will be addressed again  later in the meeting.  
• Consensus reached to elevate Area 2, #3747, Form 1099 Electronic Filing after suggested wording changes and the committee addressing the barrier brought up by Toy.   
• Consensus to elevate Area 4, #3718, Form 1040 Instructions, Lack of Availability recommendation as submitted.
• Consensus to elevate Area 6, # 1182, ID Theft – Need for Provider TIN after Toy does the minor wordsmithing and checks the IRS response date for accuracy
• TAP will not have a formal policy on setting the frequency of full committee and subcommittee meetings; however, committees need to be flexible and not meet if there are no decisions that need to be made or work to be done.
• Consensus to submit Area 2 #3925 – Option for Access to Person on IRS’ Toll-Free as written.
• Consensus on elevating the Area 6 #3249 Improve Quality of Customer Service recommendation.
• Consensus on returning the Area 1 #3934 Form 8453 Usage Reduction to the committee for revision to put the emphasis on using the Form 8870 rather than eliminating the Form 8453.
• Consensus on elevating the Area 1 #3558 CP-521 Interest Rate recommendation with the agreed upon modifications.
• Consensus on elevating the Area 1 #3518 2645-C Letter, Improvements to Language recommendation with the agreed upon modifications.
• Consensus on elevating the Area 1 #4008 Form 1040V and Estimated Tax Payments recommendation with the agreed upon modification.
• Consensus on elevating the Area 1, 4015, Forms and Publications, Search by Keyword recommendation with the agreed upon modification.
• Consensus on elevating the Area 3, 3604, Spanish Correspondence Availability recommendation. consensus on elevating the Area 5 #3755, Forms & Publications Employee Background recommendation after adding the clarifying language.
• Consensus on elevating the Area 2, #3747, Form 1099 Electronic Filing recommendation. It was decided that candidates should announce prior to the meeting and those who declare by December 1, 2006 will have the opportunity to sit on the orientation panel.  However, anyone can run as long as they declare their candidacy before the speeches on Monday.  There will be no nominating committee and the election will be held on Monday with the polls closing during Tuesday’s morning break.
• When a committee receives information about a problem that IRS needs to be aware of quickly such as an incorrect link on its website, the committee should draft a letter following the format for referrals as closely as possible.  The paragraph will be reviewed by the Joint Committee and submitted, if approved, to the IRS under the TAP Chair’s signature. 
• Consensus to approve the #3736, EFTPS Registration Procedure recommendation by concept.  Toy will email the final product to all Joint Committee members for review.  Feedback and corrections should be sent to Toy; a non response will be considered approval. 

ACTION ITEMS:

• All area and issue committee chairs should complete the Self-Assessment/Annual Report covering January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 and send to Toy by December 31, 2006. 
• All Joint Committee members should complete the assessment for the Joint Committee by Monday, October 16, 2006 and send to LaVerne Walker.
• Coston will send an email to all members describing the duties of the TAP Chair and Vice-chair and asking those who are interested to declare their candidacy
• Coston will send out solicitation next week to solicit for volunteers to help with the annual meeting.
• J. T Wright will share this template with the Communication Committee by sending to Judi Nicholas.
• McElroywill bring Area 2’s #3736 EFTPS back to the committee for revision
• Nicholas will make suggested changes to the Communication Strategy
• Toy will include only the active issues in the List of TAP Issues report but also run a list of issues in the parking lot by date received.
• Toy will make suggested corrections and send the Joint Committee Assessment, and the Area and Issue Committee Self-assessments electronically.
  

Friday, October 13, 2006

Combs welcomed everyone. 

Quorum met.

Bernie Coston reported the new member recommendations will be sent to Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate, at the end of this week.  After she reviews the list, it goes to the Commissioner, and then is forwarded to the Secretary of Treasury for approval.  Managers checked the list to ensure it is correct.  The names go forward pending the subversive name checks which are not yet completed.  Letters will go out shortly to the applicants interviewed but not selected. 

Staff members working on the agenda for the annual meeting have been meeting on a regular basis.  Staff is working to have a more innovative agenda this year.  Our plan is to utilize panel members throughout the whole meeting.  The agenda is being modified based on TAP Members’ feedback.  PowerPoint will not be used at the meeting; that was one of the suggestions.

Maryann Motza stated that the Communication Committee working on the survey results regarding the orientation.  Coston acknowledged that the feedback from the surveys was used to prepare the orientation agenda.

