Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

Welcome
Committee Chair Skip Eshelman welcomed everyone and asked if there were any announcements. There were none.

Roll Call
Program Analyst/Recorder Sallie Chavez took the roll call and quorum was met.

Joint Committee Report
Committee Chair Skip Eshelman stated that he was only at the meeting for one day so he asked Committee Member Tom Seuntjens to report. He stated it was a great face-to-face meeting. They had a very full agenda. Recruitment is in full swing. The committee reviewed several recommendations. They are getting prepared for the Annual Meeting in the fall. He stated that only members who are extending will attend the Annual Meeting.

Face-to-Face Meeting Update
TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez advised the committee that plans had been made to have the next face-to-face meeting at the Courtyard by Marriott Pittsburgh Airport on August 13 & 14, 2004. She will send out travel forms the end of June or first of July as the cut off date for the hotel rooms is July 29th.

Review/Approve Minutes of April 28, 2004
The minutes were approved by consensus.

Expectation/Time Table for Subcommittees
Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman stated that TAP Program Manager/Designated Federal Official Nancy Ferree, TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez, SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano and herself had a meeting and discussed the expectations for the subcommittees and created a document to indicate the time frames for all activities (Time Tables is attached as Exhibit 1). The committee seemed to be confused about what needed to be done.

Also there is a need to review assignments. Should the group have a minimum turn around time to receive and complete a task? She asked for discussion about this. She wanted to know if four (4) weeks sounds reasonable.

There was some discussion about the Quarterly Strategy Meeting Subcommittee. TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez pointed out that there was a document called “Explanation of Sub-committees” that was included in the email with the Expectation/Time Table (Explanation of Sub-committees is attached as Exhibit 2).

Committee Member David Robinson stated that a benchmark of 30 days with a qualifier would be acceptable. Several members agreed. Committee Member Tom Seuntjens stated that there may be circumstance where a response may be required in less than 30 days. He suggests that the TAP staff discuss any short timeframes with the sub-committee lead so that the committee won't miss an opportunity.

Committee Member Tom Seuntjens requested that all reports are formally prepared and request a response. Committee Vice-Chair stated that the TAP Staff will prepare the letter. TAP Program Analyst confirmed that the reports will be sent to the Program Owner with a copy to the SPOC (Ann Gelineau), Jim Cesarano and the Joint Committee.

Comments from SPOC Representative
SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano is not available for the call today. TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez stated that he called her yesterday and asked her to give the following report. The Dynamic Project Team (DPT) for the CP09 and 27 notices has been meeting for the last two (2) weeks and has ended early. They are now working on the draft of the two notices. They are still requesting the input from the Document Assessment Tool (DAT) even though they are finished with the DPT. The draft report should be ready within the next two (2) weeks. He also stated that the Penalty and Interest issue that he was working on with the committee may have to be eliminated since there has just been a bill discussed in Congress call the Good Government Act that will require all notices going to taxpayer to have compete interest and penalty computations with them.

SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano asked Program Analyst Jay Duffy to also represent him. He stated there is a DPT planned to begin on June 16th for the demand notice (CP500 series). There could possibly be a requirements meeting on June 16th. There will be a Phase 2 that will have Automated Collection Site (ACS) notices but it is not clear when that will begin.

He stated that Wage and Investment Operating Division and the Notice Support Group were going to be at the Nationwide Tax Forums this summer with focus groups. They will be looking at one of the demand notices (depending on which one(s) get done) and also on penalty and interest.

The newly revised CP71/171 is completed and will be coming out in late June for the individual accounts and late July for the business accounts.

In addition the IRS is planning to send out more surveys to see how they are doing with respect to the notices that are being issued.

Committee Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman state that the scoring standards prepared by the DAT Subcommittee was accepted as written. She congratulated the subcommittee for their work on this document.

Language Standardization
Sub-Committee Lead Virginia Symonds went over her report (Exhibit 3). Committee Member Tom Seuntjens stated he had sent some comments to Sub-Committee Lead Virginia Symonds. She will forward them to TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez to be included in the report.

DAT
Sub-Committee Lead Robin Gausebeck stated she was glad the sub-committee's Scoring Standards were accepted as written. She requested that TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez send them to the entire committee.

The scoring has been completed for the CP27. She thanked Committee Member Jeana Warren and her committee for the hard work they did in scoring the notice.

