SBSE Issue Committee Meeting Minutes

July 7, 2005

Program Owner

• Bayder, Helene — Management and Program Analyst
• Chesman, Michael — Director, Office of Taxpayer Burden.

Designated Federal Official

• Ramirez, Sandra — Manager, Brooklyn, NY

Committee Members Present (These attendees count for quorum)

• Brubaker, Paul — York, PA
• Hafer, Donna — Burlington, KY
• Moore, Bradley — Decatur, GA Vice Chair
• Nagel, Paul — Glen Cove, NY Chair
• Oatley, Owen — Holly Hill, FL

Committee Members Absent

• Balcom, Margaret — Concord, CA
• Bell, Aaron — Kenmore, NY
• Bly, Bill — Wayne, PA
• Cassady, Charlotte — Talbotton, GA
• Duquette, Paul — Amherst, WI
• Forst, Robert — Encino, CA
• Hoffman, Steven — Columbus, OH
• Miller, Stanley — St Louis, MO
• Perkins, Howard — Suisun City, CA
• Rue, Thomas — Mechanicsville, VA
• Suther, Mary — Dallas, TX
• White, William — St Joseph, MO

TAP Staff

• Jenkins, Audrey — Analyst
• Knispel, Marisa — Analyst
• Odom-Russell, Meredith — Management Assistant
• Ramirez, Sandra — Manager

Other Attendees

• Dacal, Rafael — Operations Analyst
• Garner, Ruth — Research, Analysis & Statistics, Analyst
• Gardner, Sidney — SBSE SPOC
• Gunter, Diana — Senior Tax Analyst
• Moore, Debbie — Social Scientist
• Sabatelli, Deborah — SBSE Analyst

Welcome

Roll Call (quorum not met)

Review Agenda

Approval of Meeting Minutes
Minutes will be sent by email to all members for approval.

Chair Report

Program Owners
Bayder introduced everyone on the call. She indicated that a few IRS people had joined the meeting to provide information on the tasks given to members.

Agenda Items

Subcommittee 1
Bly completed the final report on the subcommittee’s review of Letter 2205 and Letter 3572, Publication 3498 and Publication 1, and Notice 609. The report, he says, is self explanatory. Bly recommended the words “audit” and “examination” be replaced with the phrase “verify documentation” or similar wording. Brubaker suggested that a subject matter expert review the report and provide feedback to the subcommittee. Gunter requested a copy of the report be sent to her and once reviewed; she will provide feed back by the end of next month. Knispel will send her the report. Hafer commented on the Information Document Request and Bly reminded her this Document was not their charge, only the notices.

Subcommittee 2
Oatley reported on the issue of Prioritization of SBSE Notices. He explained that it is easier to analyze IRS notices that are sent to individuals since they contain more data. The Office of Taxpayer Burden Reduction is trying to determine the factors that should be considered in prioritizing these notices. Oatley spoke about the New Zealand method of analysis and explained that this method would allow for an easier survey on the factor of customer satisfaction. The problem with our task, Oatley explained, is getting the measurable data to decide on the best method to prioritize these notices. The committee recommends a methodology be set up similar to the one used on individual notices because this methodology incorporates assigning values. Dacal discussed the process used by the IRS to measure customer satisfaction which involves measuring the amount of time a business taxpayer may spend replying to a notice. IBM has a contract with the IRS, Dacal said, to survey and measure burden for small businesses with ten million dollars or less in assets. They have recently started working on measuring post-filing burden that includes all notices. Their work will also focus on employment taxes and tax forms like 940, 943, etc. Post-filing burden study looks at the attributes as part of a transaction with the IRS. In this survey, there will be between five and ten thousand business taxpayers interviewed as well as practitioners. The question is who is creating the burden: the IRS or the taxpayer? In the post-filing arena, there is no data collected and thus, no requirement for the IRS to collect any of these measurements. Recently, notices have been redesigned to let taxpayers know the amount of letters or notices that were sent to them. Moore, who is currently working on the project with the IRS team, indicated that they will report their findings to SPOC Gardner shortly and suggested sharing her report with the subcommittee to get their feedback and suggestions. The subcommittee members agreed to this.

Ruth thanked the Committee members on behalf of Mike Chesman, Lisa McLane and Chris Hess for participating in the mail-out strategy survey last June and providing insightful feedback. The research team, she indicated, has summarized and included their responses in the final report which will be shared with the TAP for further input.

Decision: A new sub-committee needs to be formed for the 940 issue. The former notice committee will be the new 940 issue committee.

All action items should be consolidated for review and follow up during the next meeting.

Closing/Assessment
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM. The next meeting will be on September 1, 2005 at 3:00 PM ET.