Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP)
Joint Committee Face to Face Minutes
June 25 - 27, 2007
Denver, Colorado
Day 1 - Monday, June 25, 2007

Day 1 - Monday, June 25, 2007

Designated Federal Official
Bernie Coston, TAP Director

Members Present
J. T. Wright, TAP Chair
Robert Meyers, TAP Vice-chair
Bill Bly, Chair, Burden Reduction
Paul Duquette, Chair, VITA
Tom Karwin, Chair, Communication
Merijane (M J) Lee, Chair, Ad Hoc
Howard Margulies, Area 1
Maryann Motza, Chair, Area 6
Ferd Schneider, Chair, Area 4
Max Scott, Chair, Notices Committee
Lynwood Sinnamon, Chair, Area 2
Wayne Whitehead, Chair, Area 7
Jerry Fireman, Chair, TAC Committee

Members Absent
Dorothy Havey, Chair, Area 1
Hank Mosler, Chair, Area 3
Stanley Wernz, Chair, EITC
Ken Wright, Chair, Area 5

Staff Present
Barbara Foley, Program Analyst
Patti Robb, Note Taker
Kayla Walker, Acting TAP Manager
Nancy Ferree, TAP Manager
Judi Nicholas, TAP Manager

J.T. Wright welcomed everyone and introductions were made.  Bob Meyers thanked

Maryann Motza for all her hard work preparing for this meeting; the Commissioner Issues Subcommittee, the annual report, and the TAPSpace presentation.  It was decided to discuss the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint (TAB) report during the time allotted for TAP’s Sake on Wednesday morning. 

DECISION:  The May 2, 2007 minutes were approved with minor amendments.

TAP had four face-to-face meetings in June.  The Taxpayer Assistance Center (TAC) Committee will meet and the Tax Forums will begin in July.  The forums run July through September.  The staff will also be attending a mandatory Continuing Professional Education (CPE) in New Orleans. TAP staff will have one session with Rick Lynch, author of a book on volunteer management.  There will also be other vital training offered. 

As stated in the last report, TAP was able to recruit for two positions in the national office, secretary and senior program analyst.  The applications are being ranked to identify highly qualified candidates.  He is looking to fill these positions by the end of July or the beginning of August.  Coston is continuing to split time between TAP and the TAB review team.  . 

Sandy McQuin will be returning to her position as Milwaukee TAP Manager.  Cathy Van Horn, who is currently the Local Taxpayer Advocate (LTA) in Ohio, has been named as the Director of the Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITC).  Kayla Walker will be going back to her job in Little Rock.  She has done a fantastic job during her detail.  Sandra Ramirez has taken a position in the LITC office in Manhattan.  Judi Nicholas will be acting as manager for the Brooklyn office until a long-term actor can be identified.

Recruitment interviews have been going smoothly and are close to being completed.  There was discussion with the members in the areas of time commitment, travel, leadership responsibilities, and communicating this effectively during the interview phase. TAP is a couple weeks ahead of last year and hopes to get the names to IRS and Treasury at least a month earlier than last year.  Coston said the next step is doing the background checks.

The tentative date of meeting with the Commissioner is August 16 which should give TAP ample time to complete the report.  The annual report will be discussed later in this meeting.

The National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson expressed displeasure about the outstanding responses to TAP’s elevated issues and is planning to discuss the problem with acting Commissioner, Kevin Brown, to resolve.  Coston added that he has a standing conference call with Sue Sottile to discuss the non-responses as well as other issues.  Since most of TAP’s recommendations are sent to Wage and Investment (W&I), the calls should be helpful. 

ACTION:  Barbara Foley will send this chair report out to the whole TAP instead of just the Joint Committee and will continue to do so in the future.

The difficulties in finalizing the annual report prompted the request for written mid-year reports.  The intention is that the monthly committee reports roll right into the annual report.  If the reports are done properly throughout the year, it should not be difficult to produce the annual report.  No one will need to worry about recapturing information since all the information is there.  (Areas 1 and 5 did not have a written report so their reports are summarized below; the remainder of the reports is attached.)

