January 29, 2008 TSCPA/IRS Semi-Annual Meeting Austin, Texas 9 am 4 pm: Attendees:

Transcription

1 January 29, 2008 TSCPA/IRS Semi-Annual Meeting Austin, Texas 9 am 4 pm: Attendees: TSCPA: Name, Chapter Earl Prochnick, Austin Joyce Smith, Austin Donna Wesling, Austin John Buckley, Corpus Joe Brophy, Dallas Ron Fiedelman, Dallas Kenneth Horwitz, Dallas Ira Nevelow, Dallas Claude Wilson, Dallas Richard Witmer, Dallas Glenn Hanner, Ft Worth David Donnelly, Houston Kathy Ploch, Houston Steve Bankler, San Antonio Jim Oliver, San Antonio Patty Tinsley, State Lisa Hull, Central Texas Richard (Dick) Kaga, Central Texas Doris King, Wichita Falls Kathleen Bauer, Wichita Falls IRS Guests: Name, Title, Function Denice Vaughan, Acting Director, Austin Campus Compliance Services Dagoberto Gonzalez, Chief, Austin Campus Compliance Services Planning & Analysis Quinton Smith, Chief, Austin Campus Compliance Services Collection Operation (CSCO) Jack Hisatake, Chief, Austin Campus Compliance Services Examination Operations Paul Tribe, Technical Coordinator, TCO, Examination Service Center Support Operations, Ogden Campus Compliance Services Debbie Brown, Lead Tax Examiner, Subject Matter Expert for a Collection Balance Due Team, Ogden CSCO Carol Nelson, Lead Tax Examiner, Subject Matter Expert for a Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP) Team, Ogden CSCO Janae Dyson, Automated Under Reporter (AUR) Coordinator, Ogden Compliance Services Linda Wilson, Assistant AUR Coordinator, Ogden Compliance Services Debby Pollard, Program/Management Analyst, Campus Compliance Planning & Analysis Staff Gaylene Palmieri, Management/Program Analyst, Compliance Services, Planning and Analysis

2 Kathleen Bushnell, Field Director, Austin Submission Processing Center Maureen Varnado, Chief, Planning & Analysis, Austin Submission Processing Center Nadine Wille, Manager Planning & Analysis, Ogden Campus, Submission Processing Carl (Tony) Ogle, Acting Chief, Planning & Analysis, Austin Campus, Accounts Management Rose Crownover, Program Analyst, Planning & Analysis, Austin Campus, Accounts Management Jan Runyen, PPS Department Manager, Ogden Campus, Accounts Management Ellen Dolby, Director, Collection, Gulf States Area David Ronquillo, Territory Manager, Collection, Gulf States Area, Austin Territory Susan Graham, Territory Manager, Gulf States Examination Area Michael McDermitt, Local Taxpayer Advocate, Austin, TX Allen McClurd, Area Manager, Southwest Area, Stakeholder Liaison Field Sherry Saucerman, Sr. Stakeholder Liaison, Southwest Area Stakeholder Liaison Field Henry Martinez, Sr. Stakeholder Liaison, Southwest Area Stakeholder Liaison Field Karen Hunter, Stakeholder Liaison, Southwest Area Stakeholder Liaison Field Meeting Summary The meeting was conducted using two panels of IRS personnel. Panel members provided responses to the practitioners questions as follows: Campus Operations Panel Campus Compliance Services, Submission Processing SP), Accounts Management (AM). Ogden Campus representatives participated via teleconference. Denice Vaughan provided a brief discussion of the Campus Compliance Services operations, including Automated Underreporter Program (AUR), and the Automated Collection System (ACS). Kathleen Bushnell advised the practitioners that Submission Processing Centers continue to be consolidated. The Philadelphia Campus processed their last returns in Eventually all paper submissions will be handled by the Fresno and Kansas City Campuses (W&I) and the Ogden and Cincinnati Campuses (SBSE). International returns, including the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) and the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA) programs transitioned to Austin last year. Notices regarding Real Property Holding Companies are still issued by the Ogden Campus. Tony Ogle explained that Accounts Management has basically two programs: the tollfree telephone systems, and their inventory systems. The Austin Campus manages call-sites in Austin (individual account issues), Dallas and Denver (tax law assistance). Their inventory systems deal with taxpayer correspondence, amended returns, duplicate returns, and injured spouse claims. Nadine Wille provided the following tips to the practitioners to facilitate submission processing:

3 1. Submit only one Form 7004 extension per tax payer. There is no longer a requirement to submit the form in duplicate. 2. Avoid using software for Forms 940 and 941 that produces thick numerical figures. Numbers generated with thick lines reduce the ability to scan the form and could increase processing time. 3. Ask clients to submit all needed pages of Forms 941. In some cases, only page one or page two of the form is submitted, which generates a need to correspond with the tax payer. 4. Ensure clients filing an initial Form 1120S also submit a Form 2553, unless the election was previously filed. Revenue Procedure allows for both forms to be filed together either by electronic or paper submission. Practitioner question/statement: When practitioners call Practitioner Priority Services (PPS) the Customer Service Representative (CSR) cannot transfer them to (AUR). Response: This is a problem. Headquarters is looking at the PPS scripts and hopes to have an option added to address this issue. Practitioner question/statement: The client gets an AUR notice. The practitioner prepares an amended Form 1040 (1040X) to properly address the underreported income. As per the instructions, the amended return is sent to the AUR unit with the notice, but AUR is not making the adjustment or even acknowledging receipt of the 1040X. This is happening with other responses also, not just the 1040Xs. Response: When AUR receives a 1040X they will process it. If it does not address all the issues in the original AUR notice, a second notice will be sent to the taxpayer. Do not file an amended return, Form 1040X, if you do not agree. These are only proposed changes and the tax liability is not yet assessed. If a Form 1040X is appropriate, return it with your response page and write "Do Not Process - In Response to CP 2000 Notice boldly on the front.. 1) If Receipt and Control (R&C) receives a CP 2000 reply with a form 1040X attached, the CP 2000 is placed in front of the form 1040X and the entire package is routed to AUR. 2) If it is missed in R&C, and the CP 2000 is attached, then the 1040X unit in SP will also route the entire package to AUR. 3) If it is accidentally detached prior to being received in the SP 1040X unit, then additional research is performed: a) If the AUR case is still open, Form 1040X will be routed to AUR b) If closed in AUR and it can be determined that the adjustments were related to a CP 2000 issue, then the case is routed to AUR. c) If closed and it cannot be determined that the adjustments are related to a CP 2000, the 1040X is continued to be processed. Practitioner question/statement: Practitioners indicated that correspondence sent to various campus functions is generally ignored. Payments will be posted, but the next notice the taxpayer receives will only reflect the receipt of the payment, not the adjustment indicated in the correspondence. Response: There is a bar code on the page that allows the mailroom to get it to the proper unit, but there can be delays in receiving your correspondence. The most expeditious method of resolving an issue with ACS or AUR is to fax the information directly to the CSR while you are talking to them. The Campuses are moving to electronic fax receipt which should improve processing of faxes.