There was some confusion about the team. Sub-Committee Lead Robin Gausebeck clarified the duties of the sub-committee. She will divide the notices into groups with one of her sub-committee members as the lead. Everyone will participate in scoring notices. If anyone doesn't want to participate in scoring, please let TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez know.

She will now assign out the CP500 series notices. She will get that started as soon as possible.

TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez asked where the sub-committee was in scoring the CP09. Sub-Committee Lead Robin Gausebeck asked Committee Member John Hollingsworth if his committee had scored the notice. He was not aware he was to do the scoring. Sub-Committee Lead Gausebeck confirmed that he was the lead and that Committee Members Phil Bryant, David Robinson and Dick Murphy were on his committee. They will score and get it back to TAP Program Analyst Chavez as soon as possible.

Sub-Committee Lead Robin Gausebeck asked TAP Program Analyst Chavez if it was a problem that they did not get the notice scored before the DPT was completed. TAP Program Analyst Chavez said that the scoring will still help in comparing since they will also want the revised notice scored to compare the two versions. She suggested the committee complete the DAT and send it in as soon as possible. As soon as she gets the revised form, she will forward it to the respective committee to have the revised form scored by the same teams.

Referrals
Sub-Committee Lead John Hollingsworth stated he was not aware that a report had to be turned in to the committee as a whole. Committee Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman prepared an Adobe spreadsheet (Exhibit 3) with what the sub-committee decided on the referrals with the actions that the sub-committee decided to take. All these referrals were discussed with SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano.

NPIIT
Sub-Committee Lead Phil Bryant was not on the call. Sub-Committee Member Tony DiMartino discussed the response to the report that the sub-committee wrote (Exhibit 4). Committee Member Mary Balmer made her comments. She has some to add and will send them to TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez. She wanted to know if there was a person responsible for the life of the notice. Is there someone responsible for notices? Program Analyst Jay Duffy stated Program Owner/SPOC Ann Gelineau was responsible for Wage and Investment Operating Division notices. Committee Member Balmer wanted to know if there is a matrix for these notices. Program Analyst Duffy stated he couldn't address that. Committee Member Balmer brought up the issue of merging. Program Analyst Duffy stated there were problems with merging. Some of the problems involve power of attorneys (POA) who may only be POA for one of the years or filing status could be different with different spouses.

Committee Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman asked about the penalty and interest. Is this now a non-issue? Committee Member Tony DiMartino stated that there is confusion about the interest and penalty that was included with the notices. Committee Vice-Chair Shuman stated that during the face-to-face meeting in Atlanta, SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano stated he wanted the committee to do a sampling of the public on the penalty and interest and whether they wanted this with the notice. Now the Good Government Act states that interest and penalty will be required to go with notices. She asked if this was something that the committee was not going to be doing now. TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez stated that Jim Cesarano would have to address that issue. She has not had a chance to read the Act. It will have to be clarified later.

DPT
Sub-Committee Chair Member Tony DiMartino stated he there was a report on the testing of the CP71/171. It was a 78 page report but only the first 30 pages are important. He agrees with the report. He feels that as action/lessons learned the incentive of $50 for individual and $100 for business taxpayer should be increased. Too much time was spent trying to get participants. It might be easier to get volunteers if they increased the fee. He suggests everyone read the document.

Committee Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman asked if there were any objections to any of the reports. There was none. Committee Member Tom Seuntjens stated that he suggests that response times be put on the memo to the program owners for tracking purposes.

New Business
Committee Member Virginia Symonds asked if the committee's response will be incorporated into the final report. Committee Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman stated that the committee will get a response but it depends on the timing whether it gets included in the final report.

Meeting Close
Committee Chair Skip Eshelman asked for any other comments. There were none. He said the next meeting is scheduled for June 23 at 12:00 noon EDT.

