Wage & Investment Reduce Taxpayer Burden (Notices) Meeting Minutes

August 13, 2004
8:30am — 4:30pm
Pittsburgh, PA

Participants (Panel Members):

• C. Morgan Edwards
• Anthony DiMartino
• Charles (Skip) Eshelman
• Robin Gausebeck
• John Hollingsworth
• William Murphy
• David Robinson
• Eileen Shuman
• George Sullivan
• Virginia Symonds
• Jeana Warren

Not Present:

• Phil Bryant
• Mary Balmer
• Curtis Feese
• Thomas Seuntjens

Staff Members:

• Sallie Chavez (Recorder)
• Nancy Ferree, DFO & TAP Manager
• Martha Curry, TAP Analyst, Washington

Guests

• James (Jim) A. Cesarano, Program Analyst, Wage & Investment, Single Point of Contact (SPOC)

Welcome and Announcements/Roll Call
Committee Chair Skip Eshelman welcomed everyone to Pittsburgh. He thanked Vice Chair Eileen Shuman for covering for him at last month’s meeting.

TAP Program Analysts Sallie Chavez and Martha Curry and TAP Program Manager Nancy Ferree discussed lunch and dinner options. There are numerous restaurants in the area and since there are several cars available, the hotel has a van service and taxis are available, there should be no problem with dinner arrangements.

National Office Report
TAP Program Analyst Martha Curry represented TAP Director Bernie Coston. She relayed greetings from Washington. There are many activities going on right now. They are working on the Annual Meeting scheduled for November and finishing the recruitment. The recruitment package contains some really good potential members. The manager along with the National Office staff had a teleconference last Tuesday and reviewed all the applicants. They came up with a tentative list that will be presented to the National Taxpayer Advocate.

The Annual Meeting will include a _ day training session for new members the day before the big meeting begins. There will be 4 – 5 training sessions. The meeting will be held at the Crown Plaza at McPherson Square which is one metro stop from where we had the meeting last year.

There are Standard Operating Procedures being written for both the staff and the members. The two guides are being compared right now.

Committee Member Morgan Edwards asked about the election for the Panel Chair. DFO Nancy Ferree said they were reviewing the process and would be using the same process as the first year.
Committee Member John Hollingsworth asked about bios. DFO Nancy Ferree stated everyone will be asked for a bio or to update their bio.

The dates for the Annual Meeting are November 3 – 6 with the 3rd being a half day for new members.

Committee Member Eileen Shuman asked if everyone could get a copy of what the new members get. DFO Nancy Ferree said she doesn’t see a problem with that. Since there will be alternates, there will be copies of the material available for them.

Committee Member Eileen Shuman asked about Issue Committees. TAP Program Analyst Martha Curry said the TAP Director Bernie Coston will speak to National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson about that.

She said that if any one had any comments about the Annual Meeting that they wanted her to take back to National Office to let her or TAP Program Manager Nancy Ferree know.

Committee Member Morgan Edwards asked about certificates. TAP Program Analyst Martha Curry said they are already done.

Committee Member Virginia Symonds asked about exit interviews. DFO Nancy Ferree said the National Office is working on them.

Review/Approve Minutes
The minutes from the last two (2) months were discussed. There were some minor errors. After these errors are corrected the minutes are approved by consensus.

Comments from SPOC Representative
SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano presented the committee with a Special Act Award from National Director of Media & Publications, Carolyn Tavenner. The certificate read:

“(Committee Member’s Name), this award recognizes your active involvement in improving the Internal Revenue Service’s notices.

You recognized the importance of helping the IRS simplify its communications with taxpayers. You forwarded this important goal in your work with the Wage and Investment Division’s Single Point of Contact Office for notices.

You helped the IRS prioritize which notices to improve. You then worked with different teams to improve notices and the notice process. You helped the IRS evaluate and score the written quality of its notices.

You represented the American taxpaying public in your efforts and made sure that the IRS heard its voice.