TAP has received phenomenal coverage since the Commissioner received the memorandum with TAP’s five position recommendations.  TAP was mentioned on the front page of USA Today in an article about tax collection.  Coston was in DC last week and met with Kathy Petronchek, Chief of Staff to Commissioner Mark Everson.  She was complimentary as was the Commissioner because of the completeness of the information.  Panel members did a fabulous job on these papers.

Larry Combs got a call from National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) asking him to take a public position on this issue.  He declined and said they could refer to TAP’s written documents.  He was also asked to write to Congress but told them TAP cannot lobby.

Robert Meyers said the Communication Committee met face-to-face on August 28.   The members worked on the TAP Member Handbook.  The Handbook is being reviewed and should be completed very soon.  Hopefully, it will be published soon and ready for the annual meeting.  The Handbook is in loose leaf form so updates can be made easily.    

The Committee is working on the TAPSpeak renovation and TAP is speaking to vendors now.  Motza added that Berkey was hopeful that the changes will be completed in time for the annual meeting.  Coston added that Berkey is currently reviewing vendors’ bids for both TAPSpeak and Improveirs.gov. 

The Committee also worked on marketing materials.  They decided to order pens, highlighters, and banners to be used at TAP meetings. 

The Communication Strategies Subcommittee has sent their draft of the strategies to the Joint Committee.  Tom Karwin added the subcommittee is moving forward and it should be ready for the October meeting.  The subcommittee hopes to have the final version in time for the annual meeting. 

Chair Elections Survey

Combs asked if everyone had received and reviewed the comments.  Allena Kaplan sent her ideas and raised core questions:

1. Should National Chair and Vice-chair candidates declare their candidacy and campaign both before and during annual meeting?

Ferd Schneider thought it should be during the meeting so new members can vote.  JT Wright thought it should be done before and during the meeting.  Meyers felt the new people won’t know the current members, so it would be difficult to vote.  Harvey Epstein said if you have the election at the end of the meeting, members have time to speak with the candidates.  Combs would like to propose that TAP allows current members to campaign before the annual meeting, but will not preclude other candidates from throwing their hat in the ring at the meeting.
DECISION:  Consensus reached to allow members to declare their candidacy for Chair and Vice-chair and campaign prior to and during the annual meeting.

2. Should elections for TAP Chair and Vice-chair be held early in the meeting or late in the meeting?

Paul McElroy felt there is a need to have the TAP Chair and Vice-chair elected before the area and issue chairs.  Kaplan thought each candidate should have an opportunity to speak before the election starts and the election should be held late on the first day.  Paul Brubaker said the TAP Chair and Vice-chair need to be elected before the committee meetings.

Beadsie Woo said there is an overlap in skills and it would be a shame to limit the candidates to choosing one position and then be precluded from being a Committee Chair.  This has happened in some committees in the past.  Paul Duquette said that scenario is moot if the Chair and Vice-chair are chosen before the committees meet.  Woo expressed concerned that if area and issue committee meetings are held on the second day, there won’t be a lot of time to talk to the candidates.  McElroy pointed out that in the last two years, the speeches were on the morning of the second day and you voted during that day.  Is there any reason members couldn’t have one full day to vote?  McQuin said the staff discussed the agenda for this annual meeting, and to have longer committee meetings, the area committees may be held that first day.  Orientation will be shortened which provides an opportunity for combined area committees to discuss like issues.  Areas would be combined by which staff supports the committees.  Staff has listened to panel members and the annual meeting may not look the same as it has in the past.  This will provide the opportunity for more interaction for new members.  Ferd Schneider said the Chair and Vice-chair need to be identified prior to area and issue chair selection; so it seems the selection has to be done early. 

Combs restated that the Chair and Vice-chair elections will occur early in the annual meeting, and before area and issue chair election. 

Harvey Epstein objected.  If you have the election early on the first day, it disenfranchises new members as they do not get enough chance to speak to the candidates.  Judi Nicholas noted that as a new member coming in, if the chair and Vice-chair are already elected, they would not have a concern about the process.  Combs said new members will have an opportunity to run and campaign.  Epstein said he preferred the election as late in the annual meeting as possible and did not have a problem with area and issue committee chairs being elected conditionally.  McElroy said this puts candidates at a disadvantage because members know they are running for National Chair or Vice-chair.  Brubaker said these are the most important positions on TAP and everyone should have the opportunity to run.  He proposed the election not occur before the end of the second day.  The issue and area committee chairs could be elected on the third day.  There will be six hours where the entire panel, new and returning, will be together.  McQuin noted if it is stated before the end of the second day, it does not meet the requirements for the area and issue committee meetings.  Combs suggested the committees elect a temporary chair. 

