[Senate Hearing 113-440] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 113-440 PROTECTING TAXPAYERS FROM INCOMPETENT AND UNETHICAL RETURN PREPARERS ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON FINANCE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ APRIL 8, 2014 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 90-922 WASHINGTON : 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON FINANCE RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah Virginia CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE CRAPO, Idaho DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN CORNYN, Texas ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN THUNE, South Dakota THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania MARK R. WARNER, Virginia Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director Chris Campbell, Republican Staff Director (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- OPENING STATEMENTS Page Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon, chairman, Committee on Finance..................................................... 1 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah................... 3 WITNESSES Koskinen, Hon. John A., Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC................................................. 5 Olson, Nina E., National Taxpayer Advocate, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC........................................ 7 McTigue, James R., Jr., Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.......................... 32 Cobb, William, president and CEO, H&R Block, Kansas City, MO..... 34 Salisbury, Janis, chair, Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners, Oregon City, OR................................................ 36 Barrick, John, Ph.D., associate professor, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.......................................... 37 Wu, Chi Chi, staff attorney, National Consumer Law Center, Boston, MA..................................................... 39 Alban, Dan, attorney, Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA....... 40 ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL Alban, Dan: Testimony.................................................... 40 Prepared statement with attachment........................... 49 Barrick, John, Ph.D.: Testimony.................................................... 37 Prepared statement........................................... 62 Cobb, William: Testimony.................................................... 34 Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 76 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: Opening statement............................................ 3 Prepared statement with attachment........................... 126 Koskinen, Hon. John A.: Testimony.................................................... 5 Prepared statement........................................... 131 McTigue, James R., Jr.: Testimony.................................................... 32 Prepared statement........................................... 138 Olson, Nina E.: Testimony.................................................... 7 Prepared statement........................................... 163 Salisbury, Janis: Testimony.................................................... 36 Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 193 Wu, Chi Chi: Testimony.................................................... 39 Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 257 Wyden, Hon. Ron: Opening statement............................................ 1 Prepared statement........................................... 288 Communications Gonzalez, Manuel................................................. 291 Jennings Advisory Group, LLC..................................... 292 Latino Association of Tax Preparers, Inc. (LATAX)................ 294 Maryland State Board of Tax Preparers............................ 301 National Association of Enrolled Agents (NAEA)................... 302 National Association of Tax Professionals (NATP)................. 306 National Society of Accountants.................................. 310 Williamson, Donald T. and James Gale............................. 316 PROTECTING TAXPAYERS FROM INCOMPETENT AND UNETHICAL RETURN PREPARERS ---------- TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014 U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Washington, DC. The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Cantwell, Carper, Cardin, Brown, Casey, Hatch, Grassley, Crapo, Roberts, Thune, Burr, and Isakson. Also present: Democratic Staff: Michael Evans, General Counsel; Anne Cammack, Senior Tax Counsel; Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director; Todd Metcalf, Chief Tax Counsel; Maureen Downes, Detailee; and Juan Machado, Professional Staff Member. Republican Staff: Chris Campbell, Staff Director; Shawn Novak, Senior Accountant and Tax Advisor; Jim Lyons, Tax Counsel; and Preston Rutledge, Tax Counsel. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE The Chairman. The Finance Committee will come to order. There is just a week to go before the April 15th deadline for filing taxes, and millions of Americans are spending a good portion of the spring struggling to fill out tax forms and digging through piles of receipts in a painful annual ritual. The complexity of the tax code creates an environment where confusion and errors flourish. And the Congress is not blameless on this issue, and that is one reason, in my view, why it is time to rewrite the tax code and make filing your taxes easier in America. For many Americans, maybe even a majority, nothing will have a bigger impact on their pocketbooks all year long. The great majority of Americans want to get it right, but because the tax code is so byzantine and so complicated, and so overgrown, nearly 80 million Americans pay for help preparing their tax return. And what is especially alarming is that most of those paid tax return preparers do not have to meet any standards--any standards--for competence in order to prepare somebody else's tax return. Earlier this year, because of the baffling outcome of that Federal Appeals Court case called Loving v. IRS, protection for American taxpayers against incompetence and fraud among tax preparers has taken a significant blow. As too often seems to be the case in situations like this, the most vulnerable people in America are going to bear the brunt of the effects of this decision. These are often people who are struggling from paycheck to paycheck, counting down the days until their refund comes through to help them make ends meet. They could be seniors or working families who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, or they could be immigrants proud to pay taxes in their new country who just want to make sure they are following the rules of a tax code that is hard for anybody to understand. Here is my bottom line. For the second time in 8 years, the Government Accountability Office has done an independent inquiry and proven that the absence of meaningful oversight of much of the tax preparer industry is harming too many citizens who can least afford it. The problems they run into could be as simple as a typo or a miscalculation on a form, but they could also be much worse. In some egregious cases, preparers calculate a taxpayer's refund in person and skip the line that shows who did the work. Then, after the taxpayer leaves, the preparer falsifies the math to boost the refund, files the return, and pockets the difference. And worst of all, unless the taxpayer can prove what happened, they are on the hook for the money when the IRS finds out. Witnesses today are going to share some more eye-opening stories, and we are eager to get their thoughts on what the government can do to come up with more sensible policies here. The most important step is to restore standards to protect the American taxpayer. Now, I am proud to say my home State of Oregon gets this issue right. Tax preparers at home study, pass an exam, and keep up with the changing landscape of the tax code in order to maintain their licenses. And Oregon's standards work. The Government Accountability Office took a look at the system a few years ago and found that tax returns from Oregon were 72 percent likelier to be accurate than returns from the rest of the country. That puts fewer Oregonians at the mercy of unscrupulous preparers and reduces the risk of a dreaded audit. Now, there are ways for Congress to help in this arena. For example, I strongly believe that comprehensive tax reform must simplify the tax code and make filing easier. That must be a priority. When the Finance Committee passed the EXPIRE Act last week, practically every Senator here on the dais agreed it is time to end stop-and-go policies and give Americans more certainty about their taxes. The bipartisan tax reform plan I worked on with Senators Begich and Coats, as well as former Senator Gregg, would make filing much quicker and more simple for millions of taxpayers by tripling the standard deduction. That would eliminate the need for more than 80 percent of taxpayers to itemize deductions. Then they could easily prepare their own returns and never fall risk to tax preparers' ineptitude or misconduct. Now, Senator Nelson of the committee has led our charge to protect taxpayers from identity theft, and Senator Cardin has also fought very hard for taxpayer rights. They and other Senators have valuable ideas on how to solve the challenge, and that is the point of today's hearing: to look at a variety of approaches to protect the American taxpayer and the integrity of our tax system. As long as the code is so overgrown and so complicated that most Americans have to seek out help to file, they should not have to worry about crooked or incompetent preparers. It is that simple.* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * For more information, see also, ``Present Law and Background Related to the Regulation of Conduct of Paid Tax Return Preparers,'' Joint Committee on Taxation staff report, April 4, 2014 (JCX-34-14), https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4580. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I wrap up, I would like to thank both our panels of witnesses for being here today. As always, Senator Hatch and I plan to work on this issue in a bipartisan way. You saw that, again, last week. [The prepared statement of Chairman Wyden appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Senator Hatch, we welcome your comments. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this timely hearing. As we all know, the day for individuals to complete and file their annual income tax returns is 1 week away, and, at this point in the year, millions of Americans face a number of difficulties in trying to comply with that deadline. The sheer complexity of our tax system requires the majority of Americans to seek the services of a paid preparer in order to navigate through and comply with the tax code. Of the 142 million income tax returns filed by individuals last year, nearly 80 million, as the distinguished chairman has said, or roughly 56 percent, were prepared by a paid preparer. Our income tax system relies heavily on good faith, voluntary compliance, which, in turn, requires the services of paid preparers who are both competent and ethical. The IRS attempted to implement regulations in 2011 that, for the first time, imposed both ethical and competency standards on any person who sought to prepare tax returns for compensation. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has since prevented IRS from enforcing those regulations when it upheld the Loving decision on appeal, as mentioned by our chairman. Among the approaches to solving the problem of incompetent and unethical paid preparers that we will hear about today is government regulation. However, there are other approaches worthy of thoughtful consideration. One approach is comprehensive tax reform that results in a much simpler and straightforward tax system, with fewer compliance and administrative burdens. A less complex tax system that allows for simpler compliance rules will reduce taxpayer and preparer errors-- certainly errors associated with complexity--decrease the need for complex tax filings, and eliminate opportunities to cheat the system through unethical behavior. It is my belief that the best way to protect tax filers from incompetent and unethical tax preparers is to implement a fair and simple tax system that dramatically reduces their dependence on paid return preparers. Until we get there, we need to minimize the damage that incompetent and unethical return preparers can cause, and I look forward to hearing about different ideas on how to accomplish this worthy goal during today's hearing. Of course, with the IRS Commissioner testifying before us today, there are other matters that deserve the committee's attention. For example, there is the ongoing investigation into the IRS's targeting of conservative groups during the 2010 and 2012 campaign seasons. Four congressional committees, including the Finance Committee, are currently looking into this matter. And up to now, the IRS officials have, with some exceptions, been cooperating. That is why it was disheartening to hear that 2 weeks ago, Commissioner Koskinen apparently tried to spin what had gone on at the IRS, claiming that no one had used the word, quote, ``targeting'' to describe what happened. The fact is that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, or TIGTA, Russell George, used the word ``targeting'' in his May 2013 report to describe the allegations; and, in testimony before Congress, he stated that the allegation had proven to be true. Furthermore, Commissioner Koskinen himself described the activities as ``targeting'' during his confirmation hearings before this committee. I want to remind you of that, although I really appreciate you being here today, more than you know. Now, this may seem like we are engaging in semantics, but the words we use here are important. If the administration, rather than acknowledging what went on at the IRS and trying to fix it, is going to engage in word play to minimize what happened, we are going to continue to have difficulties as we try to resolve these important issues. Even the Washington Post fact checker said it is ``silly and counterproductive'' to deny that the phrase ``targeting'' describes what happened, awarding the Commissioner 3 Pinocchios for saying otherwise. On top of that, we have the regulatory effort at the IRS that appears to be designed to further marginalize these same conservative groups. I am talking, of course, about the proposed regulations governing the political activities of 501(c)(4) organizations. People in organizations across the political spectrum have rightly condemned these proposed regulations, because they undermine free speech and the ability of American citizens to participate in the political process. The IRS had a record number of public comments filed in response to the proposal from all points on the political spectrum, and, from what I gather, they were almost uniformly negative. This regulation, if given the force of law, would effectively silence grassroots organizations by categorizing a number of routine and long-accepted activities as political, and it would ensure that a number of the administration's critics remain on the sidelines of the political debate, and that could work both ways in the future. And I do not want it to work both ways. This proposal is particularly disturbing given what has already gone on at the IRS with the targeting scandal. Now, last week, Commissioner Koskinen publicly stated that the regulation is not likely to be finalized this year. To me, that is not good enough. These regulations should go away entirely, and Commissioner Koskinen has the power to make that happen. Throughout the public debate over this proposal, little has been said of the role of the IRS Commissioner in approving the final regulation. However, as was confirmed by Secretary Lew in his recent appearance before this committee, the IRS Commissioner has the authority to unilaterally prevent these regulations from taking effect. That being the case, any effort to deflect responsibility in a different direction would appear to me to be futile. Now, as you can see, Mr. Chairman, we have a number of issues to discuss today, and I look forward to a robust and informative hearing. So I want to thank you for this. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hatch. [The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Our hearing today is going to consist of two panels. Our first panel includes two government witnesses from the IRS. Our second panel will include the Government Accountability Office and a cross-section of individuals who are knowledgeable about tax preparation. I would note that we have eight witnesses, and, to that end, we hope that all of you are going to limit your testimony to 5 minutes. Our first witness is the Honorable John Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Our second witness is Ms. Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate of the IRS. Thank you both for coming. Your prepared statements are going to automatically be made a part of the record. Why don't you start, Commissioner? STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. KOSKINEN, COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC Commissioner Koskinen. Thank you. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Hatch, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss IRS regulation of paid return preparers. The tax return preparer community is a key ally in our efforts to fulfill our dual mission of taxpayer service and tax compliance. Each year, paid preparers are called upon to complete about 80 million returns, as noted earlier, about 56 percent of total individual income tax returns filed. Preparers make the IRS's job easier by helping their clients properly report their taxes and pay what they owe. At the same time, the level of oversight of paid return preparers has traditionally been uneven, at best. While attorneys, enrolled agents, and CPAs must meet mandated professional competency requirements, they make up only about 40 percent of the universe of paid tax return preparers. That has left another 60 percent preparing returns with little or no Federal oversight. Although a few States, including the State of Oregon, as noted, have begun regulating unlicensed preparers, most of the tax professional community favors Federal oversight to avoid the possibility of a patchwork of conflicting State requirements. While a majority of return preparers are competent and operate with the highest ethical standards, there are those who do engage in fraud. Others do not have enough training and are not equipped to do an adequate job of preparing tax returns. To ensure that return preparers are competent and adhere to professional standards, the IRS launched the Tax Return Preparer Initiative in 2010. Under this initiative, individuals must register with the IRS if they prepare all or a substantial portion of any Federal tax return or refund claim for compensation. The initiative also required paid preparers who are not CPAs, attorneys, or enrolled agents to pass a competency exam and complete annual continuing education requirements related to tax law and professional conduct. The IRS also extended the ethical rules found in regulations, commonly known as Treasury Department Circular 230, to all paid preparers. This allows us to suspend, or otherwise discipline, tax return preparers who engage in unethical or disreputable conduct. Since 2010, more than a million individuals have registered with the IRS and obtained a Preparer Tax Identification Number, or PTIN. As of last month, approximately 677,000 return preparers were active in our tax professional database. Preparers must use their PTIN as the identifying number on returns they prepare for compensation, and they must renew their PTINs annually. Along with regulation of return preparers, the IRS also has a comprehensive compliance and enforcement strategy. With regard to these efforts, it is important to note that the registration requirement gives the IRS a better line of sight into the return preparer community than ever before. The information we obtain through the registration process helps us do more to analyze trends, spot anomalies, and potentially to detect fraud. The IRS announced the testing phase of its return preparer program in November of 2011. The test was designed to cover preparation of Form 1040 and its related schedules. Through 2012, about 84,000 tests were given, and about 62,000 preparers received a passing grade, for a pass rate of about 74 percent. This, obviously, means that 26 percent were unable to pass the exam. The 15-hour annual education requirement consisted of 10 hours of Federal tax law topics, 3 hours of tax law updates, and 2 hours of ethics or professional conduct. A lawsuit against the return preparer program, as noted, resulted in a court decision that invalidated the testing and education requirements in January of 2013. An appellate court recently upheld that decision. The IRS is continuing to assess the appeals court decision while consideration is given to options for appeal. It is true that preparer registration alone does help in identifying the paid preparer community, analyzing trends, and determining a general level of taxpayer service. But competency testing and continuing education may put us on a path to ensuring that all tax return preparers provide the appropriate level of service to taxpayers. We believe that this level of service will translate into improved overall tax compliance and certainly, with that, more effective tax administration. Therefore, we urge Congress to pass the proposal in the administration's fiscal year 2015 budget that would explicitly authorize the IRS to regulate all tax return preparers. This would let us resume mandatory testing and continuing education. In the meantime, we are taking a close look at the possibility of an interim step involving a program of voluntary continuing education. Before moving forward on this idea, we will solicit feedback from a wide range of external stakeholders as to whether such an interim step would be useful and appropriate. But the better solution would be for Congress to grant us explicit authority to provide better oversight of tax preparers. This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to take your questions. The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Koskinen. [The prepared statement of Commissioner Koskinen appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Ms. Olson? STATEMENT OF NINA E. OLSON, NATIONAL TAXPAYER ADVOCATE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC Ms. Olson. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Hatch, and members of the committee, thank you for holding today's hearing on a subject I consider among the most important for U.S. taxpayers. Nearly 150 million individual taxpayers file tax returns every year, many jointly with their spouses. Because the tax code is so complex, the significant majority of taxpayers pay preparers to complete their returns for them. Unfortunately, many taxpayers have no easy way to determine whether the preparer they are hiring can do the job. In recent years, around 80 percent of tax filers have received tax refunds. The average refund amount is a little under $3,000 per return, and it is often higher for low-income taxpayers who receive refundable tax credits. Therefore, the work a preparer does can have a significant financial impact on the taxpayer. Other financial professionals whose work affects the financial lives of their clients are widely regulated. Yet, anyone can hang out a shingle as a tax return preparer, with no knowledge, no skill, and no experience required. I know this well, because I began my career in tax administration in 1975, when I myself hung out a shingle as an unenrolled return preparer. At that time, however, there were no widely available return preparation software packages. To do my job, I had no choice but to study and learn tax law, rules, regulations, and publications. Because one actually had to know something about the tax law to be a return preparer, taxpayers had some assurance of the preparer's competency. Today, there is no such assurance. Three transformational changes have taken place in the return preparation field. First, the advent of return preparation software has eliminated barriers to entry into the profession. Second, the enactment of refundable credits has expanded the taxpayer base to include low-income individuals. Third, preparers have financial incentive to inflate refunds and cross-market non-tax goods and services, like pay-stub loans. In fact, in many tax season advertisements today, it is difficult to discern the connection between the service offered--get money quick--and the act of tax preparation. As a result of seeing firsthand the radical change in the industry and its impact on vulnerable taxpayers, as National Taxpayer Advocate, in 2002, I recommended that Congress enact a program to register, test, and certify these preparers. I also recommended that Congress authorize greater preparer penalties and strengthen due diligence requirements. But there is an important distinction between these approaches. While penalties and due diligence requirements are a vital component of any oversight regime, these actions occur only after the taxpayer has been harmed. Prevention is less costly and more effective. Accordingly, Congress should clarify that the IRS has the authority to establish minimum standards for the unenrolled preparer population and to test and require continuing education of these preparers. The only credible argument I have heard against establishing preparer standards is that the cost will ultimately be passed on to the consumer. But the per-taxpayer cost of the program the IRS was implementing before the Loving decision seemed very reasonable as compared with the far more significant cost the GAO's and other ``shopping visits'' have found, where preparer errors caused some taxpayers to overpay their tax by thousands of dollars, and other taxpayers to underpay their tax by thousands of dollars and then likely face IRS enforcement action down the road. In the absence of clear legislative authority, I believe the IRS should do the following: first, offer unenrolled return preparers the opportunity to earn a voluntary examination and continuing education certificate; second, restrict the ability of unenrolled preparers to represent taxpayers in audits of returns they prepared unless they earn that certificate; third, mount a consumer protection campaign that educates taxpayers about the need to select preparers who can demonstrate competency and reminds taxpayers to obtain a copy of their tax return with the preparer's signature on it. Finally, the IRS should develop a publicly accessible and searchable preparer database to include all preparers who register with the IRS. After all, the best enforcement and consumer protection strategy is to have an informed and educated consumer base--in this instance, the taxpayers, who need to have some clear-cut way of knowing which preparers meet minimum levels of competency and which are not willing to make the effort. That is why having a mandatory ``certified preparer'' designation, along with enrolled agents, CPAs, and attorneys, is so important. It is a bright line that the taxpayers can understand. Thank you. The Chairman. Ms. Olson, thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Olson appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Colleagues, we will all take 5-minute rounds at this point. Let me start with you, Ms. Olson, if I could. You are the National Taxpayer Advocate. In other words, it is your job to go to bat for the kind of people whom we are seeing getting fleeced around the country. I was particularly struck--and I would like you to amplify a bit on it--when you said that there are actually new incentives and new opportunities for the unscrupulous tax preparer to, in effect, rip people off. Could you describe that in a little more detail? Ms. Olson. Well, there are several ways we see this. One is that entities that would not normally be involved in the profession of return preparation use the ability to give advance loans on the refund itself to cross-market goods, whether it is cars that the client could purchase with a down payment, but at the very highest interest rates, or just simply the loan product itself, like the pay-stub loans. The other thing we are seeing is really out-and-out fraud, where, as was described in your statement, preparers will take the taxpayer's return after