Thank you for your voluntary service.”

He also presented pens to the staff as a “thank you” for their assistance.

He stated he has the NPIIT response ready. It just needs to be signed. He reviewed some of the issues in the memo. Low volume notices will be eliminated.

Many of the complex issue have been picked up by the CP5XX team. Part 2 is scheduled to start soon on the Automated Collection Site (ACS) Letters.

IRS wants to do a Dynamic Project Team (DPT) on Penalty and Interest but legislation is affecting this DPT. Liz Williams is taking the lead on this issue.

They are working on the cost of sending out notices. This will be an average.

The Notice Standardization Style Guide is out. It still needs to be worked on.

IRS is working on “Life-cycle Reviews”. He said little changes become big changes. Right now there is no estimate on the review schedule.

The DPT/NPIIT model developed by the Notice Modernization Team hasn’t worked out the way they were developed. It is costing more than the way it was done before. It is not being abandoned. IRS is keeping teams ongoing. The technology hasn’t been delivered yet. Also people have to be trained in writing. They know the operations but need to learn other aspects.

Committee Member Tony DiMartino asked if the Kleimann Group was writing the new notices. SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano stated there are questions about this. The system needs to be streamlined. The system is very expensive. They are having a very slow start-up.

Committee Member Robin Gausebeck said she is getting discouraged. She said the Document Assessment Toll (DAT) lays out how to write a good notice. SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano said there are other problems such as printing costs.

Committee Member Virginia Symonds asked how much is contracted out. SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano stated about half. The Language Standardization Guide was contracted out. The DAT was contracted out but now that is being done by the TAP Issue Committee.

Committee Member Morgan Edwards asked who writes the specs for the contracts. SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano stated the IRS has a Contract Officer Technical Representative from Notice Support Group to deal with that. Procurement works with the office that is requesting the contractor.

Sub-Committee Break-out
At this point, the subcommittees broke out to meet and prepare their reports to be presented later in the meeting.

Sub-Committee Reports
Language Standardization
Sub-Committee Lead Virginia Symonds said that Committee Chair Skip Eshelman never received a copy of the report/letter from Andrea Law. She asked the staff to please forward him a copy of the report/letter. She did not have it with her. She will prepare that part of the report on Monday when she gets back home.

The purpose of the sub-committee is to review the draft of the Language Standardization Guide. They compiled questions and sent them to Andrea Law and Bonnie Babcock. They sent recommendation on the Standardization Guide. They received a response to the questions.

She stated they had no disappointments. They gave feedback. The deadlines were faster than expected but the guide was prepared timely.

Document Assessment Toll (DAT)
Sub-Committee Lead Robin Gausebeck defined the task of the sub-committee. They coordinated the DAT, wrote the procedures for assigning, wrote the standards for the DAT, worked on norming scores, prepared a spreadsheet for the scoring, and reviewed notices to score.

She said there were several challenges. The biggest was scheduling the work. Another was continuity of the sub-committee. They have not been given the opportunity to review the after notices.

Wrap-up and Comments
Committee Chair asked if anyone had any questions or comments before breaking for lunch. There were none.

Sub-Committee Reports (continued)
Quarterly Strategy Team
Sub-Committee Lead Eileen Shuman stated the team was set up to attend quarterly meeting with the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) Ann Gelineau. The last meeting that they attended was in New Carrollton.

She stated that the one thing that was a problem for this sub-committee was that there was not enough lead time given for the meetings. Also there was no advanced agenda for the meeting. The agenda was given out at the meeting.

Referrals
Committee Member Eileen Shuman said that the committee reviewed comments made by taxpayer. The Sub-Committee met with the SPOC Representative and they are in the process of writing recommendations.

NPIIT Report
Committee Member Tony DiMartino said the committee was formed to review to the March 2004 report on the Notices Elimination NPIIT. They produced a response that went to the Program Owner (Ann Gelineau).