4 Practitioner question/statement: Practitioner noted that they will receive a notice from one Campus and the next notice will come from a different Campus. They are not sure which Campus to respond to. Response: There are a couple of reasons this may happen. With Non-Filers, the notice is sent from one Campus. If there is no response, they will make the assessment. If a response is received after the assessment is made, it will be sent to the reconsideration unit. For Wage & Investment (W&I) taxpayers this is the Fresno Campus. For Small Business & Self Employed (SBSE) taxpayers, reconsiderations are done by the Brookhaven Campus. Some programs are able to scan correspondence into the computer system. This allows them to balance the workload between Campuses. Cases may be transferred to a different Campus after the initial notice is sent. (The ability to scan documents has not been implemented in all Campuses.) We do try to keep the ACS call sites paper minimal. If a lot of documentation is needed, you may be requested to send the information to one of the Support sites. Personnel at the support site enter the information into the system so it is available to the call site CSRs. Practitioner question/statement: What items are being scanned? Response: It depends on the function and location. Accounts Management in Austin implemented scanning in For example they scan in all amended returns. Ogden Accounts management does not yet have any scanning capability. They do have limited capability in exam correspondence. Not all amended returns are worked in Accounts Management. Submission Processing works the simpler issues and they do not have the ability to scan the documents yet either. Practitioner question/statement: Practitioners provided several examples where Automated Collection (ACS) CSRs would not provide sufficient time for the practitioner to resolve the account. CSRs claim there is a checksheet/guidance that limits the time that can be granted Response: When calling the Automated Collection Service (ACS) for balances due, your request for additional time to pay overdue tax can be evaluated more expeditiously if the taxpayer s financial information can be provided during the initial call. While Form 433-F, Collection Information Statement, is not automatically required for every account, having the information requested on this form available when you call will help in the event a financial analysis is necessary. Remember, most payment options are available only if the taxpayer has filed all required returns. If it is not possible to have all the information when you call, the amount of time granted will depend on all the circumstances of the individual case. To be able to know why more time was not granted we will need more details regarding the actual case. Details will be provided to Sherry who will forward them to the appropriate unit. Practitioner question/statement: Practitioners are having trouble reaching a manager when they need to. Sometimes the employee will not give them the information. Other times the manager calls back when the practitioner is not in the office. They leave a message that they called, but the call back number is the general line. When the practitioner calls back they cannot be routed to the manager. Response: Managers are required to call back within 24 hours. If the employee refuses to give them the manager s number, Stakeholder Liaison can get you the information based on the employee s ID number. If you don t have their ID number, we can trace the call. All calls are recorded. If we know the date, time,

5 and number you called we should be able to find the call. Time is of the essence in reporting this situation as the recordings are only retained 45 days. Practitioner question/statement: After we prepare the clients Form 1040, they come by and sign. We usually file electronically the next day or so. The client takes the Form 1040-V with them and mails in the check shortly thereafter. However, before the check has time to be received and processed, a notice of tax due is quickly sent. The clients get the notice; call the practitioner; and think they owe IRS additional funds. Some people even make a second payment. Why are the notices issued so quickly? Response: Because the electronically filed return posts more quickly than a payment via paper check, this is a difficult systemic issue to resolve. The IRS has several controls in place to prevent this happening during our peak filing season, but these controls create other concerns which prevent year-round implementation. The taxpayer or tax professional can avoid this problem by using an electronic funds withdrawal (EFW). Beginning this year, EFW will allow the taxpayer the ability to make penalty and interest payments along with the payment of the tax. Practitioner question/statement: We have been filing returns electronically and the clients paying by paper for years. This is the first year we have seen these notices. Why did we suddenly see it this year? Response: We need specific details to determine this. Practitioner question/statement: Practitioners noticed several instances where they filed an extension electronically but still got assessed a late filing penalty. They were able to get the penalty removed when they provided proof of the accepted extension, but why wouldn t the system automatically recognize this? Response: We need to see the specifics of the case to determine why this happened. Practitioner question/statement: Practitioner complained that a partnership return filed on April 15 th rejected and he was unable to file an extension. Response: This issue was discussed in a previous meeting. The response shared then is being reprinted in these minutes. If the ERO attempts to file the return before the due date, but it is rejected, and they choose to file an extension instead, the extension must be filed by the due date of the return. There is not an exception because a return was attempted before the due date. Regulations under sec require an extension to be filed on or before the due date of the return. Practitioner question/statement: If you are amending several returns at the same time, is it better to put them all in the same envelope? Response: We recommend you put them in separate envelopes so one doesn t get missed. Even if you put them all in the same envelope they may not get worked by the same employee. If you do put more than one return in an envelope, be sure each return is securely stapled as a unit. Practitioner question/statement: Client submitted Form 8832, Entity Classification Election, with the practitioner listed for contact using check the box. The election was not legally valid but it was processed by the Service. How can the practitioner get the election revoked? Response: There are specific timelines that must be met, but we should be able to revoke the election. The response should be sent to the attention of the Entity Unit at the Ogden Campus.

