Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP)
VITA Project Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2010

Designated Federal Official (DFO)
Nancy Ferree, Acting DFO

Members Present
Justin Axelrod
Raymond Buschmann
Richard Coonradt
Ken Donnelly
Edward Johnson
John Kim
Matthew Kosanovich
Jeffrey Steinberg
Stephen Vanderver

Members Absent
Gary Iskowitz
Eboni Moss
Swarna Vallurupalli
Timothy Oetken
Marilyn Young

Staff Present
Anita Fields, Secretary
Donna Powers, TAP Analyst
Roger Burton, IRS Program Analyst
Kate Lett-Deathe, IRS Program Analyst

Guest(s) Present
None Present

Welcome/Announcements
Stephen Vanderver welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Review of Previous Meeting Minutes
The committee approved the March meeting minutes by consensus.

Program Owner
Roger Burton reported that we are in the last 48 hours to close out filing season. He said that the Quality Team and the FEAB team are moving right along. The program owner will need a close out report NLT September 15, 2010.

During the face-to-face meeting, Burton will give more details on the Training Subcommittee. Burton shared that the Director of SPEC will be in Atlanta during the face-to-face meeting and would like to open. He is also going to try to get Darryl Lloyd to come over and give an overview on what they are looking for as it relates to training.

Vanderver informed that the both subcommittee meetings are still on for May 4, 2010.

Subcommittee Report-Out
VITA Quality Review (QR) Subcommittee— Ray Buschmann shared that Burton gave a report on quality statistical sampling from the filing season this year at the VITA/TCE sites. The quality of the limited sampling returns seem to be much improved over prior years and it was also confirmed from the initial results being reported by TIGTA with accuracy rates of approx. 90%.

Burton said that since the last report, the TIGTA shopping rate has increased to 91% and Quality Statistical Sampling (QSS) is at 85%.

Buschmann shared that although QSS’s that are being conducted at the VITA sites are good and the tools seem to make a lot of sense. However, awareness seems to be the problem.

He also shared that the subcommittee discussed that one aspect of this subcommittee review is to look at everything we have seen – is there anything that doesn’t add value at all or can it be tweaked? With the five different levels of certification, should the courses be combined to get a more qualified preparer?

Topics discussed by the Quality Subcommittee. It is found that new volunteers and new site coordinators seem to generate for problems. The level of experience, should there be some requirement for a level of experience for a site coordinator?

The subcommittee was concerned that Interactive Tax Law Pilots of Tax Law are being done at some sites– maybe something down the road they will be in every site to help the preparers. The tax law information should be available to the public on www.irs.gov.

Buschmann feels that Awareness, Comprehension, Utilization, and Implementation of the tools at each site might be a problem.

John Kim suggested, since the accuracy percentage rate is high – (Management Effectiveness) – maybe the subcommittee should actually take a look at the management of the sites – (the coordinators) and focus on the coordinators instead of the preparers.

Most training is done with a mixture of face to face and internet training. Ninety-five percent of the military volunteers are new each year, so training starts all over from the beginning.

The subcommittee discussed if they visit sites, that maybe visiting the actual training courses as they are being taught is a possibility.

Some other questions and suggestions is that:
One problem is that errors occurring the seasons are not always communicated back to the sites until after the season is over. Should the recruitment website more adequately describe what is needed for the volunteers in terms of hours/time in training, etc? AARP makes volunteers pass all three levels. Maybe you get a better quality and a more dedicated person if they go through all three training levels. Site coordinator may be the key to quality preparers. Making sure they are qualified, how well they complete the intake form, and the quality review process. State tax returns are prepared in some states. Training varies by state. The VITA program is strictly federal tax returns.

Buschmann ended his report by stating that they will discuss these ideas further during the face-to-face meeting next month.

VITA FEAB Subcommittee—Justin Axelrod reported that they are on the right track and they are moving along. They have separated the subcommittee into two groups, and those two groups will start working on projects and at the end, they will put it all together.

Axelrod and Kate Lett-Deathe stated by the end of the face-to-face meeting the FEAB subcommittee would definitely have something on paper. Lett-Deathe said everything is broken down by objectives and recommendations that were set forth. One focus is going to be around partners and another focus is going to be around materials and training.

Meeting Close
Anita Fields informed the committee that the rooming lists have been sent to the hotel and she will provide confirmation numbers shortly. Donna Powers asked for availability to discuss Agenda for face-to-face meeting. John Kim reported that last year during the training piece of VITA, he had to review the full document and the turn-around was one week to a week and a half. He generated volunteers both in the Area and VITA committees to help review the training documents. It began mid-June and it had to be completed by the end of July. Vanderver thanked everyone for attending the meeting. He reminded everyone of the next meeting date and time.