DPT
Sub-Committee Lead Tony DiMartino reported that the purpose of the sub-committee was to observe and participate in the Dynamic Project Teams (DPT). Some of the successes this subcommittee had were participating in the requirement meeting for the CP71, observing the usability testing for the CP71/CP171, participating in the requirement meeting for the CP5XX series notices, and observing the usability testing for several of the CP5XX series notices.

ANNUAL REPORT PREPARATION
Committee Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman will take the subcommittee reports and put them together to write the actual report. She asked that all the sub-committee leads have a written report to her by the end of next week.

The committee discussed some of the accomplishments that were not part of the sub-committees. They included:

• TIGTA Report complimenting notices
• Taking part in Internal IRS meetings. Creating a relationship between the committee and the Program owners.
• Restructure of the sub-committees
• Involved with other IRS functions
• Training for scoring notices (DAT)

The committee then discussed some of the challenges that were not covered under the sub-committees. They included:

• Advanced notice of 30 days needed to accomplish tasks
• TAPSpeak – non-use of program – understanding functions

Committee Members were asked to complete the Self-Assessment portion of the Annual Report. Everyone was asked to take three pieces of paper and write a grade for Item number 1, Item number 2 and Item number 3. These were given (anonymously) and they were compiled as follows:

Committee Grade – 7.73
Staff Grade – 8.45
IRS Cooperation Grade – 7.33

The committee discussed the Self-Assessment and the comments that were made.

Participation in Issue Committee Activities
Committee Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman explained to the committee that DFO Nancy Ferree, Committee Chair Skip Eshelman, SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano, TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez and herself meet (via a conference call) to determine a 30 day lead time for participation on teams and projects. She said that it is the responsibility of the committee members to vocalize what can and can’t be done.

Committee Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman asked for comments about the teleconferences. Committee Member Robin Gausebeck said that she would like to see a report before the meeting. SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano said he would like a 15 minute call to review what he needs to do for the next meeting. DFO Nancy Ferree said that issues were discussed on the call instead of reviewing issue.

Committee Member Jeana Warren asked what was expected from sub-committee reports. Some of the issues discussed where:

• What’s new
• Support needed
• Update spreadsheet

The report should be provided by the sub-committee at least 10 days before meeting. If no report, this needs to be reported as well.

The issue of leadership was discussed. It was discussed who would be available to be chair for the next year. Committee Vice-Chair Eileen Shuman said she would assist but can’t take additional time for additional meetings.

There was a discussion about conflicting meetings. Committee Member Robin Gausebeck said that a Master Calendar for meetings should be available at the Annual Meeting so conflicts can be avoided.

Penalty and Interest Issue
TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez said she had been contact by Liz Williams asking if the committee could help with the Penalty and Interest Issue. She presented the committee with Liz Williams’ proposal. SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano stated that with Penalty and Interest calculation in a business notice, it could run many pages. He said if this new proposal (Good Government Act) of including Penalty and Interest calculation in every notice passes it will cost approximately $23M to develop and $20M annually in maintenance. He stated that any notice dealing with Penalty and Interest will be held up until this issue is resolved.

Committee Member Robin Gausebeck asked if Penalty and Interest calculations are available on the phone. DFO Nancy Ferree said that IRS does have the ability to provide information if you can get through on the telephone.

SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano said that he thinks that the committee should read the Good Government Act. DFO Nancy Ferree will see if she can find the Good Government Act tonight and report back tomorrow.

Committee Chair Skip Eshelman asked if Committee Member Dave Robinson would take the lead on this issue.

Committee Member Robin Gausebeck suggests that only the committee provide comments on this issue.

Closing Remarks
Meeting was adjourned.

Meeting Minutes
Pittsburgh, PA
August 14, 2004 – 8:30am – 12:00noon ET

Welcome & Introduction
Committee Chair Skip Eshelman welcomed everyone back for the 2nd day of our meeting. He hopes everyone had a good evening.