6 Practitioner question/statement: We filed a Form 1023 application for a client and it was approved as a 501(c)3 for the 2006 years forward with the previous years Forms 990 to be filed as 501(c)4 status. Previous year returns were filed and we received notices from Ogden that these years needed a schedule A for the returns to be processed as complete. That schedule is not required for 501(c)4 status as I explained through several letters. Cincinnati s data base indicated the entity status correctly, but Ogden did not recognize the previous status. Cincinnati indicated to me that Ogden should have access to the master file and should see the same information, but numerous telephone calls and written communications with Ogden indicated otherwise. I decided to comply with the Ogden request and send the Schedule As, even though I knew they were not required. And then several weeks later I received letters saying now Ogden could not find the filed Form 990s. There appears to be a problem between data base access and sharing of information. What information does Cincinnati share with Ogden (Compliance) once a determination letter is issued for a taxpayer? Also, I would like to know, after all the communications, via fax and telephone calls, how the returns in question then could not be found. Response: When Cincinnati approves the application; they update the Exempt Organization Determination System (EDS) regarding how the organization should file. Form 990 is filed in Ogden. Under the circumstances in this scenario the return may be kicked out of normal processing channels. The Ogden campus should be able to verify the status through EDS. To find out exactly why this did not happen, we will need more details. Southwest Area Practitioner Phone Forum During lunch the practitioners participated in the Southwest Area Phone Forum, Texas Franchise Margin Tax and How it Relates to Federal Income Tax, presented by Janet Spies, Tax Policy Specialist, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and Shareen Pflanz, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service. Field Compliance Panel Examination and Collection Susan Graham informed the participants that Gulf States Examination has a new Area Director, William F (Bill) Conlon. Susan apologized that he was unable to attend the meeting in person but he is in the process of moving. Bill was formerly the Director of SBSE Specialty Programs which encompasses programs such as Employment Tax, Excise Tax, and Estate and Gift. The areas of emphasis for Examination are to: Optimize Human Capital one third of our Revenue Agents (RAs) have no little to no experience, another third is dedicated to training them. National Research Project will be on-going. We may have some specialty studies such as last year s 1120S project, but most years we will be auditing Form Reduce the Tax Gap Agents should be probing for unreported income. We are aggressively pursuing non-filers. Since the returns aren t filed there are no statutes to contend with. We generally go back 6 years. In Texas the hot issues are barter transactions, bad preparers, Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) due diligence, and Electronic Return Originator (ERO) compliance. Ellen Dolby began the discussion with an explanation of what is expected of Revenue Officer (RO) contacts. (Procedures the RO is expected to follow can be found in IRM Initial Contact and IRM Verifying Financial Information.)

