February 21, 2003
Face-to-Face
1:00pm-4:00pm and 6:00pm-7:00pm EST

Meeting Location:
Homewood Suites South
4143 Governors Row
Austin, Texas

Participants (Panel Members):

• Phil Bryant, Chairperson
• Sallie Chavez (Designated Federal Official)
• Anthony DiMartino
• C. Morgan Edwards, Vice-Chair
• Charles (Skip) Eshelman
• Glenn Hall
• William (Dick) Murphy
• David Robinson
• Thomas Seuntjens
• Eileen Shuman
• George Sullivan
• Virginia Symonds
• R. Jeana Warren

Staff Member:

• Inez E. De Jesus (Recorder)

Not Present:

• Ivan Cotman
• Curtis Feese
• Robin Gausebeck

Guests:

• James (Jim) A. Cesarano, Program Analyst, Wage & Investment, Single Point of Contact
• Diane E. Glass, Local Taxpayer Advocate, Austin, Texas
• Angel H. Caballero, Taxpayer Advocate Group Manager, Austin, Texas
• Margie Harrell, Taxpayer Advocate Group Manager, Austin, Texas
• Claudette Hulce, Government Liaison, Austin, Texas
• Sally R. Sassen, Tax Specialist, Austin, Texas

Quorum for this committee is 11; there were 13 members in attendance.
No public participation; guests were all IRS employees.

Welcome and Announcements
Chairperson Phil Bryant began meeting timely and turned it over to Program Owner Jim Cesarano.

Mr. Cesarano began by reviewing the tour to the Austin IRS Campus taken by the panel members earlier in the day where they saw the processing of tax returns. He went on to explain other program areas that could generate notices and what will happen with the group's recommendations, which is that he will be sharing his reports from this committee with his supervisor, Program Analyst Ann Gelineau.

By September 2003, the TAP Joint Committee will have a status/progress report to elevate to the TAP Director and the National Taxpayer Advocate on the input provided by this committee regarding the reducing of taxpayer burden and simplification of Notices.

The TAP Notice Issue Committee is seen as external stakeholders. Mr. Cesarano requested the engagement from this committee and referenced the IRS' initiative to use "plain language"- www.plainlanguage.gov as they review notices.

On Thursday, March 6, 2003, there will be a Wage & Investment Notice Strategy Quarterly Meeting, held in the IRS New Carrollton office in Lanham, MD. An invitation has been extended to the Notice Issue Committee. (Pending: which panel member will be represented at this meeting.)

As a result of the tour to the IRS Austin Campus, members learned checks are sent from one location and the notice explaining why the individual may be receiving a different amount is sent separately from a different agency. Is this an issue the panel should tackle? Mr. Cesarano advised the committee to think in terms of minor and major when elevating recommendations.

Mr. Cesarano shared with the committee the list of "2002 Top 20 Cumulative Computer Paragraph Notice Volumes-issued to taxpayers, to cycle 51" and the list of "Redesigned Computer Paragraph Notices".

Review/Approve Minutes of January 22, 2003
The minutes were reviewed and accepted with the exception that Panel Member George Sullivan prefers "excused" absences be noted on the minutes. Designated Federal Official (DFO) Chavez will be following up on this in order to be consistent with what other committees are doing.

Confirm Sub-committees
Prior to this meeting, DFO Chavez had sent out to all members via email the breakdown of the sub-committees as follows:

Sub-Committee "A"-(Information Type Notices)-C. Morgan Edwards (Chair)
Phil Bryant, Anthony DiMartino, C. Morgan Edwards, Glenn Hall, David Robinson, Virginia Symonds and Eileen Shuman (Scribe).

Notices to be reviewed by Sub-Committee A are: CP 71, 71A, 71C, 71D, ACS 39 & CP 79.

Sub-Committee "B"-(Response Type Notices)-George Sullivan (Chair)
Skip Eshelman, Dick Murphy, Tom Seuntjens, George Sullivan, and Jeana Warren (Scribe). Members not present to participate: Ivan Cotman, Curtis Feese, and Robin Gausebeck.

Notices to be reviewed by Sub-Committee B are: CP 24, 24F, 23, Letter 2789C, CP 25, 62, 83, 39, 60, 51A, 51B, 51C, Letter 0239C, Letter 105C, Letter 2273C,

Break into Sub-committees
The sub-committees broke into individual groups to review the notices.

Reconvene with reports from Sub-committees
The following is the results/suggestions for changes from each sub-committee after they reviewed the notices:

Sub-committee "A"-Information Type Notices:

CP-71-"Tax Bill- Your Balance is Overdue"-

1. First paragraph, end of paragraph, add phone number for taxpayer to call.
   Action item: Jim Cesarano is to find out how the various (3) phone numbers and their purpose. Jim will get back to DFO Chavez with his findings.
2. Delete "We figured this......"
3. Move "If you are already making payments, please...."- New language.
4. Place voucher to Page #1
5. Page #2-...You didn't pay- change to "We haven't received...." word search to change all.
6. "intent to levy" - insensitive language- new language should be customer friendly.
7. Is the levy language necessary?
8. Add the actual date of previous notices "….last notices we sent you" Add actual date.
9. Change the "We" to "The IRS System"
10. GOOD-Add "other" newer notices contains "other information" "helpful hints" this is well done and should be added to the CP 71 series.
11. Include Taxpayer publications and methods to obtain them.
12. Provide publication, tax code information where taxpayer can review the law or other taxpayer rights information, as well as web link.
13. Another thought is to have just one CP 71, eliminate A, C & D.