Brubaker said the committee needs to see the agenda before a decision is made.  JT Wright said this is important and the decision should be postponed until the Dallas meeting.  Woo seconded.  Nicholas pointed out there is an hour blocked out on the first day on the agenda for campaign speeches.  Combs suggested an email message be sent to current members indicating members can declare their candidacy for Chair and Vice-chair.  
DECISION:  Consensus to put the Chair and Vice-chair elections issue on the agenda for the October meeting in Dallas.
ACTION:  Coston, Brubaker, and Combs will work on a process to disseminate election information to all current and incoming TAP members.

Response to Oversight Board

Brubaker said the Oversight Board requested input from TAP on balanced measure for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  Their request was put on TAPSpeak and an email sent to all chairs with a link.  Brubaker asked chairs to send to all members and ask if anyone has expertise on measurements and would want to work on this committee.  The goals the IRS is measuring are: 80 percent electronic filing rate by 2012; taxpayers’ satisfaction rate; employee engagement; voluntary compliance rate, and; non-revenue enforcement index. 

Epstein asked for more information about the last goal.  Brubaker found information on goals number two and four.  Wright looked at the request and was not impressed with the proposed measurements.  Brubaker asked for a volunteer to write the report. 
Patrice Marker and Maryann Motza volunteered.  Meyers expressed frustration with the short response timeframe since TAP needs more time to give input so we can do our best.  Paul Duquette asked if the information would be sent via email.  The write-up will be compiled by Brubaker, Motza, Marker, and Wright.
ACTION:  Toy will send IRS Oversight Board request to LaVerne Walker.
ACTION:  Brubaker will send out Oversight Board request email and area chairs should please forward to all members for feedback.  Send responses to Brubaker, Motza, Marker, and Wright.

The Area 5 issue will be carried over to the face-to-face meeting.

McQuin noted the meeting times posted in the Federal Register for the Joint Committee face-to-face meeting is a 9 a.m. start on Thursday, October 12th, 9 a. m. on Friday, October 13th, and 8 a.m. on Saturday, October 14th. 

Meeting Adjourned

Next Meeting will be the face-to-face October 12-13-14, 2006, in Dallas, TX

DECISIONS:

1. Consensus to put the Chair and Vice-chair elections issue on the agenda for the October meeting in Dallas.
2. Consensus reached to allow members to declare their candidacy for Chair and Vice-chair and campaign prior to and during the annual meeting.

ACTION ITEMS:

Coston

1. Coston, Brubaker, and Combs will work on a process to disseminate election information to all current and incoming TAP members.

Combs

1. Coston, Brubaker, and Combs will work on a process to disseminate election information to all current and incoming TAP members.

Brubaker

1. Coston, Brubaker, and Combs will work on a process to disseminate election information to all current and incoming TAP members.
2. Brubaker will send out Oversight Board request email and area chairs should please forward to all members for feedback.  Send responses to Brubaker, Motza, Marker, and Wright.

Toy

1. Toy will send IRS Oversight Board request to LaVerne Walker.
   

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda

Combs welcomed everyone. 

Quorum met.

Bernie Coston reported the new member recommendations will be sent to Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate, at the end of this week.  After she reviews the list, it goes to the Commissioner, and then is forwarded to the Secretary of Treasury for approval.  Managers checked the list to ensure it is correct.  The names go forward pending the subversive name checks which are not yet completed.  Letters will go out shortly to the applicants interviewed but not selected. 

Staff members working on the agenda for the annual meeting have been meeting on a regular basis.  Staff is working to have a more innovative agenda this year.  Our plan is to utilize panel members throughout the whole meeting.  The agenda is being modified based on TAP Members’ feedback.  PowerPoint will not be used at the meeting; that was one of the suggestions.

Maryann Motza stated that the Communication Committee working on the survey results regarding the orientation.  Coston acknowledged that the feedback from the surveys was used to prepare the orientation agenda.

