Strengthen Appeals’ Independence and Operational Efficiency

TAS is reviewing how to incorporate this initiative into an existing or new Collaborative Team, a Systemic Advocacy Project, or a potential FY 2025 Annual Report to Congress Most Serious Problem. Progress during this period was affected by the lapse in appropriations and related operational impacts, including reduced staffing capacity, reassignment of work and priorities, and a reevaluation of TAS’s approach to managing systemic advocacy objectives and associated initiatives.

Appeals stated it currently provides hazards of litigation (HoL) training to Appeals Technical Employees (ATEs) through mandatory new hire training and other ongoing training opportunities. Appeals is also considering additional recurring Continuing Professional Education (CPE) focused on practical application of HoL principles, including case studies, simulations, negotiations, and taxpayer rights considerations.

Appeals indicated the proposed training is still under review with respect to feasibility and frequency, but agreed that additional HoL training would be beneficial. Appeals also noted it currently supports ATE attendance at Tax Court proceedings as part of employee development. TAS is closing this activity, but will continue dialogue with Appeals on how to improve Appeals training.

TAS is reviewing how to incorporate this initiative into an existing or new Collaborative Team, a Systemic Advocacy Project, or a potential FY 2025 Annual Report to Congress Most Serious Problem. Progress during this period was affected by the lapse in appropriations and related operational impacts, including reduced staffing capacity, reassignment of work and priorities, and a reevaluation of TAS’s approach to managing systemic advocacy objectives and associated initiatives.

Appeals stated that, in most cases, the outcome and reasoning supporting case resolutions are communicated to taxpayers through the conference process and documented in the administrative record. Appeals also explained that Appeals Case Memoranda (ACMs) are used as internal management tools to document recommended case resolutions for managerial approval and to provide information to Compliance, which is not present during Appeals conferences.

Appeals further stated that disclosure of Counsel advice may be inconsistent with IRC 7803(e)(6)(B) because of the privileged nature of those communications. While Appeals did not agree to automatically disclose ACMs, it indicated it is currently evaluating potential ACM policies and considering stakeholder feedback regarding future treatment of ACMs. TAS is closing this activity, but will continue to advocate for clearer IRM guidance and greater transparency regarding ACM disclosure practices.

TAS is reviewing how to incorporate this initiative into an existing or new Collaborative Team, a Systemic Advocacy Project, or a potential FY 2025 Annual Report to Congress Most Serious Problem. Progress during this period was affected by the lapse in appropriations and related operational impacts, including reduced staffing capacity, reassignment of work and priorities, and a reevaluation of TAS’s approach to managing systemic advocacy objectives and associated initiatives.

Current guidance continues to provide Appeals discretion regarding participation of Compliance, Counsel, and other specialists in conferences, generally limiting attendance to complex or contentious cases and requiring managerial approval in many circumstances. TAS continues to advocate for greater taxpayer access to the personnel influencing case development and settlement discussions. TAS will continue further dialogue with Appeals leadership about the value of taxpayer requests for specialists availability.

TAS is reviewing how to incorporate this initiative into an existing or new Collaborative Team, a Systemic Advocacy Project, or a potential FY 2025 Annual Report to Congress Most Serious Problem. Progress during this period was affected by the lapse in appropriations and related operational impacts, including reduced staffing capacity, reassignment of work and priorities, and a reevaluation of TAS’s approach to managing systemic advocacy objectives and associated initiatives.

No substantive progress has been made in Q2. TAS will focus on engaging in dialogue with Appeals leadership around transparency.