7 First contact should be a cold call at the taxpayer s address. This allows them to meet in the taxpayer s environment and see what is going on. If there is a Power of Attorney (POA) on file, they should call the representative first and try to set an appointment. Even if the taxpayer has a representative the RO still needs to tour the business so they can get a better feel of how it operates. Our job is to protect the government s interest and secure payment of the delinquency as soon as possible. The RO needs to not only secure the financial information but also verify that information. Along those lines, they should be asking for very specific information to verify financial statements. We are trying to get away from issuing general information requests. The RO needs to be clear in communicating their expectations and specific in what will happen next if expectations are not met. Ellen wants her ROs to consider the effect of their actions. If a deadline they give you is unrealistic, let the RO know. If the RO won t reconsider, speak to their manager. Practitioner question/statement: What should a practitioner do if they encounter an RO who is operating outside of the guidelines? Response: If you strongly feel that they are operating outside of the statute, you should report them to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). For lesser infractions you should speak with the employee s manager. For information on contacting TIGTA see Report Fraud, Waste, & Abuse on their website. Practitioner question/statement: Letter 1058, Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing is being issued too early in the investigation. Practitioner s client received the letter before the practitioner had a chance to even make an analysis. This forces the representative to file for a hearing which just delays the resolution of the case. The ROs say you can continue working with them, but that really isn t the case. Response: Letter 1058 is a tool for Collection to use. If the taxpayer has been noncompliant in the past, it is appropriate to issue it at the start of the investigation. Letter 1058 is generally hand delivered to taxpayers owing trust fund taxes at first contact as it is important to get the case moving and prevent further delinquencies. The RO has more discretion in income tax cases. If you feel the issuance is inappropriate at the time, you should ask the RO why it was issued. Practitioner question/statement: Revenue Officers are setting irrationally short deadlines and unwilling to negotiate the response time. Could you please communicate to the front line that the deadlines need to be reasonable and based upon the complexity of the case. Response: RO should not be giving extensions to deadlines just because a representative has now been brought into the case, but we do expect them to be reasonable. If the practitioner does not feel they are being reasonable they should ask to speak to the manager. Practitioner question/statement: Practitioners agree that the taxpayer needs to meet the deadline given, but the IRS employee also needs to follow-up in a reasonable amount of time. Response: We are making reasonable follow-ups a priority. There are a series of timeliness issues that we are dealing with internally. They are being addressed during operational reviews. Practitioner question/statement: What is the basis for not adhering to IRC section 7521(c) An officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service may not require a taxpayer to accompany the representative in the absence of an administrative summons issued to the taxpayer? IRS employees are requesting to meet with the taxpayer face to face without issuing a summons.

8 Response: The IRS does not share the same interpretation of the law. We expect the representative to be there when we interview the client. Nor is there a problem with the representative telling them what to say. If we request a meeting with the taxpayer and the representative refuses to bring them in voluntarily, we will issue a summons. We prefer not to issue a summons as this generally delays resolution of the case. In Exam the Revenue Agent (RA) should try to work with the representative. But if the representative cannot answer the questions, they should stop the interview and request a meeting with the taxpayer. If a summons needs to be issued, we will generally go to full third party contact since there will already be a delay because of the summons. Practitioner question/statement: How does the RO/RA know the representative doesn t have the answer? Why don t they provide a list of questions they can respond to? Response: If the representative can answer everything necessary, the investigation can proceed without meeting with the taxpayer, but usually the representative has to get back with their client to get the answer. Providing a list of questions doesn t solve the problem as it doesn t allow for follow-up questions. It disrupts the natural flow of the conversation that allows the employee to get the full picture. Practitioner question/statement: Often the employee can t give a reason why they need to talk to the taxpayer, just that they need to. Response: If that happens, you should talk to the manager. Practitioner question/statement: Practitioners are reluctant to talk to the manager because they are concerned that if they do, their client will be disadvantaged. Response: The manager needs to know what is happening. They only review a certain percentage of cases. The issue may not be apparent in what they are reviewing. Practitioner question/statement: How involved will CI be in the Non-filer Initiative? Response: They may refer non-filer cases at the Campuses, but failure to file does not necessarily mean there is fraud present. Field Examination will only be referring cases if they are egregious. Question for the practitioners: Exam has been receiving an inordinate number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. When you request information through FOIA, the case file needs to be sent to Disclosure where they make the copies and send the information back. FOIA requests generally just delay receipt of the information and the working of the case. If the representative needs something out of the agent s case file, they should just ask for it. The agent should generally give the information to you. Has anyone heard anything that would be leading practitioners to feel they need to make these requests? Response: No one knew of a reason these requests were being made and they all agreed this would not be a good general practice. Practitioner question/statement: There has been a lot of talk regarding the change in preparer penalties. How far are the practitioners supposed to go in auditing what the client gave us? Response: You need to use your judgment. Keep your input documents. (NOTE: Revised IRM Preparer, Promoter Penalties was issued 2/08/2008)

