Breakout Session Reports From the Collection Due Process Summit Initiative

This year, there were some setbacks from the COVID-19 pandemic and shifts in the leadership of the CDP Summit Initiative.  While the larger discussion in the tax arena during this year has been on various pandemic issues regarding the distribution of Economic Impact Payments and interruptions of IRS services, we do believe that problems in CDP areas will be another tax concern resulting from the pandemic.  As taxpayers face difficult economic times based on unemployment or other financial situations, that will ultimately result in tax issues dealt with in the CDP process. 

Most recently, there has been a small group working to continue the focus on CDP issues and advance goals from the Summit Initiative.  We are working to build out our committees and regularly seek for people to contact us if they would like to take part.  An additional goal has been to organize and submit the findings from the breakout sessions for you to read.  For those efforts, I would like to thank Matthew James, Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Director at North Carolina Central University School of Law and Nikki McCain, in private practice and former Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Director at the University of South Dakota School of Law.  They are helping to drive CDP Summit Initiative efforts and edited these session reports.

As we provide you with the reports from the breakout sessions, we also included the introductory notes from the session descriptions to give you context and acknowledge the session leaders.  Thank you also to Erin Stearns and Christine Speidel for providing the notes for their sessions that made up these reports.

Today’s post will provide the reports of the breakout groups discussing notices and the administrative process.  Tomorrow’s post will discuss the report of the litigation breakout group.

Breakout: Improving IRS CDP Notices and Communications

Panelists: William Schmidt, Jeff Wilson, Beverly Winstead

This session will educate participants about IRS communication approaches as they pertain to CDP rights and procedures and known issues with the communications. The session leaders will facilitate an exchange of ideas for more effective messaging to increase taxpayer participation in CDP and more effective engagement with Collections at the earliest possible stage.

Prompts provided by the steering committee.

1. IRS Publications and Website:
   1. Improve communication effectiveness of CDP publications and IRS website’s CDP content to educate taxpayers to make informed procedure choices;
   1. Emphasize to taxpayers and practitioners the importance, at the earliest possible stage, of creating a comprehensive record supporting a fair and sustainable collection alternative.
2. IRS Notices (Section 6320 –lien and 6330 –levy). Improve CDP notices to look less like a bill for tax, with CDP hearing rights offered later in the notice without highlight or comment about the value of exercising CDP rights. For example, among other strategies and tactics, pursue the rights-based notice test developed by TAS that was suspended.
3. IRS Form 12153: Revise CDP hearing request Form 12153, without losing its ease of completion, to make it more functional for the taxpayer. Potential changes include content clarifying lien vs. levy circumstances and explaining collection alternatives.

During this session, the group brainstormed revisions to the CDP Notices, which included:

• Work towards simpler, layman’s notification letter available in various languages (as required by IRM 22.31.1.1.5.1, but also noting issues with determining taxpayers’ primary language), including term definitions such as garnishment;
• Notice should clearly explain information to taxpayers and representatives and provide the expectations at and from a CDP hearing. Such information may include:
  • What can be achieved through a CDP hearing; 
    • E.g., collection alternatives available, methods of addressing liens (discharge, subordination, withdrawal, and explanations), ability to address issue of liability.
  • What documents IRS will require and why they need them;
  • What else taxpayers need to do to prepare for their CDP hearings.
    • Note: this information is not readily available on the IRS website. Pub 1660 addresses CDP hearings but could more plainly and thoroughly explain the process and options involved, e.g., Pub. 1660 does not mention Currently Not Collectible status at all.
• Adjust the appearance of the notice informing the taxpayer of the right to request a CDP hearing (e.g., emphasize the difference/importance of the notice so the taxpayer does not disregard this notice as they would other notices);
• Add a cover letter to the notice that explains taxpayer rights, collection alternatives (written in bold), availability of LITCs, and references important information listed elsewhere;
• Appeals should be more consistent in acknowledging when it receives CDP cases;
  • E.g., standardize the letter that indicates the CDP hearing is in progress.
• Develop a mechanism for taxpayers and representatives to track case status similar to the “Where’s My Refund” tool on the IRS website;
  • Alternatively, a call-in line to track CDP hearing status based on an assigned CDP hearing number.
• Include contact information for LITCs that serve the taxpayer’s geographic area as part of the notices giving the taxpayer a right to a CDP hearing (LT 11 or Letter 1058).
  • Appeals could send out the current IRS Pub. 4134, which lists all LITCs by state but does not indicate each LITC’s geographic coverage area. Some attendees expressed concerns that Pub. 4134 is too long to send with CDP notices. As something of an aside, someone suggested it would be helpful to modify Pub. 4134 to better indicate each LITC’s geographic coverage area.