Howard Margulies reported that Luis Parra has resigned because of his move from New York to Pennsylvania, which is in Area 2.  The Town Hall meeting in Brooklyn was successful although it was held on short notice.  Thirty-five people attended and the NTA and TAP received good feedback.  Area 1’s face-to-face meeting was held May 10-12 in Stanford.  The committee completed a lot of work during that meeting and again found that face-to-face meetings are much more effective than teleconferences.  He suggested trying to combine committee meetings with other events such as tax forums as a way of budgeting for more face-to-face meetings.  Wright added that as he assesses the situation, it is at that first face-to-face meeting the committee becomes productive which rolls into member effectiveness and may lead to changing the training for new recruits.  The challenge is to get new recruits doing productive work.

Area 1 had difficulty picking a chair and vice-chair because of the time commitment―the additional travel time, the national meeting, leadership training, two Joint Committee meetings, as well as the area committee and issue committee meetings.  After Margulies offered to be the traveling chair, Dorothy Havey and Julie Jason agreed to take on the leadership roles. 

Some of the issues Area 1 has worked:  The penalty of fifty percent for not meeting the minimum distribution requirement is too high especially for those who inadvertently make a mistake through the fault of their custodian.  Area 1 is considering proposing to extend the date for taking the distribution until the date the tax return is due.  Some members of the Banks, Post Office and Library (BPOL) program did not have forms until two weeks before the filing deadline.  Max Scott added that by the way, there is at postmaster on Area 3 who said that handing out that information by a post office employee was against their policy (see June 6, 2007 Joint Committee minutes for reference).  Area 1 is also advocating for the Practitioner PIN versus the Self-select PIN signature method.  Duquette added that the decision has been made to make the Practitioner PIN the most favored method for volunteer tax return preparers and the IRS scuttled the Form 8453, U.S. Individual Income Tax Declaration for an IRS e-file Return.   Area 1 is also finalizing the wording in the letter regarding IRS’ response to the Schedule D – Carry Forward Line so it is not inflammatory and has dropped the Gold star proposal.

Bob Meyers said Area 5 is looking at the following:  toll free issues, addresses for mailing payments issue, and Power-of-Attorney (POA) checkbox authority.  Area 5 in conjunction with Areas 2 and 3 is also looking at TAC issues.  The Area 5 face-to-face meeting was in May in Kansas City, MO.  Area 5 discussed TAPSpace, the TAB report, Area 5’s portion of the communication survey and the issues.  The Committee decided to limit the number of issues they actively work.  One of Area 5’s successes was the town hall meeting in Omaha, NE.   Area 5 members committed to doing at least two outreaches per month and have been very good about doing outreaches and are getting better at reporting them.  One issue was elevated regarding the forms and publications writers’ training and background.  Forms and publications are written by lawyers and tax attorneys and the Area recommended they add English majors to the staff.  The IRS responded with a no, however, Area 5 is in the process of writing a rebuttal.  Area 5 has good attendance on conference calls and at the face-to-face meeting. 

Functions of TAP

• Understanding customers
• Operations
• Creating value

The monthly committee reports (MCRs) are supposed to roll into the annual reports.  Issue Committee chairs were reminded of the importance of reporting the recommendations the committee submits to the program owners on the monthly committee report.  If the chair does not report an elevated recommendation, it will not go into the annual report.  Duquette said if we are going to talk about the responsibilities of the chairs, we need to talk about the responsibilities of the staff.  Chairs cannot correctly complete the reports if they don’t have the minutes; TAP needs more staff. 

Currently there is inconsistencies in the MCRs and the annual report; some reports are very in-depth and long and some are summaries.  Motza said they were reviewing the annual report, and the self assessment does not synchronize with the monthly reports.  At the end of the year, chairs are asked for a totally different report.  Lacking in the current report is data that needs to be pulled from the database.  Foley pointed out that the current monthly committee format was designed by a sub committee of the Joint Committee; however, they did not update the Annual Report/Self Assessment template at the same time.

The purpose of the monthly report is to help complete the annual report and also to keep everyone informed of what is happening in TAP.  It was agreed that the annual reports need to be completed much earlier in order to make sure the annual report is prepared timely.  The individual committee annual reports and assessments should be started in October and when December rolls around, all the chair needs to do is make some updates. 

Jerry Fireman said there is a difference between the area and the issue committees.  For issue committees, quarterly reports make more sense than monthly reports. 

Sinnamon thought the annual report should start in October.  The new chairs are elected in December.  The outgoing chairs should be responsible to submit the final committee report. 