9 Practitioner question/statement: Practitioner attended the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation Conference. There was considerable discussion regarding Notice , Guidance under the Preparer Penalty Provisions of the Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act Of The guidance they received there was that there is no penalty for disclosure and it is important to have the speech with your clients. Response: Remember comments on Notice must be submitted by March 24, Comments may be submitted electronically via the following address: Please include Notice in the subject line of any electronic submissions. The IRS has also issued Notice regarding Frivolous Positions. Issues & Status Prior Issues: Issue Taxpayers should not have to call back on non-toll free numbers. For example, the number in Philadelphia they need to call to follow-up on Withholding forms such as 1042s is Also the COIC numbers are not toll-free. Response - Establishing toll-free numbers for International unit handling the Form 1042 has been considered in the past, but because of technology and funding constraints, we have not been able to implement toll-free calling for International customers. We do periodically raise the issue again, and ask our MITS partners to reevaluate the feasibility and cost of such service. In general, all issues/requests for customer facing telephone service go through the appropriate business representative and the Joint Operations Center (JOC), a service organization within W&I, which provides services related to the Contact Center Environment to all operating divisions. The JOC works closely with the Customer Contact Center Support Division (CCCSD) of MITS to identify and implement, where possible, solutions to business requirements. This issue resurfaces with great regularity. Since it does come up so often, when CCCSD received the last such request they asked the business, through the Contact Center Strategy and Architecture (CCSA) group, to convene either a call or a summit where we could communicate the issues and options surrounding International tollfree to all of the interested parties at the same time and achieve a common understanding of the issues involved. At present, it isn't so much a matter of technology (after all, most countries use compatible phones) so much as the separate procedures, policies, and calling plans that each country uses. In North America, the mechanism to provide toll-free calls has been developed and it's relatively easy for a customer to pay for a toll-free platform. Once we move outside North America, we then have to develop agreements with each country/phone company we would want to establish a toll-free calling arrangement for. We have periodically provided estimates to the business for establishing such services in a specific country, but funding has not followed to make any of these proposals a reality. You also get into the question of which countries you support, if you provide service to England or Germany, why not China, or Japan for the sake of equity? There are thousands of separate phone networks out there, the costs and administrative overhead becomes unmanageable. Just providing tollfree for existing customers cost $26 million last year alone, and that was $2 million OVER what we had in our budget, which decreases annually. We also periodically