The group then discussed potential modifications to Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing:

• Changing the “I can’t pay” answers to add a Comment box rather than an “other” box in order to better explain the situation;
• Possibility of adding a collection information statement (e.g., 433-F) with Form 12153.

The group also developed questions for the Service:

• Are there ways to get clients to respond to notices sooner or convince them to open letters faster?
  • Perhaps there is a way to emphasize taxpayer rights, such as printing on the outside of the envelope or putting in a different stuffer notice.

Breakout: Improving CDP Administrative Proceedings

Panelists: Soree Finley, Susan Morgenstern, Erin Stearns

Participants will learn about opportunities for more effective engagement with IRS Appeals, including when a taxpayer may challenge the accuracy of an assessed liability, the critical role of a record in establishing a sustainable collection alternative to immediate full payment, and procedural traps for the unwary. Participants will collaborate to identify improvements yielding more efficient and effective application of CDP through constructive interaction between taxpayers (or their representatives) and Appeals.

This breakout session was very well attended with approximately 35 attendees (standing room only). The discussion was built around the three priorities identified by the Steering Committee, then transformed into the following questions:

1. What if IRS expanded telephone outreach efforts and contacted taxpayers in CDP to request a completed Form 433-F or -A?
   1. IRS could proactively assist taxpayers early on with a sustainable collection alternative. If no collection alternative results, then IRS could assign a settlement officer for a CDP hearing.
2. How could the IRS better promote availability of LITC assistance earlier in the CDP process?
3. What could be done to educate taxpayers and representatives on how to challenge liability through CDP?

The discussion focused most on the first question. The group spent some time discussing pre-CDP hearing screening measures but primarily discussed work with Appeals generally and improvements to the Appeals process. On this question, the group offered the following suggestions:

• Remedy some of the staffing challenges by hiring more Settlement Officers;
  • Noted effects of staffing challenges included instances where settlement officers missed CDP hearings without advanced warning and delays in processing hearings and receiving communications scheduling hearings.
• IRS should consistently apply pre-CDP hearing screening by geographic region;
  • Attendees from all over the U.S. in the breakout session and many indicated they had never been contacted by an IRS employee screening the case prior to sending it to a Settlement Officer for a full-blown hearing, and overall the group expressed interest in having the IRS do this.
  • One concern expressed by a participant was that taxpayers (and perhaps representatives) might feel railroaded by the screening person into agreeing to a collection alternative that might not be the best long-term option. However, most of the group welcomed the idea of being able to resolve cases without a full-blown CDP hearing.
• Allow representatives (even if just at LITCs) to engage in email dialogue with IRS;
  • This could enable an LITC representative to receive emails from either Collections or Appeals – verifying that the CDP hearing was timely requested, identifying what needs to be submitted, and allowing representatives to submit documents via email.
  • Alternatively, develop an online portal system, like medical providers, which allows taxpayers and representatives to engage with the IRS in a secure setting, and to upload documents, receive messages, schedule phone calls or in person appointments at a Taxpayer Assistance Center, etc. CDP hearings could be handled through such a portal more efficiently than they are handled now and with required privacy protections.
  • Briefly discussed that not all taxpayers are connected and online and there would still need to be opportunities for less connected taxpayers to engage that do not require online interaction.
• Appeals should provide more face-to-face hearing opportunities (in-person or virtual), which several attendees indicated, were useful for taxpayers facing anxiety;
• Improve interpreter services available to taxpayers with language barriers.
  • Taxpayers should not have to provide their own interpreters for CDP hearings.

The next question addressed how the IRS could better promote availability of LITC assistance earlier in the CDP process. The group provided the following suggestions:

• Better inform Appeals offices of LITCs, the location of local LITCs, and the work performed by LITCs;
  • Attendees discussed that the Taxpayer First Act now permits all IRS employees, including those within Appeals, to inform taxpayers of not just the presence of LITCs, but to tell them about LITCs local to them who might be able to help them.
• Discussed whether more involvement with taxpayers in CDP would be undesirable on any level, e.g., increasing workload in an undesirable way, but attendees did not see this as a problem and indicated they would like to be involved in CDP cases earlier so they could provide more assistance.