SPOC Representative was presented with a picture of the committee for his desk.

SPOC Representative Report
SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano reviewed what will be happening in the next year. There are budget concerns. They have a shortfall for this year. They may not have travel fund available. This may affect Phase 2 of the Notice Elimination NPIIT. Also outreach may be involved. He is uncertain what will happen.

Penalty and Interest will take resources. Many other issues will be put on hold because it relates to Penalty and Interest.

The Notice Elimination NPIIT Phase 1 found issues that weren’t evident at first. There is contract money for the usability testing. There are printing issues that have large costs.

Simplification costs money. They need to build quality issues. Notice Accuracy will be looking at account information, social security numbers, figures correct, etc.

SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano reviewed the IRS Notice Process Improvement Plan – Five-Year Strategies. He reviewed the general concepts. Not all the tools have been made available yet.

Committee Member Tony DiMartino asked what the difference between the NPIIT and the DPT was. SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano said that the DPT redesigned the notices. It is short term. The NPIIT looks at the process.

Report on Usability Testing
Committee Member Virginia Symonds reported she went to Chicago on Tuesday and Wednesday (8-10 & 11) to observe the usability testing of the CP504, 515 and 518. She observed four (4) people in the 2 days. They paid $65 for the non-business individuals and $100 for the business individuals. They used a script.

Some of the issues that were observed were:

• Very confused
• Didn’t read the notice
• Not highlighted

She will write up a report for everyone. TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez will send out to everyone when received. She felt this was a valuable opportunity.

Committee Member Mary Balmer’s written report was provided to all committee members. Her report is attached to the minutes as Attachment 1.

Review of DAT Scoring on CP Notices
TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez provided copies of all the DAT scoring done by the committee so that they could see how each notice was scored. Committee Member Robin Gausebeck asked if there were any other notices to score. SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano said he will check with SPOC Ann Gellineau. They may be able to do the after-scores for these notices.

DAT Spreadsheet Recommendation
The recommendation is not available. This will be added to the next meeting’s agenda.

Closing Remarks/Survey/Adjournment
Committee Chair Skip Eshelman asked that everyone please complete the survey and give it to TAP Program Analyst Sallie Chavez before they leave.

The next meeting is scheduled for September 22, 2004 at 12:00noon ET.

He thanked the TAP staff for the meeting arrangements, SPOC Representative Jim Cesarano for all the information and TAP Program Analyst Martha Curry for the report from National Office. He also wanted to thank those on the committee who would be retiring after the next meeting for their contributions.

Meeting was adjourned.

Attachment 1

TO: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel – Notices Issue Committee
FROM: Mary J. Balmer
DATE: August 10, 2004
SUBJECT: Report on Notices Usability Testing – Fairfax, Virginia

Background:
I volunteered to observe usability testing conducted for the IRS by Metro Research Services, Inc., at their Fairfax, VA location on August 9 – 11, 2004. The usability sessions were set up to test the IRS Notice CP 501 – reminder of a balance due, CP 504 – urgent notice of a balance due, and the CP 515 – first notice of failure to file a return. I attended the 9:00 AM and 12:30 PM sessions on August 10, 2004 and plan to attend the 9:00 AM and 12:30 PM sessions on August 11, 2004. In the interest of time, this report is based only upon the first two sessions held on August 10, 2004. This will enable the Committee to receive a timely report for the face-to-face meeting to be held later this week.

Attendees:
During each usability session there were three individuals in the main conference room – the taxpayer, a moderator conducting the session, and a note-taker. In the viewing room I was joined by Tracy Schmidt – Kleiman Communications, Jay Duffy – IRS, Tom Ireland – IRS, Mildred Munford – IRS, and Ron Ridgly – IRS.