CP-71A-"Annual Reminder-of Balance Due"-

1. End of first paragraph, phone number should be listed.
2. Change "We figured…" to "We figured your balance due by adding…."
3. Move last sentence to first sentence.
4. Add taxpayer rights publication information and web link.

ACS Letter 39-"We didn't Accept Your Request To Reduce Your Penalties"-Reminder Notice-

Step #1- "We" not well taken- should be "We are required…" first sentence change to "The Law requires…."

Step #2- Add phone number.

Penalty & Interest Attachment-
New language to replace pages in old notices.

1. ...you didn't pay- should be "We haven't received...."
2. Page layout, to left justifies paragraphs- not in columns
3. Voucher needs to be on page one of notice- so taxpayer know right up front to know he/she owes $

CP #79- "Earned Income Eligibility Requirements"-

1. Drop CP 79- Use the new tax-free services to educate this taxpayer.
2. Send these letters to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) issue group for their input to DFO Sallie Chavez.

Sub-Committee "B"- Response Type Notices-
Message on outside of envelope: "Important Notice"- "Response Required"- "Information Only"

Broad Issues:

1. What does "Notice" mean- infers drastic actions. SUGGESTION: "Letter"
2. If it is a letter? Greeting and closure - e.g. "Hello"/"Sincerely"/"Thank You"
3. Why can't the "letter" be personalized in the closure with Department or Name/Issue (Ownership)
4. Letters/Notices should be upper/lower case letters (all caps is unpleasant)
5. Outline format- should be more in letter format or business format.
6. Taxpayer survey wants a before/after picture.
7. What line of the return did the error occur?
8. If a notice is sent, why can't taxpayer access WEB site for questions/explanations of this notice (For only those that receive notices)
9. The words "tax statement" should be stated as "Tax Return"
10. If data is included in Notice, put it in order/format of submission of the return itself.
11. IRS should have notices "on line" for easy reference when taxpayer calls the Service.
12. We suggest a separate ancillary printing software that allows flexibility to tailor notices to a specific issue and gives agent capability for "free form" information.

CP-24-"We Changed Your Estimated Tax Total- You are Due a Refund"

1. What do all the codes, upper left, upper right, caller ID mean? (Put IRS only for those codes that don't mean anything to taxpayer)
2. "If you think you made a mistake…." Is a closing statement. Suggest putting this sentence at the closing.
3. CP 24, Page #2, "Total estimated credit" should be changed to "Total estimated refund."
4. Why is SS# verification required on refunds (This slows down refund)
5. On bottom, take out "check and or" (This is a refund).
6. Suggestion opening: "The basis for this change to your 1997 Return is that your estimated tax credits claimed on your Return did not agree with your posted credits and therefore you overpaid. You are due a refund of $__________."

CP 24 F-"We Changed Your Estimated Tax Total- You are Due a Refund"

1. Bottom of Page #2, delete "check and or" because this is a refund notice.
2. What is the objective of CP-24F, Page #2? The SS# clarification or request is confusing.
3. Page #1, bottom paragraph, why is publication and envelope required. Suggest deletion if it has no purpose.
4. Issue Statement for CP 24 & CP 24F, these notices are unclear, poor paragraph structure, lack a clear and logical order, confusing instructions, and unclear and inconsistent tax statement.
5. CP 24F refers to an obsolete Publication #1383.

CP 23-"We Changed Your Estimated Tax Total-You Have An Amount Due"

1. Language "Amount due" should be changed to "Amount Owe"
2. The second sentence in first paragraph should be in the closing - "If you think we have made a mistake..."
3. Page #2, change the word "figured" to "calculated" and the word "refigured" to "re-calculated"
4. Page #2, change the phrase "don't show any" to "reflect"
5. Page #2, explanation should be moved to beginning. (Show explanation before you show numbers)
6. CP 23 lacks connection between paragraphs, lacks clear and logical order, and "tax statement"- unclear and inconsistent.

CP 25-"We Changed Your Estimated Tax Total" Even balance. No Balance Due/or Refund owed. Change has been made to the return resulting in amounts less than, $ bottom line.

1. CP 25 is confusing, unclear, lacks linkage between paragraphs and uses inconsistent language- "tax statement" vs. "tax return"
2. Eliminate CP 25 and incorporate into CP 23 & CP 24.

CP 62-"We Applied Your Payment To Your Account"

1. Page #1, first statement suggest "We applied your payment to your tax obligation"
2. CP 62 has a confusing explanation of how IRS applied the taxpayers payment.

Positive Comment: Acknowledgement that IRS may have made error with this statement. "If it appears that we didn't apply all of your payments......" Also, the apology was good, shows humility.

Penalty and Interest message is confusing and lacks focus.

Pending: Notices not reviewed: Letter 2789C, CP 83, 39, 60, 51A, 51B, 51C, Letter 0239C, Letter 105C, Letter 2273C.

New Business
None

Meeting Close
Program Owner Cesarano suggested that the committee prioritize issues, and to keep in mind what is the most important fundamental aspect of changes to notices and focus on the ones that the Notice Issue Committee want the IRS to prioritize. An overview is to partner with the EITC Issue Committee, standarize format of notices to include a greeting, closing and establish a "style sheet." A "Notice Template" may be an issue to focus on.

TAP Joint Committee Chair Tom Seuntjens spoke positively of how the face-to-face meeting went and expressed gratitude on behalf of the committee for Program Owner Cesarano's attendance and guidance.

Next Meeting (Via Teleconference) - Wednesday, March 26, 2003, Noontime EST- Dial in number and Participant's code remain the same.