Coston said historically, each TAP chair has produced the annual report in their own specific way and there was no continuity.  TAP needs to address this in several ways:

• reports need to get done in a fluid way,
• reports should have consistency from chair to chair, and
• the report should be completed timely.

Problems with reports Flip Chart

• the committee’s annual report/self assessment does not synchronize with the monthly committee report
• there is no defined format for annual report
• there should be a space for issue committees to report IRS’ responses on the Recommendation Reporting form
• there is no feedback on chair’s input
• there are no style sheets to follow; chairs should not have to worry about the correct format to use but put their efforts into the content
  

BIN

• Timely completion of minutes
• Annual report timeline

The original intent of the monthly committee reports was to let everyone know what is happening in the other committees.  It then became a way of tracking elevated area and issue committee recommendations.  Responses received are supposed to be reported on the monthly reports as well as the committee’s reaction to the response―did IRS accept or reject or is the committee preparing a counter response.  The Issue Committees should also report the issues they elevate directly to the program owner as well as the responses they received.

The annual report should be a summary of TAP’s accomplishments and be something to build the program from year to year.  The intent is not to stop the individual committees’ voices, but should be a synopsis of what happened in each committee.  Motza said when the Communication Committee read last years’ report, they were very disappointed because it was negative and did not paint an accurate picture of what TAP was doing.  The Committee then looked at the draft of the 2006 annual report, which was better but still not good enough.  TAP needs some consistency and a plan for the future.  TAP needs to have a professional product and needs to design a good process that will be used in years to come.  Coston noted that TAP has made gigantic progress in the right direction, but needs to keep going in that direction.  It does need to be standardized so the next chair does not flounder.  Whitehead suggested using a consistent format; the content changes each year but not the style.  It’s like reading a newspaper.  The reader has certain expectations when looking at the newspaper and what order things are in.

J.T. Wright noted the Joint Committee needs to do two things: first, the 2006 report needs to be finalized and then it has to decide what the new report should look like.  It has to be meaningful data but does not have to be voluminous.  TAP needs to understand the customers’ needs and also needs to understand the business unit TAP is working for.  Is TAP doing what IRS asked us to do?  J.T. Wright also suggested the business units should do a report as to what they received from TAP. 

Sinnamon said TAP needs a marketing document.  There should be two reports; one that shows all the sweat and strain that happened in the program but TAP also needs a marketing report showing just the good stuff.  Whitehead said the report needs to address three things:

• Who are our customers?
• What are their expectations and is TAP meeting them?
• How much can we improve?

Up to now, it has been the responsibility of one person to complete the annual report and Coston thinks a subcommittee should be appointed to write the annual report.  It is the panel’s report and should be a reflection of what the members have done.  Motza asked for direction from the Joint Committee on what information should be carried over from the committee reports, should it be in detail or summarized?  The Joint Committee agreed that there is just one TAP and the report should focus on the accomplishments of TAP and not of the individual committees; it is not a competition.  Some information is still needed from the databases to complete the 2006 report. 
DECISION:  The Joint Committee decided the annual report should focus on the accomplishments of TAP and not of the individual committees; it is not a competition.
ACTION:  Berkey and Foley will work together to get the information the subcommittee needs to complete the annual report.  Foley needs three work days to compile the information and will forward needed information to the subcommittee before July 11, 2007.
ACTION:  Motza and the subcommittee will finalize the 2006 report by July 17, 2007.

Sinnamon was added to the Annual Report Subcommittee.  Motza is the lead, other members include Gil Yanuck, Elizabeth Warnecki and Steve Berkey. 

To summarize, Motza will condense the individual committee reports rather than listing each separately and the 2006 annual report will drive the format for future reports. 

The Joint Committee members should review the Commissioner’s Meeting Preparation Committee Report to the Joint Committee (See Attachment) which will be discussed later in the agenda. 

Motza sent an email on May 11 asking for issues to present during the meeting with the Commissioner and she commended Analyst, Dave Coffman, for all his hard work in pulling the information together.  A list of preliminary issues (about 14 pages long) was sent out and now the Joint Committee needs to figure out how to do a marketing presentation to the Commissioner.