Process:
Several different “scenarios” were created, identifying certain attributes the taxpayer was to assume [i.e., role-play] during review of a particular Notice. I’m not sure if the taxpayer was asked to assume one scenario throughout the entire usability session, or was asked to play a different role while reviewing each Notice. The moderator handed the taxpayer a sheet of paper prior to reviewing each Notice, and asked the taxpayer to silently read the scenario to remind them of who they were supposed to be, and so I was unable to identify whether or not the scenario was the same throughout the entire session.

Observation: I thought it was a little odd that the taxpayer was asked to assume a role as they evaluated Notices. In my opinion, it might have been better to simply ask then what they felt about the Notices rather than requiring them to imagine what some other person might have felt. I suspect the IRS requested to test a certain demographic and the testing site was unable to recruit individuals in that demographic. As an alternative, they may have recruited taxpayers and had them role-play in an attempt to understand how they think someone in the requested demographic may have responded.

Upon review of each Notice, the taxpayer was to read through the Notice and provide their initial response. They were then asked a series of questions about the Notice. After reviewing CP-501 and CP-504, the taxpayer was asked to compare and contrast.

• CP-501, Reminder of Balance Due
  Both taxpayers felt the revised Notice was easy to understand. The first taxpayer commented on how he felt some of the inserts may have included redundant information. Both taxpayers used phrases such as, “easy to understand”, “well organized”, “this is good”, “very clear”, in describing their response to this Notice.
• CP-504, Urgent Notice of a Balance Due
  Both taxpayers seemed to grasp the nature and purpose of the Notice. The first taxpayer found the first paragraph a little confusing, as it indicated payment was due NOW, yet the second section of the Notice provided payment options. He didn’t like the fact that the Notice did not provide a due date – rather it stated payment was due NOW.
  
  The second taxpayer felt stronger wording was needed. In other words, rather than stating, “We can file a lien…” she felt it may have been more appropriate to state, “We will file a lien…” to reinforce the consequences should the taxpayer fail to take action.
• CP – 501/504 – Compare and Contrast
  Upon review of both Notices [side-by-side] the taxpayers noted the tone for the CP – 504 was much stronger, while the CP – 501 was much more polite. But they both agreed the tone was appropriate.
• CP – 515 – Failure to File a Return
  The first taxpayer felt this Notice was easy to read, self-explanatory, nothing too confusing. Interesting to note, when asked about what to do should he have a question about the Notice, it took him a while to locate the IRS telephone number. While he was looking for the number, Jay Duffy pointed out to me how the number was listed in at least three different places in the Notice. Then, the taxpayer mentioned that the Notice still didn’t indicate the number to call should he have a specific question on the stock sale [one of the items listed in this Notice].
  
  Both taxpayers mentioned that the section of the Notice discussing how to prevent this from happening in the future was too long (it listed 4 items and took up a half page). They both said, in almost identical terms, that it was obvious how to avoid this in the future – you have to file a return! You don’t need a half a page to say this!
  
  Both taxpayers mentioned the “Account Detail” section of the Notice was a bit confusing – wasn’t sure where the information came from.
  
  The CP – 515 came with a tax return completed by the IRS. It seemed unclear to the taxpayers why the tax return was included with the Notice, but when asked if they felt it would be advantageous to file the return as is, they both felt it would be to their disadvantage as they may lose out on some deductions that had not been taken into account.
  
  Observation: It was unclear to me why a completed tax return would be included with the CP-515. I wasn't sure if, by inaction, the return would be "filed" as is. It seemed a bit confusing — if you're not going to file the return for the taxpayer, and you believe in most cases the taxpayer would need to modify it to include additional deductions or items of income, is it really useful, or does it add yet another layer of complexity?

Summary:
My hat’s off to the Notices team – they did an outstanding job in revising these Notices. The taxpayers seemed to feel the Notices – overall - were easy to understand, the purpose was clear, the tone was appropriate, they knew what action to take and where to go for additional help. I was equally impressed by these Notices – they appeared to be well-organized with a clear purpose.