10 look at other options as technology evolves, but nothing so far has produced anything workable. The Contact Center Strategy and Architecture (CCSA) group has reached out to W&I, CAS, Program Coordination & Support to set up a meeting for all interested parties and contributors. In echoing CCCSD, CCSA is also looking into any viable technology alternatives, as well as considering the business side and weighing the type of customer who might require/request such a service, in light of their current communication options with the IRS, and with their families/friends within the U.S. For COIC, toll free numbers are available and when taxpayers are working with a specific Offer Examiner (OE), they can call the toll free number and then input the four digit extension to reach the OE's desk. The number for Brookhaven COIC is and for Memphis COIC Issue When extensions to provide information returns to third parties are granted and this will impact a large percentage of the population (such as with a large brokerage firm), the IRS should require the payer to grant them authority to release the information publicly. Response Information return filers have the right to request an extension to both file the returns with the IRS and to provide the copy to the recipients. Extensions have to be specifically requested for each of these actions and are addressed on an individual basis. Any changes to this would require legislative approval. Issue: When inputting a F2848 authorization into Disclosure Authorization (DA) for one person, you have to input the individual's information in as if they were married to themselves. Response: ETA hopes to have the problem resolved early this year. Issue: When the taxpayer and spouse have different last names; practitioners can t use e-services to e-file a POA. Response: ETA hoped to have this fixed by Dec 6th. Issue Please convey to the proper authorities how beneficial Practitioner Priority Service (PPS) is. The assistors are very knowledgeable, professional, and helpful. The system has really improved how practitioners communicate with the IRS. Response This was done. Issue The practitioners also wanted to share their appreciation of Publication 4437, 2007 Tax Hints Practitioner's Guide to the Filing Season. It is full of information that is very useful for the practitioner. This publication should get more "press" and awareness to the practitioner community. Response This was done also. Also, this year The Tax Hints (Publication 4437) for Fiscal Year 2008 features a new approach to this online newsletter for tax professionals. Beginning with this edition Tax Hints (Pub 4437) will be updated periodically, year-round, its title becoming simply Tax Hints. New Issues: Issue: Practitioners are complaining that the Service is ignoring their responses to notices. Status: Sanitized copies of notices should be faxed to Allen McClurd at Be sure you include both front and back. Issue: The IRS should post instructions on IRS.gov and in the notices indicating that a copy of the notice should be on top of any correspondence sent in response to the notice.

11 Status: We will research this issue to see what is currently posted. Allen, Henry, and Sherry will hold a conference call with selected members of the committee to discuss the findings and propose solutions. Issue: Is there someplace on IRS.gov that explains what each function does and which Campus has which responsibility? Status: We will pursue this issue to see if something appropriate can be developed. In the meantime, At-a-Glance: IRS Divisions and Principal Offices provides an overview of the four primary operating divisions and the other principal offices in the IRS organization. Specifics regarding each function can be found in IRM Part 1.1, Organization and Staffing although it does not mention Campus specializations. Issue: Can TSCPA get an updated Directory for Texas IRS personnel? Status: We can only list numbers down to the Territory Manager level and there have been several recent changes. We will get you an updated version. Roundtable & Comments Sherry mentioned to the practitioners that the incentive e-services are now available to all Circular 230 practitioners. The on-line e-file application is the means by which access is granted. There are very specific instructions posted to the e-services landing page regarding how the application is completed. It is critical you follow these instructions if you are completing the e-file application solely to attain e- Services access. Issue: At the last meeting you requested a posting voucher (Form 1041-V) to go with the return, particularly when they are filed electronically. This suggestion was forwarded to Forms and Publications. They responded that a separate posting voucher is only used if the payment is being sent to a lockbox. Since the Form 1041 payments are being sent directly to the IRS, no posting voucher is necessary. When a return is filed electronically the payment should be sent with Form The instructions do not indicate this so we are checking to see how many this issue impacts before pursuing a change. Response from practitioners: At least half of the practitioners present prepare Form 1041 and submit it electronically. On an average they have 10 clients whose return is filed electronically and the payment is sent by paper. One practitioner indicated that they would file more Form 1041 returns electronically if it were not for this dilemma. Stakeholder Liaison will continue to pursue this issue. Issue: At a recent meeting several practitioners indicated that Form 940 was being received late. I didn't see anything posted that would indicate the Forms were mailed late this year. How many experienced this problem? Response from practitioners: This was a problem. No one in the room received Form 940 before mid-january. The form is usually received in mid-december Follow-up Response: Form 940, Employer s Annual Federal Unemployment (FUTA) Tax Return, was mailed a bit later than usual this year but still in time to get them completed before the due date. Last minute legislative changes resulted in a small modification to the form. The form is available on line at IRS.gov. However, it s also one of many forms that can be e-filed without having to wait for the mailman. Check out e-file for Business and Self-Employed Taxpayers on IRS.gov for more electronic filing and payment options.

12 Next Scheduled Meeting Next meeting date is still to be determined.