Duquette went last year and said they went in with all the information TAP wanted to present but the whole script ended up going out the window.  TAP was very lucky to have very articulate members there to address the issues raised.  Motza replied that there are some issues we can guess will surface, like Offers in Compromise and the tax gap.  The attendees don’t need to get specific but should know what direction TAP is going to take on these issues. 

Fireman said the prepared presentation should be short and sweet―introduce ourselves, tell the Commissioner what TAP does and then ask how TAP can help.  Maybe we have a couple issues ready to discuss but let the Commissioner take the lead.  Schneider added that TAP needs to let the Commissioner know how we get these issues, i.e. outreaches, town hall meetings, etc.  Motza said one of the important things is to let the Commissioner know is TAP researches all these issues before making recommendations.

Meyers and Motza both serve on the quality review committee.  This year the committee works slightly different than last year’s and meet via a conference call.  One directive the committee received was to work primarily on punctuation, grammar, clarity, etc.  Sometimes when you are closely aligned to an issue, the referral makes sense but it may not to others.  It is very important for the committee to look at the issue with a fresh set of eyes to ensure it makes sense.  The Committee works very hard not to change the substance of the issue and does get back to the area with any questions regarding the referral; sometimes the committees get frustrated with the committee.  By the time, the referral is put on the Joint Committee agenda it should be clear enough that everyone understands it and then at the meeting the only discussion is on whether or not the issue fits the TAP mission and should be elevated.

Meyers presented the new referral process.  The originating committee will need to designate someone to monitor and answer the questions raised.

The time line necessary for this process is as follows:

• The referral is posted no later than second Monday of the month and Joint Committee members are informed of its existence.

• The Joint committee members review the proposal and refer any questions to the sub-committee chairperson no later than the fourth Monday of the month.

• The subcommittee responds to the Joint Committee members’ questions and makes any required adjustments or clarifications. The revised referral is returned to the Joint Committee no later than the second Monday of the month.

• The referral will be submitted to the Joint Committee Quality Review (QR) sub-committee for final review.  The QR will review the proposal for grammatical, spelling, syntax and sentence structure prior to the regularly scheduled QR meeting.

• The proposal will be submitted to the Joint Committee chair for inclusion on the Joint Committee agenda no later than the last Wednesday of the month.

• The proposal will be considered at the Joint Committee’s regular meeting on the first Wednesday of the month.

Schneider asked if all the Joint Committee members receive the questions as well as the answers.  Nicholas noted that staff will be considering this process and what needs to be in the minutes to meet Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements.  There needs to be enough detail to indicate how the committee arrives at a decision.  Staff needs to determine whether the email exchange would need to part of the public record.
ACTION:  Coston will check to see if a discussion thread on TAPSpace fits in the FACA requirements and if they have to become part of the public record.

Duquette suggested putting together a beta test and working out the wrinkles that way.

Bly said there is a step that needs to be added between numbers 3 and 4 above; if a subcommittee needs to redraft their recommendation, it needs to go back to the area committee.  Margulies said in Area 1 when a recommendation is presented to the full committee, it is approved in concept and therefore it does not need another vote on minor changes in wording.  Scott thought the process of making changes should be left up to each area committee to choose.  There arose a question of how members will know when a topic has been responded to.  Bly said the technical parts of a proposal should not be reworked during the meetings. 
DECISION:  Accepted the stated referral process as a trial test for the next area referrals brought to the Joint Committee.
ACTION:  Motza will check to see if new postings to the discussion room will cause a new email notification.  In the meantime, Joint Committee members will need to take on the responsibility of going back out and checking the discussion item for updates. There was comments made regarding the timing and concern raised about the length of time the new process will take. 
ACTION:  All chairs should review the timeline and forward additional suggestions to Meyers within a week.  Meyers will revise the Referral process document and send out to all.
Lee stated that sometimes fresh eyes raise the red flag at the first look at a referral and suggested reviewing the issues before the area committees work it which could help circumvent the problem of having an area working an issue only to have it discarded.  She thinks the timeline takes too long. 

Meyers envisions that issues going through the whole process will have the technical aspects taken care of before it is presented to the Joint Committee for approval.  J.T. Wright indicated that the committee is accepting the referral process for elevated recommendations as temporary right now.  An issue will be submitted for a beta test and that will make the final determination.
ACTION:  Coston will check with the Committee Management Officer (CMO) as to whether the discussion thread is considered public information.