TAP has received phenomenal coverage since the Commissioner received the memorandum with TAP’s five position recommendations.  TAP was mentioned on the front page of USA Today in an article about tax collection.  Coston was in DC last week and met with Kathy Petronchek, Chief of Staff to Commissioner Mark Everson.  She was complimentary as was the Commissioner because of the completeness of the information.  Panel members did a fabulous job on these papers.

Larry Combs got a call from National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) asking him to take a public position on this issue.  He declined and said they could refer to TAP’s written documents.  He was also asked to write to Congress but told them TAP cannot lobby.

Robert Meyers said the Communication Committee met face-to-face on August 28.   The members worked on the TAP Member Handbook.  The Handbook is being reviewed and should be completed very soon.  Hopefully, it will be published soon and ready for the annual meeting.  The Handbook is in loose leaf form so updates can be made easily.    

The Committee is working on the TAPSpeak renovation and TAP is speaking to vendors now.  Motza added that Berkey was hopeful that the changes will be completed in time for the annual meeting.  Coston added that Berkey is currently reviewing vendors’ bids for both TAPSpeak and Improveirs.gov. 

The Committee also worked on marketing materials.  They decided to order pens, highlighters, and banners to be used at TAP meetings. 

The Communication Strategies Subcommittee has sent their draft of the strategies to the Joint Committee.  Tom Karwin added the subcommittee is moving forward and it should be ready for the October meeting.  The subcommittee hopes to have the final version in time for the annual meeting. 

Chair Elections Survey

Combs asked if everyone had received and reviewed the comments.  Allena Kaplan sent her ideas and raised core questions:

1. Should National Chair and Vice-chair candidates declare their candidacy and campaign both before and during annual meeting?

Ferd Schneider thought it should be during the meeting so new members can vote.  JT Wright thought it should be done before and during the meeting.  Meyers felt the new people won’t know the current members, so it would be difficult to vote.  Harvey Epstein said if you have the election at the end of the meeting, members have time to speak with the candidates.  Combs would like to propose that TAP allows current members to campaign before the annual meeting, but will not preclude other candidates from throwing their hat in the ring at the meeting.
DECISION:  Consensus reached to allow members to declare their candidacy for Chair and Vice-chair and campaign prior to and during the annual meeting.

2. Should elections for TAP Chair and Vice-chair be held early in the meeting or late in the meeting?

Paul McElroy felt there is a need to have the TAP Chair and Vice-chair elected before the area and issue chairs.  Kaplan thought each candidate should have an opportunity to speak before the election starts and the election should be held late on the first day.  Paul Brubaker said the TAP Chair and Vice-chair need to be elected before the committee meetings.

Beadsie Woo said there is an overlap in skills and it would be a shame to limit the candidates to choosing one position and then be precluded from being a Committee Chair.  This has happened in some committees in the past.  Paul Duquette said that scenario is moot if the Chair and Vice-chair are chosen before the committees meet.  Woo expressed concerned that if area and issue committee meetings are held on the second day, there won’t be a lot of time to talk to the candidates.  McElroy pointed out that in the last two years, the speeches were on the morning of the second day and you voted during that day.  Is there any reason members couldn’t have one full day to vote?  McQuin said the staff discussed the agenda for this annual meeting, and to have longer committee meetings, the area committees may be held that first day.  Orientation will be shortened which provides an opportunity for combined area committees to discuss like issues.  Areas would be combined by which staff supports the committees.  Staff has listened to panel members and the annual meeting may not look the same as it has in the past.  This will provide the opportunity for more interaction for new members.  Ferd Schneider said the Chair and Vice-chair need to be identified prior to area and issue chair selection; so it seems the selection has to be done early. 

Combs restated that the Chair and Vice-chair elections will occur early in the annual meeting, and before area and issue chair election. 

Harvey Epstein objected.  If you have the election early on the first day, it disenfranchises new members as they do not get enough chance to speak to the candidates.  Judi Nicholas noted that as a new member coming in, if the chair and Vice-chair are already elected, they would not have a concern about the process.  Combs said new members will have an opportunity to run and campaign.  Epstein said he preferred the election as late in the annual meeting as possible and did not have a problem with area and issue committee chairs being elected conditionally.  McElroy said this puts candidates at a disadvantage because members know they are running for National Chair or Vice-chair.  Brubaker said these are the most important positions on TAP and everyone should have the opportunity to run.  He proposed the election not occur before the end of the second day.  The issue and area committee chairs could be elected on the third day.  There will be six hours where the entire panel, new and returning, will be together.  McQuin noted if it is stated before the end of the second day, it does not meet the requirements for the area and issue committee meetings.  Combs suggested the committees elect a temporary chair. 