Sub Committee	Members	Assignment	Assigned	Due Date	Completed
Language Standardization	Virginia Symonds-lead Morgan Edwards Dick Murphy Skip Eshelman Tom Seuntjens	Comments on "Notice Writing Guide"	5/10/04	5/28/04
DAT	Robin Gausebeck-lead	Write the standards for the rating descriptions	2/27/04	3/15/04	3/5/2004
	Jeana Warren	Scoring CP09	4/28/04	5/24/04
	John Hollingsworth	Scoring CP27	4/28/04	5/24/04
	Eileen Shuman	Scoring CP500 series	Pending
Quarterly Strategy Team	Eileen Shuman-lead	Tele conference	2/27/04	3/2/04	3/2/2004
	David Robinson
	Jeana Warren
	George Sullivan
Referral	John Hollingsworth-lead Tony DiMartino David Robinson Virginia Symonds Eileen Shuman	(6) Referrals to review and respond to Notice committee	1/15/04	3/15/04
NPIIT	Phil Bryant-lead	Review and respond to "Phase I report"	3/1/04	6/15/04
	Mary Balmer Tony DiMartino	Sample Taxpayers preference on P&I - ok if not sent under what conditions. Need to determine how survey will be done: (a) pool entire TAP panel; (b) use outreaches; etc.	?	?
DPT	Tony DiMartino-lead Virginia Symonds Tom Seuntjens John Hollingsworth	CP500 series	Pending
SPOC Phase II Notice Elimination	No current members	Sub-committee not active

A Review of the above Report by Virginia Symonds, Sub-Committee Chair, C. Morgan Edwards, Richard Murphy, Skip Eshelman and Tom Seuntjens, Members Notice Standardization Sub-Committee

The committee found the Draft of the Notice Standardization Guide to be, lengthy yet a very thorough comprehensive document. The committee did not find the document to be hard or difficult to read and understood the focus and intent of the document from a non IRS employee perceptive, as an outside lay/community person. The concept of Standardization of Language, terms use and Standardization of layout in all areas of communication, are in tune with other Governmental agencies and the Private Sector. Obviously Andrea and Bonnie and their team have put in a lot of hard work in a short time to write this impressive document.

This document effectively addresses verbal and written information changes in an effort for easier and more effective communication between the IRS, taxpayers and people involved in the tax structure. It gives the feeling that the Language Standardization Committee has listened to the concerns of the many levels of taxpayers needs, to simplify much of the language used in IRS communications and better help the taxpayer understand what does the communication they receive from IRS really says and means. If this document is ultimately implemented in non-legal language when not needed, taxpayers may lessen their need to contact accountants for interpretation of what IRS is saying or telling them to do.

Reading and referencing the different section of the document would be easier to read with number pages, section named and number pages; that is page 4- section 1.3. I find it less confusing to go back to a section when pages are numbered.

Page 2.9 - What are the logistics for installing the 11 point font at some time for all of the IRS programs? Will there be a problem if the 11 point font isn't compatible with non IRS computer systems such as those in the Private Sector, other Government Agencies and taxpayer's personal computers? Is there estimate of costs to completely change the font point number? Would the costs and change of the current font point to a new one, delay the implementation of the new standards? Many Governmental agencies use the Handicap Standard 12 point font.

Page 2.18 - Request for Money Notices - elements to include - do these Notices typically include consequences if payment is not made?

Page 4.4 - 2nd section where five questions are listed - would it be appropriate to add question 6 - What are the consequences if I don't pay?

Page 4.4 - Taxpayers want information that is clear, easy to understand and easy to find; consider adding - easy to navigate through the IRS problems that are relevant to the taxpayer.

Page 4.45 - Talking about Clarifying Legal Language - the established use of the term Notices for all correspondence, memos, and all communication between IRS and the taxpayer, seems like legal terminology, rather than making IRS easier to read their correspondence and easier to understand. It also sounds formal, distant and in contrast to using “we”, which this document proposes to use in correspondence from IRS to help the taxpayer feel less threatening and it feels more customer friendly. Maybe there is a legal reason that this term is a part of IRS's total communication system that the committee is not aware of. Maybe it would be helpful for IRS to clarify, in this document, how they define the differences between letters, memos and Notices.

Chapter 5 Document Assessment Tool - Is the font point temporary different in this section than the other sections or is it due to the contents of this section.

Chapter 6 is a much needed valuable tools. Rather than to list the Glossary in the last chapter with the Acronyms, would the text of the document be easier to follow if the Glossary was included under the Foreword introduction?

Are all of the changes being proposed in the Notice Standardization Guide possible within IRS currents policies and procedures, rules and regulations or do any of the proposals require Legislative changes? Does this document need to receive approval from any of the IRS departments before implementation?