Brubaker said the committee needs to see the agenda before a decision is made.  JT Wright said this is important and the decision should be postponed until the Dallas meeting.  Woo seconded.  Nicholas pointed out there is an hour blocked out on the first day on the agenda for campaign speeches.  Combs suggested an email message be sent to current members indicating members can declare their candidacy for Chair and Vice-chair.  
DECISION:  Consensus to put the Chair and Vice-chair elections issue on the agenda for the October meeting in Dallas.
ACTION:  Coston, Brubaker, and Combs will work on a process to disseminate election information to all current and incoming TAP members.

Response to Oversight Board

Brubaker said the Oversight Board requested input from TAP on balanced measure for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  Their request was put on TAPSpeak and an email sent to all chairs with a link.  Brubaker asked chairs to send to all members and ask if anyone has expertise on measurements and would want to work on this committee.  The goals the IRS is measuring are: 80 percent electronic filing rate by 2012; taxpayers’ satisfaction rate; employee engagement; voluntary compliance rate, and; non-revenue enforcement index. 

Epstein asked for more information about the last goal.  Brubaker found information on goals number two and four.  Wright looked at the request and was not impressed with the proposed measurements.  Brubaker asked for a volunteer to write the report. 
Patrice Marker and Maryann Motza volunteered.  Meyers expressed frustration with the short response timeframe since TAP needs more time to give input so we can do our best.  Paul Duquette asked if the information would be sent via email.  The write-up will be compiled by Brubaker, Motza, Marker, and Wright.
ACTION:  Toy will send IRS Oversight Board request to LaVerne Walker.
ACTION:  Brubaker will send out Oversight Board request email and area chairs should please forward to all members for feedback.  Send responses to Brubaker, Motza, Marker, and Wright.

The Area 5 issue will be carried over to the face-to-face meeting.

McQuin noted the meeting times posted in the Federal Register for the Joint Committee face-to-face meeting is a 9 a.m. start on Thursday, October 12th, 9 a. m. on Friday, October 13th, and 8 a.m. on Saturday, October 14th. 

Meeting Adjourned

Next Meeting will be the face-to-face October 12-13-14, 2006, in Dallas, TX

DECISIONS:

1. Consensus to put the Chair and Vice-chair elections issue on the agenda for the October meeting in Dallas.
2. Consensus reached to allow members to declare their candidacy for Chair and Vice-chair and campaign prior to and during the annual meeting.

ACTION ITEMS:

Coston

1. Coston, Brubaker, and Combs will work on a process to disseminate election information to all current and incoming TAP members.

Combs

1. Coston, Brubaker, and Combs will work on a process to disseminate election information to all current and incoming TAP members.

Brubaker

1. Coston, Brubaker, and Combs will work on a process to disseminate election information to all current and incoming TAP members.
2. Brubaker will send out Oversight Board request email and area chairs should please forward to all members for feedback.  Send responses to Brubaker, Motza, Marker, and Wright.

Toy

1. Toy will send IRS Oversight Board request to LaVerne Walker.

TAP Mentor Process

We want to build on the success of the mentor program from last year.

What experience did you have last year?
Positives and Negatives

For 2007 we have approximately 30 new TAP members and about 70 returning TAP members. 
Not every returning TAP member wants to be a mentor.
Not every returning TAP member needs to be a mentor.
Solicit only members that want to be mentors.

Obligations and Responsibilities:

• Take the initiative to make the call to arrange for your interaction with your mentee. 
• What are the things that you would have wanted to know when you were new to TAP.
• Freely share your experiences and what you have learned as a member of TAP.
• Encourage your mentee to ask questions and refer them to TAP staff if you do not know the answers.
• Follow-up with calls to your mentee after each meeting.

Benefits of Mentoring for the Mentor

• satisfaction in assisting in the development of a colleague
• satisfaction of contributing to improvement of TAP process

Qualities of a Good Mentor

• Availability - The mentor must be available to the new TAP member, must keep in contact, and be prepared to spend time helping the new member become productive.
• Encouraging - The mentor should encourage the new member to participate on sub-committees and outreach events.