Individual Master File Computer Paragraph Notice and Automated Collection System Letter
Notice Elimination Review
January 2004

A Review of the Above Report by Phil Bryant, Sub-Committee Chair, Mary Balmer and Anthony DiMartino, Members, TAP Notice Issue NPIIT Subcommittee

Introduction
It was with great enthusiasm that this TAP Notice Issue-Notice Process Improvement Initiative Team (NPIIT) Subcommittee reviewed the above Report. Taxpayers (Customers), Tax Practitioners and, happily, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) itself all agree that the IRS is burdened with an abundance of redundant and vaguely worded Notices.

Upon completion of our review, we agree that NPIIT prepared an exceptionally well thought out and well written report. NPIIT has clearly identified opportunities to eliminate obsolete and/or redundant notices currently used by the IRS operating divisions.

NPIIT Task Definition/ Methodology
The NPIIT team clearly focused its review efforts, as outlined in the Report's Task Definition section. Further, the methodology used in the NPIIT Report followed a consistently applied, logical progression of actions taken by the NPIIT team in order to identify its redundant and obsolete Notices identification goal.

Our TAP Notice Issue NPIIT Subcommittee was particularly impressed with the Report's Consideration of Balanced Measures Impact Section. We believe that this Report succeeded in providing recommendations that positively impact on customer satisfaction, reduction of IRS costs, and IRS employee satisfaction, if applied as recommended in the Report.

We realize that this is an internal IRS Report. However, while reading this Report, we had identified eighteen IRS acronyms. Our Subcommittee members are not as familiar with these IRS acronyms as IRS personnel. At least one of our Subcommittee members created a listing of these acronyms for referral throughout the Report, as needed. Perhaps a listing summarizing acronyms used in Reports would make internal IRS Reports easier for review by TAP Members.

Organization
The organization of the Report was logically presented, clearly written and easily understandable to read. The Report was subdivided into four sections of specific recommendation narratives, beginning with the general notice process improvement recommendations, continuing with the notice series recommendations, followed by recommendations on streamlining the notice package, and concluding with specific notices or letters.

Report Summary Table of Recommendations
The Report's Summary Table of Recommendations offered the reviewers an easy reference for referral as we progressed throughout the Report.

General Notice Process Improvement Recommendations
The Report's recommendation to establish a Service-wide procedure to manage the life cycle of a notice from its initiation to its retirement, as outlined in its General Notice Process Improvement Recommendations Section, is an excellent proposal. This recommendation, if implemented, would serve as the basis of a generic IRS notice tracking system. The Report proposes, in its recommendation: a profile to be established for every notice that includes documentation on the reason the Notice was created; the operational aim of the notice; the expected duration of the notice, names/contact numbers of the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) assigned during the life cycle of the notice; completed reviews and studies; changes made to the notice during its life cycle; and finally, the date the notice became obsolete and “retired.”

Balance of the Report
The Report then proceeds to Notice Series Recommendations, Notice Package Recommendations and Specific CP Notice or ACS Letter Recommendations. Throughout the balance of this Report, the NPIIT team successfully identified obsolete notices, duplication of notices and notices that can be combined with other notices. Justification for each recommendation is clearly stated. The Report's inclusion of “Next Steps” within each recommendation provides the Service with a method of implementing each of the Report's recommendations. A good example of such “Next Step” is the establishment of various Dynamic Project Teams (DPTs) that would implement a number of the Report's recommendations. The Report's recommendation of the use of pop-in paragraphs to distinguish different case scenarios utilizing one generic notice is to be commended. Our Subcommittee supports NPIIT's alternative recommendations in several cases where the elimination or consolidation of notices is not feasible by IRS that an alternative plan of action, included in the Report, be taken by IRS.

Summary of Review
In summary, our TAP NPIIT Sub-Committee commends the NPIIT Team's recommendations that, if implemented by the Service, would positively impact on customer satisfaction, business results and employee satisfaction.

We believe that, should the Service implement recommendations included in the NPIIT Report, customer satisfaction would improve. Future customers would receive complete and clear statements that would eliminate the taxpayer's burden with the need to contact IRS for clarification. Multiple related notices, which cause confusion, would not be mailed to customers. Finally, notices would provide enough detail for the taxpayer to prepare for follow-up action.

IRS could realize a tremendous cost savings in the handling, printing, reviewing and mailing of redundant and unnecessary notices and stuffers. Further staffing demands to maintain obsolete programming and procedural guidelines would be reduced.

Finally, we agree that employee satisfaction would be positively impacted. Response call rate to IRS upon receipt of misunderstood notices, which currently produce a drain on the telephone services would be greatly reduced. Employee time would be used more efficiently.