the taxpayer has approved it or, in some instances, the taxpayer has not approved it, but the preparer will inflate items on the return and pocket the refund. And then the taxpayer later finds out about this when the IRS is contacting them and saying ``You owe us taxes,'' and that causes the taxpayer to be engaged in a long, extended conversation with the IRS. By that point, the preparer is long gone. You cannot find that preparer. The Chairman. I appreciate your clarifying that, because I did not think the standards were adequate even before we saw taxpayers bumping up against the kinds of problems that you are talking about. And I appreciate your demonstrating that it is usually the case that the unscrupulous are always one or two steps ahead of efforts, particularly voluntary efforts, to deal with the problem. Now I gather, so we are clear on this point, that the Loving decision, in your view, has created new problems in effect, in terms of protecting taxpayers; is that right? Ms. Olson. Absolutely. The Loving decision, first of all, my reading of it is, it did not go to the fact of whether regulation is desirable or not. It addressed whether the IRS has the authority to regulate the return preparer under the current law. And right now there is an injunction in place against the IRS being able to implement the exam and the continuing education requirements, and that is a significant obstacle. We can register tax preparers, but we cannot test them, require them to be tested, or require them to take continuing education in order to do returns. The Chairman. How limited are the tools that are left given the Loving decision? Because my sense is that there are some tools that are left, but they are pretty narrow and they really do not go to the heart of what you have been talking about, which is protection against the unscrupulous preparer. I share the view that there are many, if not the majority, of preparers who are very honest and reputable, but it sure looks like some new opportunities, some new trap doors, have been created for those who are unscrupulous. Tell us, given the decision in the Loving case, how restricted the tools are for the IRS to deal with the unscrupulous preparer. Ms. Olson. Well, right now, the IRS has penalties that it can apply against preparers that it identifies as unscrupulous. It requires, in the Earned Income Tax Credit arena, for preparers to complete due diligence certifications, sort of questions that they have to ask the taxpayer, and certify that they have done so. We have the ability to seek injunctive relief against some unscrupulous preparers, working with the Department of Justice. But this is a situation where the IRS cannot audit itself out of this situation. It cannot audit or apply penalties or even do injunctions with 1.2 million preparers. It cannot get the kind of competence that we need to engender by doing one-on-one audits. You need a much broader approach. And more importantly, taxpayers need the designation so that they have a bright line, so that they can say, ``Yes, this is someone who has demonstrated competency, and this is someone I should go to.'' If you go to someone other than that, all bets are off whether that person is competent. That is a very important distinction that audits will not get you. The Chairman. I appreciate that, and I especially appreciate that last point, because, in effect, what you are saying is, we need a system that up front makes it clear to those who need these services where the, as you call it, bright lines are and where you ought to go to get the kind of consumer protection you need. The alternative to that, what we are stuck with, in effect, post the Loving decision, is essentially reactive kind of tools where you are playing catch-up ball. Is that a fair appraisal? Ms. Olson. Yes. And the taxpayer has already experienced the harm rather than being able to prevent the harm. The Chairman. It is very helpful to have your views today. Senator Hatch? Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask both of you. What is the IRS doing to educate the public about how to select a competent and ethical return preparer, and what else should it do to educate the public on this issue and make it easier to confirm the competence and ethical standards of a particular preparer? You have alluded to answers to this, but I would like to have a little bit more. Commissioner Koskinen. As part of our outreach to taxpayers, we provide, on a regular basis throughout the year, a wide range of information and advice to taxpayers, trying to assist them in their attempts to figure out how much they owe and how to pay it. So we advise people they should be careful who their tax preparer is. They should check them out. But as noted, there is no way we can provide any minimum standard guarantee for tax preparers. So all we can do for taxpayers, which is what we do, is say, you should be careful; you should make sure you know who the tax preparer is and what their background and experience are. But for the average taxpayer, that is a very difficult thing to do. There are no listings, there is no way for them to figure out who are those who have studied and have a minimum level of competence and who do not. So our view has been, if you had a way of giving that information to the taxpayer, then the free market would be more intelligently applied. People would be able to say, ``All right. If I am going to a tax preparer who has not received the minimum standards, I am taking a bigger chance than if I go to a tax preparer who actually has passed the IRS examination.'' But at this point, we cannot give them that additional information. So we simply have to tell them, be careful with your preparer, but that is not particularly helpful to the average taxpayer. Ms. Olson. There is one thing that my office did, which is, we created a poster last year in this environment to warn taxpayers to obtain two things to protect themselves, and they are: preparers are required to give you a copy of your return that is signed by the preparer and has their PTIN number on it. So I think if there is one piece of information in this environment, without setting standards, it would be for taxpayers to at least get that, because then if the preparer alters the return afterwards, you, one, have the name and identifying number of the preparer, and, two, you can show that there really was fraud committed, and that is a very important piece of information for us to have when that happens. Senator Hatch. That is good. Mr. Commissioner, when you were confirmed by this committee, one of my charges to you was that you needed to restore public confidence in the IRS, and you affirmed it was your intent to make that a top priority. However, there have been several recent incidents which underscore the degree to which the public still may have reason to not trust the IRS. Between the furor over the IRS's proposed rulemaking for 501(c)(4)s, which received over 150,000 comments, most of which were negative, and recent concerns raised by my colleagues on the House side about whether or not your agency is fully cooperating with producing documents related to the ongoing IRS political targeting investigation, I am concerned that it is no longer such a priority. The American people deserve to have an IRS which is free from political bias, and, of course, we have to hold you accountable as members of Congress, and I personally am holding you accountable for ensuring that, under your watch, no such bias is or will be present, and I believe you believe that and intend to do that. To that end, can you tell me what steps you have taken to begin restoring that trust and how my colleagues and I can be assured that you are continuing to make this a top priority? Commissioner Koskinen. Thank you, Senator. It is and always has been and will continue to be a priority of mine and the agency's. With regard to the production of documents for the tax writing committees, the House Ways and Means Committee and this committee, we have had no complaints about the volume of material we have now provided, well over 700,000 pages of information. We do not have to redact it. So, as we work through it, we are simply giving you everything we can find. We have worked closely with your staff and with the Ways and Means Committee staff to identify additional information that you may need, and we are providing that material in volume. We hopefully are nearing closure on that. We have provided you all the information about the determinations process that we have. The discussion has been, and the concern has been, with those committees that do not have the authority to see taxpayer information, where we have to review every single page and redact any information related to individual taxpayers before we can provide that information. But we are continually providing information. Since the hearing I had before the House Oversight Committee, we have provided them, by the end of this week, another 50,000 pages of redacted information. No one has a greater interest than me personally, within the IRS, to have these investigations come to a close. As I have said from the start, whenever we get a final report from someone, we will look at the facts as they are found, and we will consider what additional actions need to be taken, if any. We have already accepted all of the Inspector General's recommendations. And then we will move forward, because I do think it is important for every taxpayer to be confident that no matter who they are, what their organization, what their political beliefs, who they voted for in the last election, when they deal with the IRS, they will be treated fairly, in an evenhanded way, and they will be treated the same way everyone else is treated as we go forward. Senator Hatch. That is good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. I thank my colleague. I would only say--it is Senator Casey's turn--I would just say that I do not see any evidence that protecting taxpayers from unscrupulous preparers is a partisan issue, and that is what we are focused on here today, and we have a lot of heavy lifting to do. We will go to Senator Casey next. Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Before I pose some questions for our witnesses, I wanted to address an issue that has been raised a number of times, including this morning. This is the 501(c)(4) issue, the processing of those. We did our subcommittee assignments recently, and I was just appointed the new chair of the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight. So I, like folks in both parties on this committee, am committed to making sure that any kind of abusive practice that is engaged in is not repeated and is rooted out and exposed. The committee, Mr. Chairman, I guess, undertook an investigation, which has been a bipartisan investigation, into the issue. The investigation included interviews with individuals who are impacted, as well as IRS employees. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the committee staff has essentially completed the investigation and is prepared to release its findings and conclusions. So, Mr. Chairman, I would welcome the prompt release of the conclusions of that bipartisan investigation and look forward to working with you on the issue, as well as other members. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Casey. Certainly, that investigation was well underway when Chairman Baucus chaired the committee. Senator Hatch has been very constructive in terms of working with me. This is the only bipartisan investigation that is taking place into these issues, and I am very hopeful that we will have that report ready for members quickly. Senator Casey. Thanks very much. Commissioner, I wanted to start with you. I know that your team has identified some tax scams on a so-called ``dirty dozen'' list, and there are two issues that I have worked on that are related to this, the kind of abuse of data or information. One is the Death Master File, preventing that from being used for fraudulent purposes, as well as working with the Social Security Administration to prevent criminals from stealing Social Security checks. I guess more broadly, on this issue of scams and preventing them, what would you hope that we could do here in the Congress, starting here in the Senate and the Senate Finance Committee, to better help the IRS protect taxpayers? I am assuming that it would be some form of the items that you outlined on pages 6 and 7 of your testimony. Commissioner Koskinen. Right. I appreciate the question. Obviously, the Taxpayer Advocate and I are here supporting congressional efforts to give us the authority to set minimum standards for tax preparers--a reasonable amount. As I say, most tax preparers are competent, they are educated, and they do a good job. What we are worried about is those on the periphery who either do not have enough information to adequately prepare a return or, worse, are figuring out various ways to defraud taxpayers either by high fees, by taking all or a portion of their refunds, or by channeling them, as the Taxpayer Advocate said, into other activities which may or may not be in the taxpayer's interest. We also are proposing, with regard to identity theft and refund fraud generally, that the Congress give us authority to get W-2 information by the end of January. Right now, what has happened is--we are sort of the victims of our own progress. In the old days, you used to get your IRS refund months later, and, in the meantime, we would have gotten all of the third-party information. Now, with electronic filing and the tremendous progress the IRS and its employees have made, when you file your return, we say we will get you a refund within 21 days. So we have leapfrogged the receipt by the IRS of the third-party information. So a critical part of that information for us would be to have third-party information and W-2 identifiers earlier so we could check refund applications to ensure that at least there is some comparison before issuing refunds. The action the Congress already took to close the Death Master File has been very helpful, although there are still people who have access to it. We are concerned across the board with the ease of theft of Social Security numbers in the public sector. No one has ever stolen Social Security numbers from the IRS database, but they use the Social Security number to file a false return. Senator Casey. I appreciate that. Ms. Olson? Ms. Olson. I think one thing that is an emerging trend that I have just been briefed on is the theft of Social Security numbers from preparers themselves, hacking into preparer databases. And that is very disturbing, because you do get the wage information. So, even if we have the wage information, we cannot necessarily tell that that is a bad return. The IRS right now is doing a pilot to see if you can match the name on the return, where the deposit is supposed to be made into an account, with the name on the account itself, the bank account itself, and that is having some mixed results. But there may be things on that end where you can work with the financial institutions to do greater security--are these dollars supposed to go into there? And I know that the IRS is considering limiting how many refunds can be made into a particular account. So that would be a very easy fix. Again, these criminals are--you are truly talking about scams. These are opportunistic criminals. They are going to do whatever is easiest, and the more you can create barriers for them committing fraud, the more they will look somewhere else. They will not necessarily go away permanently, but they will go somewhere else. Senator Casey. Thank you very much. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Casey. Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts. Mr. Koskinen, when you visited with me last year prior to your confirmation, sir, you told me that you thought it was your role to clean up the IRS and get the agency back on track in regard to the processing of exemption applications and the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act, both monumental tasks indeed. You said that your longer-term goal, however, was to restore the IRS's reputation and integrity on these and other functions. I have some confidence that you are going to be able to do that. However, prior to your confirmation, you said that the IRS was targeting certain groups during the exemption application process, thereby trampling on their First Amendment rights. It seems to me that there is a common-sense step that you need to take, and you should take it today--stop all action on the proposed 501(c)(4) regulations until the House Ways and Means Committee, this committee, and everyone knows what went on, who was involved, what the implication of all of this is, and how we can address the issues raised and hold people accountable. That is why I have joined with Senator Flake from Arizona and 40 of my colleagues to offer legislation to stop the IRS from proceeding with the new rules until we have answers. Here is the deal. We have Code of Federal Regulations title 26. I am sure you are familiar with it. Internal Revenue rules take various forms. The most important rules are issued as regulations, and the Treasury decisions are prescribed by the Commissioner and approved by the Secretary or his delegate. Other rules may be issued with the signature of the Commissioner or the signature of any other official to whom authority has been delegated. Regulations and Treasury decisions are prepared in the Office of the Chief Counsel after approval by the Commissioner. Here is the deal. Our constituents informed us, with some degree of outrage, that there is an IRS fox in the First Amendment chicken house. The response by the IRS: ``Yes, we know that. We are writing regulations that will tell the fox to behave himself.'' But that makes no sense. We are investigating why the fox was even in the First Amendment chicken house in the first place. So I have some suggestions. First, why do we not get the damn fox out of the First Amendment chicken house? Second, why not waive the regulations until we get our investigations done, at least until we can find out who put the fox in the chicken house in the first place and how and hold them accountable? Why can we not stop on these regulations until we are done with our investigation? Commissioner Koskinen. Having worked on my uncle's farm in Minnesota, I have a little bit of familiarity with foxes and henhouses, but let me just respond to the point. As I have said for some time, actually in my earlier testimony in February, especially since the volume of comments since then has gone up, the chances of our finishing any regulation before the end of the year are very slim, if not nonexistent. Our hope has been that, in fact, one or more of the six investigations that have been going on now since last year will be completed well in advance of that. So I think, in terms of the goal of not having a regulation until we have some investigations done, I think that unless the investigations are going to go on into next year, somebody will issue at least one, and hopefully this committee, perhaps others, will issue their report sometime in the next 3 or 4 months, which will be well in advance of any time that we would have a chance of completing this regulation. With regard to the regulation, as I have said in the past, not having been around when it was originally formulated, my commitment and dedication is that any regulation that is ultimately issued should be fair to everybody, should be clear, and it should be easy to administer. And we are going to carefully review the 150,000-plus comments that have been made. We have just started the review, so I am not quite sure how everybody knows whether they are positive or negative, but clearly the regulation has attracted a lot of interest. And as I have said, by the time we hold a public hearing, in all likelihood, re-propose any regulation that we would be considering and get more public comments, it is going to be well toward the end of this year. And as I say, my hope would be at least one of the six investigations will have been done by then, if not more, and we are committed to reviewing the findings of those investigative reports and taking any additional action that is necessary to put this behind us. Senator Roberts. My time is about up. I want to thank you for that word ``committed.'' So you are unequivocally committed to this committee and you are committing to this committee that 501(c)(4) proposed regulations will not be finalized this year? Commissioner Koskinen. I think what I have said is that the chances of it being finalized before the end of the year, not before the election, before the end of the year, are slim. We are not rushing to get them done. We are actually being---- Senator Roberts. There is an expression that the chances of something happening in Dodge City, KS are slim and none, and slim left town. So why do we not just say ``none'' this year and, more especially, until the investigations are done? Why can't we do that? Commissioner Koskinen. We could do that, and I think probably that it is a slim chance and it is fairly likely. What I can easily commit to is, we will not be anywhere near completing these regulations before somebody has completed an investigation, because I am confident---- Senator Roberts. I hope you share these regs with us as we go through this, because there are an awful lot of people---- The Chairman. The Senator's time has expired. Senator Roberts [continuing]. Who are outraged by this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Senator Grassley? Senator Grassley. Mr. Koskinen, I wrote to you and Secretary Lew on February the 20th. I asked about the administration's decision to delay the employer mandate until 2017 for businesses with 50 to 99 employees. That category of businesses is not specified in the health care law at all. In order to qualify for the delay, you require employers to certify that they did not lay off employees to get below the 100-employee threshold. This certification seems like unnecessary information, unless you think the employer mandate will cause businesses to lay people off. (A) Do you think that businesses will lay off their employees in order to avoid paying penalties under the health care law, and, if not, why are you requiring the certification? And (B), what is the legal justification for a new category of businesses with 50 to 99 employees in the certification process? Commissioner Koskinen. Senator, as you know, tax policy issues like this are all the domain of the Treasury Department. Those decisions were made by the Treasury Department. I did not participate in those. As a general matter, I do not think that companies, with regard to health care issues, are going to willy-nilly lay off their employees. I think most companies are dedicated to their workforce and to developing them. But the question in terms of on what basis those decisions were made, is really a question that has to be addressed to the Treasury Department. Senator Grassley. But you have to sign off on them. Commissioner Koskinen. All Treasury regulations are issued by Treasury and the IRS, but the policy issues behind questions like this are decided by the Treasury Department. The Chief Counsel's Office actually reports directly to the Treasury Department. Senator Grassley. Well, I requested a response from you and Secretary Lew by March the 7th. So then, when can I expect such a response? And I assume you can be an Aaron for making sure that this gets done. Commissioner Koskinen. I will clearly commit that I do not know why the delay, other than the fact that any response gets cleared by a complicated process. But my commitment to this committee and you and all of you has been that we will reply promptly to any letter we get from you, and I will assure you that I will get you a prompt response from our side. I cannot tell you when the Treasury Department will respond, but we should respond to you promptly. Senator Grassley. Well, you surely talk to Secretary Lew, and he made the same promise that you made: when he comes before the committee, he is going to answer our questions. And I do not know why people say they will answer our questions if they will not. Well, anyway, let us go on to the second question. Mr. Koskinen, just last week, I wrote to you concerning the nonprofit hospital reforms that I authored and were enacted in 2010. These reforms imposed new requirements on nonprofit hospitals to hold them accountable for their tax-exempt status. To date, key legal guidance needed to ensure compliance with the law does not appear to be finalized. What has been the delay in finalizing regulations in this area, and when we can expect final regulations? Commissioner Koskinen. A series of regulations and proposals have been drafted pursuant to that statute. And in January of this year, Treasury provided, with the IRS jointly, guidance to hospitals that they could rely on the existing proposed regulations that are out there. We expect that the final regulations will be issued before the summer is out. But the hospitals have already been advised that they can rely upon the earlier regulations or proposals that are out there. Senator Grassley. The 2010 nonprofit hospital reforms also required the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services to collect information on nonprofit hospitals and report to Congress every year. An annual report should have been issued to Congress for fiscal year 2012, but Congress never received any report. Congress has yet to receive a final report for fiscal year 2013. A 2012 report by the Inspector General of Treasury recommended that the IRS enter into a memorandum of understanding with HHS in order to better coordinate the collection and sharing of the information for the report. The IRS agreed with the Inspector General's recommendations, and, as I understand it, the memorandum of understanding has not been finalized. What is the status of the memorandum between IRS and HHS? When would you expect it to be finalized? Why has there not been an annual report, as required by law, and when can Congress expect the 2013 report? Commissioner Koskinen. We have been working cooperatively with HHS. We expect not a memorandum of understanding, but written, final confirmation from them about the process we are going to use going forward. The problem with timing is, it takes 2 to 3 years for all of the data to be filed. So the 2011 data has now been made public by HHS. We expect to provide it jointly, because our data is going to measure with theirs. The hospitals all asked for us to use apples-to-apples data. So this summer we will be issuing to the Congress a report for 2011, because that is the timing in which we actually get the final data. And then every year thereafter, we will provide that report on an annual basis jointly with HHS. So the data for 2011 is already public from HHS's side. We are collecting then for the same time period, calendar 2011, putting the data together, and every year it will be late because of the time the hospitals have to file all of that data. But as a regular matter, starting this summer, you will get annually the data required. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Senator Thune is next. Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Senator Hatch for holding this hearing. I think all Americans expect the IRS to administer our tax laws in an impartial manner, and they expect the tax preparers to act in a competent and ethical manner too. And so the concerns that have been brought to light by the GAO in its recent study are very troubling, and I am pleased the committee is examining this issue in order to determine if legislative action is necessary to ensure that Americans are protected from unscrupulous and incompetent tax return preparers. I do want to, Mr. Koskinen, give you an opportunity--I want to turn to something that has been mentioned here by my colleagues and has been discussed of late, and give you an opportunity to correct the record. Last week, the Washington Post fact checker, Glenn Kessler, awarded you three Pinocchios for your statement that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Russell George, had not used the term ``targeting'' when referring to how the IRS has treated conservative social welfare groups. The Post article noted that Mr. George specifically stated in his testimony to Congress that the IRS targeted specific groups--I am quoting now--``applying for tax-exempt status. It delayed processing of these groups' applications and requested unnecessary information, as well as subjected these groups to special scrutiny.'' Given that Post article and the confusion around recent statements that you have made on this topic, I want to give you an opportunity to correct the record. And the question, I guess, specifically, is, do you agree that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has found that certain conservative groups were targeted for extra scrutiny by the IRS? Commissioner Koskinen. I appreciate the opportunity to correct the record. It has been intriguing to me that it has become this big issue, a tempest in the teapot. What I said in my testimony, which seems to have triggered this, was that the Inspector General's report last May, in his findings, said that he found that inappropriate criteria were used to select applications for further review. It was in response to a question about the findings of the IG, and my point was the IG's finding in the report said it was improper criteria. Thereafter, I have--and a couple of times since then--made it clear the IG clearly in his testimony to Congress used the word ``targeting.'' He talked about targeting beforehand. My only point was in response to a question in which I was asked if the Inspector General's finding was ``targeted.'' I said his actual finding said ``improper criteria.'' But one man's improper criteria is another man's targeting. How it got to be this big an issue I do not know, because clearly the issue is, however you describe it, it should not have happened. It should not happen going forward in the future. We are committed. We have already taken all of the IG's recommendations and accepted them. We are committed that, as I say, when people, not only for (c)(4) applications, but in any relationship with the IRS--we are going to continue to audit people. Some will be Democrats, some will be Republicans; some will go to church, some will not. When you hear from us, it is only because of something in your tax return. People need to be confident that that is our commitment, that is our general approach to these issues, and that is how we are going to behave going forward. Senator Thune. Just as a follow-up to that, the Post article also referenced your use of the term ``targeting'' and posed this question. The basic question was, was the phrase so toxic that it was wiped from the lexicon once you arrived at the IRS? And I guess I would just ask, since your confirmation as Commissioner, has anyone in the administration, within the IRS, the Treasury, the White House, anyplace like that, pressured you or counseled you against using the terms ``target'' or ``targeting'' in reference to the matter that we are talking about? Commissioner Koskinen. No one in the administration. The only concern I have heard--I have been to 20 offices at the IRS now, and I have listened to and met with over 8,000 employees. Several of the employees have objected to the use of the term ``targeting,'' but nobody in the White House, nobody in the Treasury, nobody in the administration, has asked me not to use the word. Senator Thune. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to just--I have about a minute left here--focus on what I believe is a major driver of more and more Americans seeking tax preparation assistance, and that is the incredible complexity of the tax code. As you know, much of the Affordable Care Act is administered through the tax code, which means that when uninsured Americans file their taxes, they are going to need to figure out whether they qualify for the subsidies, how much they can receive, whether it makes more financial and medical sense to get coverage or to pay the penalty for violating the law. The question is, doesn't the Affordable Care Act create a lot of new complexity issues on top of those that we already have, making it even more difficult and driving even more Americans to tax preparers when it comes to getting their returns in on time? And do you believe that most tax preparers are adequately prepared to handle the complexities arising from the Affordable Care Act? Commissioner Koskinen. I think we are going to have a lot of questions by preparers and taxpayers about the Affordable Care Act. The vast majority of Americans are going to be unaffected by it. They are going to check off a box that says they have insurance, they have Medicare, and they will not be affected. But for the people who are in that area, who are applying for insurance, getting advanced premium credits, there are going to be questions asked. One of our concerns is to make sure we are prepared to answer those questions. Senator Thune. Ms. Olson, quickly, on that, do you have a comment? Ms. Olson. I think that there is certainly a great deal of complexity in the Affordable Care Act. I would note that I am watching very carefully and closely how the IRS is approaching that also, on the compliance side, what they do if somebody owes money as a result of the ACA. But there is one thing about the Affordable Care Act that is very important. We are going to get a lot of information from third parties, which will allow us to identify inaccurate claims during the filing season. As the Commissioner earlier alluded, it is very important for us to get W-2 and 1099 information early in order to avoid all this fraud and errors in the regular tax system. So there is an actual added benefit in the Affordable Care Act that we do not have with the rest of the filing system that would be really good to have in the rest of the filing system. Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Thune. I very much appreciate your also highlighting the complexity of the code, because the Congress is not blameless here. Virtually every session, some other group comes up, usually with a good cause, and what happens here on the Finance Committee is, we just add it to the code. There have been something like 15,000 changes. It comes to maybe one or two for every working day in recent years. So that is right at the heart of tax reform, and I look forward to working with my colleague. Senator Isakson is next. Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I concur with your opening statement, talking about how tax simplification is the key to this, and I think it is the key. There is another key that I use to determine what Georgians are interested in, and that is how long I have to stay in the narthex after church to answer questions and what that subject is about. Yesterday, given the proximity to April 15th, everything was about the IRS. Listening to Senator Casey's statement, I think I heard that we are close to having conclusions from our bipartisan investigation. Is that correct? The Chairman. I will let Senator Hatch chime in here, but I believe so. Certainly, the staffs have been talking. Senator Hatch has been very constructive, given the fact that this is the only bipartisan investigation into this, and, obviously, there were errors made. There is no question about that. It is important that we wrap this up, but I am very hopeful that we can do that quickly. Senator Hatch, would you like to add to that? Senator Hatch. Well, we are trying to wrap this up as quickly as we can. It has been slow. We still have not gotten a number of documents that we still have to get, but I agree with the distinguished chairman that we are working in a bipartisan manner and hopefully we can conclude this within the relatively near future--at least I hope so. The Chairman. Commissioner, can we have some clarity on that point? I understand you have sent us a letter indicating that you have made available all the documents for purposes of this investigation. Is that right? I do not have the letter with me. Commissioner Koskinen. Yes. We, 3 weeks ago, said we had provided you all the documents we had about the determinations process, which was the subject of the Inspector General's report. Since then, we have had requests for additional information, not about the determinations process, but about any involvement by Lois Lerner in the exam process, the appeals process, and the regulatory process, and we are completing the provision to you of all of that additional information as well. But for the base issue of the determinations issue that the IG raised, you have all of the documents we could find. The Chairman. We are intruding on Senator Isakson's time, and I will let Senator Hatch have the last word here. Senator Hatch. They said they had given us most of the documents, and then we found out that they had not. So we just got a new set of documents last week. We are appreciative of the cooperation. We still have not gotten into the Treasury documents as much as we would like to, although we are starting. All I can say is, we are trying to do the very best we can to conclude this investigation, and hopefully we will in the near future. The Chairman. We are committed to getting this done, Commissioner. We are going to get it done in a bipartisan way, and I want to assure you that we will be following up with you quickly on any remaining questions. But I knew that, as of a couple of weeks ago, you had given us everything we asked for, and that strikes me as indicative of your cooperation. This is not going to be imputed to Senator Isakson's time. So let us make sure that---- Commissioner Koskinen. In that case, let me just say I appreciate that. We have had good working relationships with the staffs of the majority and the minority, and we are committed to continuing to work with you. Whatever you need, we are anxious to get it to you. The Chairman. Very good. Senator Isakson, we are going to roll the clock back so you can have your full 5 minutes. Senator Isakson. Well, I asked the question, and I am glad you all went into the detail to answer the question, because, in a voluntary compliance-dependent system, which ours is, the confidence the American people have in the Internal Revenue Service is the key to voluntary compliance. I think the quicker we can get to all the answers, whatever those answers are, the better off all of us are. I want to thank Commissioner Koskinen for the visit he paid to Atlanta 3 or 4 months ago and his including me in that visit. I would just comment, having run a business before and watched a department manager or a business head motivate employees, if your performance in Atlanta was typical of what you do when you visit other offices around the country, I think the confidence of the IRS employees and the IRS will go up, because I was very impressed. Commissioner Koskinen. Thank you. Senator Isakson. Ms. Olson made a statement about financial incentives to inflate numbers in tax returns for the preparer to take advantage and pocket the difference. How do they pocket the difference? Ms. Olson. Well, one of the ways that you see is, if you can get a larger tax refund for your customer, and you are actually preparing returns in a car dealership or in a furniture rental place or in any number of other kinds of entities that are selling products unrelated to tax, then you can give a loan advancing funds so that the taxpayer can apply those inflated refunds to purchasing a product. And what we are seeing in some instances--and I used to see this in the low-income taxpayer clinic I ran when I represented taxpayers--is we see this in a vehicle purchase, where a taxpayer would use the loan on an inflated refund to purchase an automobile. The IRS would then disallow that refund. The taxpayer would be unable to make the ongoing payments on this higher-dollar vehicle that they really could not afford. They owed the refund back to the IRS, and the car would ultimately be repossessed, and then the taxpayer would end up with cancellation of debt income for the next year, which was taxable. Commissioner Koskinen. Another, more direct way of fraud is, the preparer puts his bank account down as the bank account to which the refund should go, and it is all done electronically. Then the preparer can either take out a big fee before he provides the refund to the taxpayer, can keep some of the refund, or may keep it all. And there is no way for us-- because it is all done electronically, when he puts down his bank account--to keep the refund from going to his bank account rather than the taxpayer's. A lot of those taxpayers do not have bank accounts. Senator Isakson. In either case, that is a fraud against the taxpayer. Commissioner Koskinen. Fraud against the taxpayer. Senator Isakson. Which brings me to the question I wanted to ask about IRS's Free File program. You talked about low- income taxpayers being the ones who are most often abused in something like that. Has Free File helped? Because it seems like electronic technology would help prevent people from padding deductions or padding income. Ms. Olson. Well, I think that the issue is, many of these taxpayers who are most vulnerable do not have computer literacy, the level of computer literacy, that would enable them to do that. In some of the walk-in sites that the IRS has and at some of the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites, they are actually trying to get taxpayers to sit down, and they walk them through. You can prepare--they have computer terminals. You can go and prepare your own return, and, if you can learn it once, maybe next year you can do it yourself. But there is a very high learning curve. I think one thing that can help is if we can get this W-2/ 1099 information in advance, then maybe the IRS can pour that into, whether it is commercial software or into Free File or into the free fillable forms that we have as part of the consortium, if you could pour some of the data in, that might make it easier for taxpayers to then say, ``Okay, and I have these dependents,'' et cetera, and prepare their own returns. But it is a big lift for this population. Senator Isakson. This is my last question, and I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. When you catch an unenrolled preparer in a fraud, under the Loving decision, you do not have any standing to do anything to that person, but can you refer them to the Justice Department for prosecution or investigation? Commissioner Koskinen. Yes, and we do that. Whenever we find either systemic fraud or fraud that is a violation of law, we can refer it for prosecution. As the Taxpayer Advocate noted, that is after the fact, after the taxpayer has been abused, and we cannot prosecute every case. We do not have the resources to either catch everybody who has defrauded their clients or to prosecute them all, but they are at risk. If they commit fraud in the filing of their returns for their clients, if they violate the law, they are at risk of prosecution. The question is whether we can catch enough of them to make a difference. Senator Isakson. Well, if CMS does a good job of trying to enforce against fraud in Medicare and Medicaid by making highly visible profiles of anybody they catch defrauding the government, the same thing might be beneficial for the IRS as well. Commissioner Koskinen. We give as much visibility as we can to the prosecutions we get and to the sentences we get, but there are still a lot of people figuring out that they are playing roulette. And assuming that, at the levels they are operating, it will be hard to find them, and the question is whether there will be enough resources to prosecute them. Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Isakson. Among the good points that you just made, I think there really ought to be more inquiry into Free File to actually see what its strengths and limits are. I have heard, for example, questions about whether they can do State returns and these kinds of matters. So I want to work closely with you on it. Senator Burr? Senator Burr. Commissioner, welcome. Senator Coburn and I have shared some correspondence with you in the last 2 weeks. You have responded. I thank you for that very timely response. Let me refresh your memory. This was in relation to the Chicago District of the NLRB's decision as it relates to the Northwestern Football Players and their potential unionization. We said to you that our interpretation of section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code was, in fact, exactly what your tax experts said, that there was an exclusion specifically stated in there for scholarships, educational scholarships, that made those exempt from ordinary income. But the statute goes on to note one exception, and I will quote it. It says section 117, and I quote, ``shall not apply to that portion of any amounts received which represents payment for services by the student required as a condition for receiving the qualified scholarship,'' meaning if the individual received a scholarship, a portion or the portion that represented a payment for service was no longer tax- exempt. I got a very detailed letter back from you basically stating the first part, which is about section 117 and the exclusion for scholarships, and you made a very specific statement in here that the NLRB definition of an employee for labor law does not control whether the individual is an employee for the purposes of Federal tax. In other words, scholarships are governed by IRS code, and this is going to raise a big question, because nowhere did your letter note the disqualifying thing found in the tax code, which is providing a service. Now, let me just state for my colleagues, the NLRB decision said these students are employees. The suit was brought by Northwestern football players because they said, ``We are under the control of the university. They tell us when to go to practice, when to go to a game. They control. Therefore, we should have the opportunity to bargain with them because we are employees.'' The NLRB made a determination that they were employees, and they referred to section 2.3 of the National Labor Relations Act. Let me just quote from the NLRB decision. ``The Act provides, in relevant part, that the term `employee' shall include any employee. The Supreme Court has held that by applying this broad definition of an employee, it is necessary to consider the common law definition of an employee. Under the common law definition, an employee is a person who performs services for another under a contract of hire, subject to the others' control or right of control, and in return for payment.'' Now, let me just suggest to you that, if that does not meet the exclusionary part of section 117, I really do not understand it. And I understand your point here that labor law does not dictate tax law. So let me point then to tax law. In Revenue Ruling 77-263, which discusses section 117 and the tax law treatment of athletic scholarships, the IRS states this clearly: ``Any amount paid or allowed to or on behalf of an individual to enable an individual to pursue studies or research is not considered to be an amount received as a scholarship or a fellowship grant for the purposes of section 117, if such amount represents compensation for past, present, or future employment services or for services that are subject to,'' and I underline, ``direction or supervision of a grantor or if such studies or research are primarily for the benefit of the grantor. Any of these conditions will negate the existence of a scholarship or fellowship grant as defined in the regulation.'' So the body of tax law is pretty clear on this question, Mr. Commissioner. Bargained-for payments cannot be excluded from income as athletic scholarships. Again, the players were seeking to unionize in the Northwestern case, and they make the argument that they are employees and that the scholarships they receive from the university are compensation for services rendered. The NLRB has agreed with the players that they are employees and that their scholarships are compensation for services rendered. Let me just ask you, how can the IRS ignore tax law and the facts in the answer that they prepared for you to send me? Commissioner Koskinen. Well, first of all, it would be interesting to see what the NLRB final decision is as that issue from the regional office goes forward. Senator Burr. If it goes as currently written, are those scholarships taxable? Commissioner Koskinen. Well, the revenue ruling you are talking about talks about and tries to distinguish, obviously, graduate students who teach, who do research, who get paid, and that issue. Obviously, interesting discussions are going on in the NCAA about whether, in fact, student athletes should get stipends, so whether they should, in fact, be paid in addition to their scholarships. The principle thus far has been that all of these students are student athletes, that the scholarship allows them to attend college and to participate in athletics, and that historically has been the rule applied. To the extent that the circumstances change significantly-- and that is why I say it will be interesting to see where this goes--then, obviously, we will take another look at what the definition of compensation is, what the definition of scholarships are, and what the situation is. But thus far, the people who have looked at it, the experts in the IRS, have ruled that nothing has changed thus far that would cause us to make a---- Senator Burr. Commissioner, let me ask. Just from the explanation and what I read of tax law, where have I missed it that it is clearly stated there, that if they are supervised, if they perform a service required by that entity that controls them, this is no longer considered a scholarship? I think that you are reinterpreting what the tax law says and---- Commissioner Koskinen. What I am saying is, historically, what football players do today is no different than what they did 5, 10, or 20 years ago, and they have always been treated as if those were scholarships. To the extent that the nature of the compensation changes, then we would take a look at it. But nothing in terms of what a student athlete does has changed, even as a result of that NLRB decision. The Chairman. Senator Burr, I just think we have to move on. We have a lot of additional witnesses. Is that acceptable to you? Do you have anything else you need to do? You are way over. Senator Burr. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, it concerns me that we might look at it in the future, because we either follow the statute that is in the law, which I think is very clear, or we do not, and I am not sure the IRS statute is open for interpretation when it is as clear as it is. You would have to change a lot of words there to suggest that this does not fit the determination that the labor law makes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Senator Brown? Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Senator Burr bringing up such an interesting issue of what happens at Northwestern with these players, and I might add, I have met with a couple of them, and they are definitely not asking for compensation. I know Senator Burr did not say that, but it is about concussions, and it is about a kid who gets hurt and loses his scholarship because he is of no use to the university then and may not have his health care provided for. I remember a suspension some years ago of a major player at a university in my State. The suspension did not take effect until after the bowl games because of the revenue he represented to the university, the NCAA, and ESPN. So, even though he deserved suspension, he did not deserve it until after he would play that ballgame that would bring in that revenue. So I think we have a lot of discussions ahead of us on this. Senator Burr. If I could say to my good---- The Chairman. Colleagues, we have quite a number of witnesses on the second panel. We are just going to have to continue on the question of fraud by tax preparers. Senator Brown? Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it will be that. There has not been much said--well, nobody on this panel has talked about the Earned Income Tax Credit. I cannot stay for the second panel. I do know one of the witnesses on the second panel will have much to say about the Earned Income Tax Credit. My view is, if we are going to look at the EITC--which President Reagan, as you know, called the best poverty program going in America--couple it with the Child Tax Credit and what that means. I know Ms. Olson has been outspoken about that. If we are going to look at EITC as being subject to too much fraud, and we always should be vigilant, to be sure, we might be just as focused on carried interest and blocker corporations and accounts in the Cayman Islands. But let me ask Ms. Olson. There was a TIGTA report that found higher rates of improper payments for EITC. They also estimate that between 20 percent to 22 percent of eligible workers are not claiming EITC. For many of us, in our States, we put real time and real staff, real personal staff and real staff time, into getting people to sign up, to know about it, to be aware of it. First, two questions, Ms. Olson. What do we do to maintain and enhance the EITC and the Child Tax Credit while reducing the error rate and increasing enrollment? And second, in Professor Barrick's written testimony, he states that despite the fact that EITC and the Child Tax Credit lift millions of families out of poverty, he says the risk of fraud is so great that it should be addressed by eliminating both credits. So comment on both of those, if you would, Ms. Olson. Ms. Olson. I think that the IRS has some research, some very good research, from its random audits of EITC taxpayers that really demonstrates that the sources of error are very great. And it is a complicated statute, so you have those kinds of errors, and then you do have fraud, for all the reasons we have talked about here, including the vulnerability of the population. The population also changes one-third every year. So it is very hard to have a learning curve where you are teaching people. They are leaving the EITC and coming into the EITC in great numbers. I have proposed in other testimony multiple ways of addressing the errors, including both education and redesigning the statute a little bit to combine the family-related credits and dependency exemptions and child credit into a larger family credit that would be refundable, and then a worker credit, because that makes the overall dollar amount a little less for each provision and a little less attractive for fraud. But the main point I really want to make about this is that the EITC has very low administration costs for such a large social benefit program. Where its costs are are in the compliance and error and fraud rate, and we do not know what is fraud and we do not know what is error. Other benefit programs have very high administration costs and not as high error costs. That is because they have a lot of front-end application process. We do not. You file on an income tax return. That is very inexpensive. We have the costs at the back end. But what the EITC has that no other benefit program has is a high participation rate. We have 75 to 80 percent of the eligible taxpayers getting that money. It is higher than any other benefit program that the United States administers to that population, to my knowledge. So, if you really want to look at the effectiveness and the efficacy of the EITC, yes, we have a higher error rate, but we have low cost and we have a high participation rate, as opposed to the programs that have low error rates but very high administration costs and low participation rates. I think if you look at it holistically, yes, we have to get down our error rates--and I have made really substantive proposals on how to do that--but as an effective program, it is very good, in my personal opinion, and my professional opinion too. Commissioner Koskinen. Yes. I agree with the Taxpayer Advocate. We have had two big meetings with everybody who has ever thought about this program. We have tried a lot of different things. I think the error rate, 20 percent to 22 percent, and the amount of payment made in error--it is not all fraud, as the Taxpayer Advocate said--are untenable. It is a great program, and, as I have told everybody, we have to make it clear to the public that we understand it is a problem, it is a serious problem that we care about, and, in fact, we are going to do something about it. One of the things we need, and we have asked the Congress this time around for, is authority for what is called ``correctable error authority.'' We, if we find and know there is a problem in a return, cannot change that return, unless it is just simple math errors, without an audit and contacting the taxpayer. Correctable error authority would allow us, when we know there is an error in the return, to make the change, then advise the taxpayer. The taxpayer could appeal and come back to us. But it would allow us to eliminate some of the improper payments at the front end rather than requiring us to have an audit each time. The Chairman. My colleague's time has expired. Senator Carper? Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Koskinen, Ms. Olson, it is very nice to see you both. Thank you so much for your service and for being with us today. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted we are having this hearing, and I commend you and Senator Hatch for holding it. My colleagues hear me say from time to time that there are three things we need to do for deficit reduction if we are serious about it. We have seen the deficit come down from about $1.4 trillion in 2009; last year it was only $680 billion. This year it is expected to come in at about $550 billion, then drop a little bit more, and then start going back up again. But if we are serious about deficit reduction, we need to do three things. One is entitlement reform, save these programs for our kids, save some money, so it does not savage old people or poor people. Number two, we need tax reform that actually brings down our top corporate rates to something that is more competitive with the rest of the world and also generates some revenues for deficit reduction. The third thing we need to do is look at everything we do in government and ask this question: how do we get a better result for less money? And this falls right into that bailiwick. GAO has spent a lot of time in recent years looking at this and how we make sure, in terms of other revenue that is coming into the Treasury, that taxpayers are paying a fair and reasonable amount, but others are not being unduly burdened because some of our neighbors are not doing their fair share. And this hearing puts a real spotlight on one of the ways that we could better ensure that everybody is paying their fair share. So I am delighted we are having this hearing. The investigations by the GAO and by the Treasury Inspector General have revealed serious problems with tax return preparation by preparers who are not CPAs or who are not attorneys or otherwise credentialed, and, as we know, this poses serious problems for tax administration, particularly for highly complex tax provisions like the EITC. You indicate it is pretty easy to fill out the form, the tax form to apply for it, but the actual compliance of it is quite a different matter. In light of the recent circuit court decision, it looks like legislation is necessary to allow the IRS to adequately regulate the tax preparers. In the meantime, I support IRS's efforts to create a voluntary certification program for preparers. And let me ask this question. Do you believe that offering voluntary certification will offer enough opportunity for return preparers to distinguish themselves so that many preparers will participate? Commissioner Koskinen. Go ahead. Ms. Olson. I think that if we couple that voluntary certification with some conditions--for example, right now, unenrolled return preparers can represent taxpayers in audits before the IRS for returns that they prepare, and that is a rule that we have promulgated. We should change that rule to only grant that ability to people who have taken the test and demonstrated competency and continuing education. They can also write their name on the return and say, ``You can call us if there are questions about the return,'' and we should restrict that to certified preparers. So that gives a leg-up to those people who are taking the time out to do that voluntary testing and continuing education. They can say, ``We can do these things,'' whereas other people cannot. It will not work if we do not have a comprehensive education campaign. We have to make it the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, that you have a clear choice. You go to someone, an attorney, a CPA, an enrolled agent, or a certified preparer, or all bets are off. Senator Carper. How could we help in this regard, other than passing legislation, which I would like to see us do, but how can we help short of that? There may be nothing, but there may be something. Commissioner Koskinen. This hearing is very valuable to give visibility to the issue to try, as we do, to get taxpayers to be careful when they select a preparer, to try to determine what their background is and their competency. Again, the government and the IRS have a great interest in competent preparers, because the errors that are provided, or the fraud that is created when it is not done well, create a tremendous burden on the system, as well as a question of whether we are getting adequate compliance. So I think a voluntary program, which we are considering, would be a step forward, but it is still going to leave people on the periphery, if for whatever reason they decide they are not going to register and take the exams and demonstrate competence, to produce erroneous returns that we then have to deal with and have to contact taxpayers about. Ultimately, it is not as if it is sort of six of one and half a dozen of the other. From our standpoint, it is critical that taxpayers get proper advice and that we get as many accurate tax returns as we can so that we do not fritter away resources chasing people who had no business filling out that return in the first place. Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I am going to be submitting a question for the record, because I thought Senator Thune asked a question that is worth highlighting and returning to about a substantial portion of the Affordable Care Act being implemented through the tax system. So you will get a question from me on that. But thank you so much. It is great to see you both. The Chairman. I appreciate my colleague bringing up this voluntary compliance issue. My concern about voluntary compliance is it really does not deal with the scofflaws. We know that the majority of preparers are scrupulous and honest. The problem is what to do about the outliers, and those are the people who are not going to be exactly tripping over themselves to comply with the voluntary compliance point. But we are going to discuss that, and we are going to discuss all of the options here for dealing with this problem. Senator Cantwell? Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And following on that note, one of the options, I believe, is continuing to make things simpler from a technology perspective. So some of my colleagues have brought up the Free File program, which is a public-private partnership between the IRS and commercial tax software companies that offer free Federal tax preparation. And since its inception, it has saved over 30 million taxpayers in helping them with their filings, and it has also saved the Federal Government something like $91 million by making it easier, obviously, on the processing costs. So one of the things that I kind of disagree with you a little bit on, Ms. Olson, is, I am sure there are a lot of people who make less than $58,000 who know how to use Word or Excel or various software programs. This is about continuing to make the complexity of the tax code simple so that the administration of it is simpler too. So I wanted to talk to you about what else we can do to continue to advance the use of technology and help taxpayers file efficiently, because I have certainly heard stories within my own office of young people using an online version, and paying a little bit for that, and then going the next year, thinking they were going to get some great advice from somebody, and all they are doing is sitting across from somebody who knows barely more than they do, but is charging them 2 times or 3 times the rate. So to me, I think we need to make the tax code simpler, make it easier for people to file, make the code easier to understand so that people know exactly what they are doing. Is that not the direction that we should be going? Ms. Olson. Absolutely. I have made the complexity of the tax code the number-one most serious problem for taxpayers many times in my annual report to the Congress. I was an unenrolled return preparer and then an attorney who prepared returns for many clients, and I was baffled why people would not do some of the returns that they were bringing to me. There is this nervousness factor that they are going to make a mistake, that they missed something, and I think that is driving people of all income levels to return preparers. The Free File usage has not been robust in terms of the numbers of taxpayers, even though it covers a large population, and I think some of that is that some taxpayers like to buy the tax software products to get all the other bells and whistles that are on those products, incorporating them with their accounting programs, et cetera. Others want to go to return preparers, like I said before, because they do not want to make a mistake and they just do not trust themselves, even with the software. I think the IRS publicizes the Free File or the free fillable forms. I will come back to something I said earlier. I think it is very important for the IRS to be able to get W-2 and 1099 data early in the filing season, as early as possible, so we can make it available to taxpayers, so they can download it into their software programs that they may purchase, so preparers can download it into their programs, and so that people can download it into Free File or free fillable forms and get a little further along and that is accurate information then. You avoid keystroking errors and things like that and that missed W-2 that got sent to a wrong address. That would be the big technology push, and Congress could do something about this by setting some goals for the IRS to move forward in this. Congress set goals for the IRS to get into electronic filing, and, even though it did not hit the goal on time, it became a rationale, it became a goal, and the IRS organized itself around achieving that. And I think to get to this next electronic umph with getting the third-party information reporting timely, being able to help taxpayers, but, also, protect against fraud---- Senator Cantwell. I think software developers have to focus all their attention on making it intuitive, and I think there is some intuitiveness we could probably put into the tax code explanations. And so we will certainly take you up on that offer. I also wanted to ask, quickly, because we have, obviously, suffered this devastating loss in the Oso, Darrington mud slide area of our State, and so we have been looking at all of this as it relates to disaster relief, and you certainly have seen a lot of these incidents with Sandy. Do you think that we need to look at this issue of what is available to communities? It seems like we are so almost rifle- shot, and then here is a community where you have lost your house. In a lot of instances, you still have to pay on your mortgage even though your house has been totally wiped out. How do we help these communities? Ms. Olson. We have made some recommendations in the past about disasters that did not quite qualify for presidentially declared disasters, and I will commit to working with your office about some of that. And I also think your idea about some of the mortgage relief and debt relief and things, so you do not trigger taxable events because you cannot pay these things, that is very important. I would be more than happy to look into that. Senator Cantwell. Thank you. The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Olson, both of you. This was very helpful in terms of the technology issue. There is no one in the Senate who is more tech-savvy than Senator Cantwell. So we are going to follow up on these two issues and on the mortgage point in terms of trying to protect people from tax increases when they get debt relief. That is part of the extenders, as a result largely of Senator Stabenow. At this point, I think we have completed our first round. I would like to introduce our second panel, and we will have Senator Hatch introduce Dr. John Barrick, associate professor at Brigham Young University. Thank you both very much. You have spent a lot of time at the witness table, and we thank you for your expertise and your patience. Now for our second panel. I would like to introduce the first witness, Mr. James McTigue, Director of Strategic Issues from the Government Accountability Office. Mr. Wayne McElrath is Director of Investigative Services and will answer any questions that members have after Mr. McTigue provides his testimony. Our next witness is Mr. William Cobb, the president and CEO of H&R Block. Our third witness is Ms. Janis Salisbury, the chair of the Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners. Ms. Salisbury, we know that you have tax clients waiting for you at home in Oregon, so we thank you for coming. Senator Hatch will introduce Dr. John Barrick momentarily. Our fifth witness will be Ms. Chi Chi Wu, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. Our final witness will be Mr. Dan Alban, attorney for the Institute of Justice. Let us now have Senator Hatch introduce Dr. John Barrick, associate professor, Brigham Young. Senator Hatch. I would like to welcome Professor John Barrick from the School of Accountancy in the Marriott College of Business at Brigham Young University, which is a very highly rated business school. Professor Barrick is a leading academic expert in taxation. In addition, he has a wealth of practical experience. His highlights include 2 years of tax experience with the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and 4 years as a tax consultant with PriceWaterhouse. John's family is with him here today. And we welcome you all here, and we are very happy to have you here helping us to understand these issues. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Hatch. We thank all of our witnesses for coming. In order to give members of the committee time to ask questions, we would ask that you limit your testimony to 5 minutes. Your prepared statements are going to automatically be part of the record. Why don't you start, Mr. McTigue? STATEMENT OF JAMES R. McTIGUE, JR., DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. McTigue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the quality of services provided by paid tax preparers. Millions of taxpayers rely on paid preparers to provide them with accurate and fully compliant tax returns. The IRS has long recognized that paid preparers' actions have an enormous impact on its ability to administer tax laws effectively and collect the revenue that funds the government. Despite the importance of paid preparers in our tax system, IRS's authority to regulate paid preparers is limited to certain preparers, as you have heard, such as attorneys and certified public accountants. The majority of preparers, 55 percent, are known as unenrolled preparers and are not regulated by IRS. In 2010, IRS initiated steps to regulate unenrolled preparers, but the courts ruled that IRS lacked the authority. In order to gain some insight into how unenrolled preparers actually perform, we developed two scenarios based on common tax issues. We call these scenarios our waitress scenario and our mechanic scenario. In our waitress scenario, our undercover investigator posed as a single mother who received wage income and unreported cash income from tips. She had one child who lived with her during the year and qualified for the Earned Income Tax Credit and one who did not. In our second scenario, a mechanic and his wife derived the majority of their income from his wages, but also had some side income from repair work and child care. They had three children who lived at home; one attended college. As you can see from the board on my right and figure 3 in my written statement, in 19 visits to randomly selected commercial paid preparers, refund errors ranged from $52 lower to $3,700 higher than they should have been. In only two instances did the paid preparer calculate the correct refund amount. In the waitress scenario, preparers made two key errors; first, not reporting all the cash tip income and, second, claiming both children as being eligible to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. The clustering of the bars illustrates that different preparers made the same errors. For example, four preparers did not claim the cash tip income, which overstated the waitress' refund by $654. One preparer told our investigator that if she reported the tip income, it would be a red flag, and her employer would be audited. Three preparers made both errors, which resulted in refunds that were overstated by more than $3,700. In one case, the preparer told our investigator that she could claim her second child if no one else did, even though the child did not live with her for more than half of the year. In the mechanic scenario, not reporting cash income also resulted in refunds that were overstated by $3,000. One preparer told our investigator that if the side income was reported, his tax preparation fee would go up and his refund would go down. Two preparers went as far as to show our investigator how his refund would change if the side income was reported. Clearly, taxpayers were not well-served by the preparers that we visited. But as the next board on my right illustrates, figure 6 in the written statement, they paid a lot of money for the services, and fees varied widely. For example, with the mechanic scenario, fees ranged from about $300 to $600. Alarmingly, the average fee for the waitress scenario was nearly $300, more than 80 percent of her weekly pay. Often, the paid preparers either did not provide an estimate of the fees up front or the actual fees charged were higher. Higher fees, however, do not translate into more accurate returns. In fact, the fee charged for the correct mechanic return was one of the lowest at $311. When our investigators inquired about the high fees, we heard a range of responses like, we charge more in the morning than the afternoon, we charge more early in the tax season than later, and the Earned Income Tax Credit form is one of the most expensive. Although our findings are anecdotal, GAO's analysis of IRS's national research program data reveals that preparer- filed returns showed an estimated 60-percent error rate compared to an estimated 50-percent for self-prepared returns. Errors on paid preparer returns were similar to those encountered during our visits. For example, preparer-filed returns claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit had an estimated error rate of 51 percent. Undoubtedly, many paid preparers do their best to provide clients with returns that are accurate and fully compliant. However, poor performance can result in taxpayers being audited, having to pay back taxes and interest, and possibly even penalties. In 2008, when GAO looked at States that regulate paid preparers, we found that returns filed by paid preparers in Oregon, which has the most stringent requirements of any State, were more likely to be accurate than comparable returns filed by preparers in the rest of the country. Given the importance of paid preparers in our voluntary tax system, we are recommending that, if Congress agrees significant preparer errors exist, it should consider granting IRS the authority to regulate unenrolled tax preparers. This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. The Chairman. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. McTigue appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Mr. Cobb, I think you will be next. Mr. McElrath, would you like to add to that? Mr. McElrath. No. I have nothing to add. The Chairman. Very good. Mr. Cobb? STATEMENT OF WILLIAM COBB, PRESIDENT AND CEO, H&R BLOCK, KANSAS CITY, MO Mr. Cobb. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Hatch, and the distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting H&R Block. We are pleased to participate in this important discussion about protecting consumers from incompetent and unethical preparers. As the world's largest consumer tax services provider, competent, ethnical tax return preparation is something we take very seriously. Last year, we filed more than 22 million U.S. individual income tax returns, about 15 million returns in our more than 10,000 offices, and another 7 million through our do- it-yourself software offerings. We know a lot about consumer views on taxes and know what it takes to maintain expertise in this always-changing tax landscape. In order to protect taxpayers from incompetent and unethical tax return preparers, there are two key items that must be addressed: first, minimum standards for tax return preparers, and, second, consistent fraud prevention measures across all tax preparation methods. First, we support legislation that sets standards for professional tax return preparers. The most obvious way to address incompetent and unethical tax return preparers is to establish a set of minimum standards. Standards provide an objective measure for both consumers and tax preparers to measure and monitor the overall competency, expertise, and performance of tax return preparers. This is critical, because the ultimate goal is to help taxpayers file more complete and accurate returns. Equally important is the reduction of both fraudulent tax returns and the improper payment rate of the Earned Income Tax Credit. More than 80 million people file an individual income tax return with the help of a tax return preparer every year. Consumers need an objective way to know that the person they turn to for one of the biggest financial transactions of their year is competent and meets standards necessary to accurately prepare tax returns. Taxpayers themselves agree. A recent national survey that we commissioned found that 9 out of 10 consumers support requiring professional tax preparers to meet minimum training standards. As this initiative moves forward, the U.S. Treasury Department and IRS must leverage the lessons learned from the prior registered tax preparer program and partner with private industry to create an effective and cost-efficient program. The components of the program must include tax preparer registration, demonstrated competency, continuing education, and background screening. At the end of the day, requiring return preparers to meet minimum standards and stay current with the tax code is not about granting the IRS additional authority that it should not have or to advance anti- competitive pursuits. It is about protecting the 60 percent of consumers who get help with their taxes every year. This is why we require our H&R Block tax preparers to meet stringent education and competency standards: 75 hours of tax law and return preparation education, plus 35 hours of skills training in their first year, then annually, another 15 hours of continuing education and 20 hours of skills training. The second key item that must be addressed is implementing consistent fraud prevention measures across all tax preparation methods. The steps designed to prevent EITC fraud in the paid preparer channel are notably absent in the do-it-yourself channel. Specifically, for the 40 percent of taxpayers who do their own taxes using do-it-yourself software, such as H&R Block's, they are not required to provide the same information and documentation to substantiate their eligibility for this refundable credit. Congress must close such obvious gaps not only for EITC, but for all refundable credits. With an EITC improper payment rate persisting at 20 percent or higher, this is an obvious opportunity that can and should be seized immediately. Consumers are not concerned about answering more questions. In the same survey I mentioned before, a significant majority of taxpayers expressed a willingness to do more to help combat tax fraud, such as answering more questions on their returns or even waiting a little longer for their refund. Government, the tax preparers, software developers, and taxpayers each play a significant role in the tax filing process. Taxpayers are willing to do their part as long as it is administered consistently for all. Additionally, this difference in standards creates a loophole for ghost preparers who do not want to comply with the paid preparer requirements. They simply use a do-it-yourself product. IRS should set standards for tax software to ferret out ghost preparers. Before I close, let me take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to acknowledge your interest in streamlining the tax code and the tax filing process. We would be pleased to share our consumer tax expertise on these issues with you and your staff. The Tax Institute at H&R Block, comprised of enrolled agents, tax attorneys, CPAs, and former IRS officials, analyzes proposed legislation and regulations with an eye on how they will affect consumers. And in doing this analysis, the Tax Institute has access to the real world expertise of our 70,000 tax professionals who are on the front line with consumers. In conclusion, we urge Congress to listen to consumers and move to enact minimum standards for return preparers and implement consistent anti-fraud measures for taxpayers. These standards are essential for protecting consumers, combating fraud, and reducing improper payments. Until Congress can enact minimum standards for return preparers, we recommend that Treaury and IRS implement a voluntary certification program as supported by IRS Commissioner Koskinen and the National Taxpayer Advoate. Thank you for the time, and I look forward to working together to implement these common-sense measures. The Chairman. Mr. Cobb, thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cobb appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Ms. Salisbury, welcome. You made a long trek at a busy time of the year, and I know you have some late nights ahead of you, so we really appreciate your coming. STATEMENT OF JANIS SALISBURY, CHAIR, OREGON BOARD OF TAX PRACTITIONERS, OREGON CITY, OR Ms. Salisbury. Thank you. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Hatch, and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Janis Salisbury. I am an IRS enrolled agent and a licensed tax consultant in Oregon. For the past 6 years, I have served the State of Oregon as a member of the Board of Tax Practitioners and have served on that board for the last 2 years as chair. I am pleased to be here to discuss with the committee the actions that Oregon has taken to protect taxpayers from incompetent and unethical tax return preparers, and to recommend that Congress provide the IRS with the authority to require individuals to demonstrate minimum competency in tax return preparation, either by passing a State board examination or for the individual to pass an IRS examination, and then to impose continuing education requirements after passage of such examination. The primary reason Oregon felt it necessary to develop its own paid preparer regulatory program 40 years ago is the same today as it was then. Initial training and registration is essential before anyone can even begin preparing your tax returns. Oregon's track record proves this. In 1972, Oregon determined that people engaging in tax return preparation should be licensed and be required to obtain continuing education relating to the tax return preparer occupation. The Board of Tax Practitioners currently regulates tax return preparers in Oregon. Oregon requires paid preparers who are not already licensed by the State as CPAs or attorneys to obtain a State license to prepare tax returns. To become a licensed tax preparer, a person must have a high school diploma or the equivalent, complete 80 hours of approved qualified education, pass a State-administered examination, and then pay a registration fee at application. Annual renewal by licensees requires proof of at least 30 hours of continuing education. According to a report to this committee prepared by the GAO in August of 2008, Federal tax returns for the year 2001 filed in Oregon were more likely to be accurate than returns filed anywhere in the rest of the country. Specifically, the GAO found that the odds that a return prepared by an Oregon paid preparer was accurate were about 72 percent higher than the odds for a comparable return filed by paid preparers in the rest of the country. Oregon has been a leader in requiring the licensing of tax return preparers for over 40 years, and the results noted by the GAO show the excellent results of Oregon's regulations. Accordingly, the Oregon State Board of Tax Practitioners urges the Congress to enact legislation similar to Oregon's legislation, which would require individuals to demonstrate competency in the preparation of tax returns and satisfy continuing education requirements. We suggest that such competency be demonstrated by passing a written examination approved by a State board of accountancy or a board of law examiners or a State entity, such as the Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners, or by the IRS. The passage of an examination recognized by a State, such as Oregon, to show competency in tax return preparation must be considered to demonstrate tax competency for Federal tax return preparers, in order to recognize efforts that have been undertaken at the State level and to avoid duplicate and unnecessary testing. We commend the Senate Finance Committee for holding this hearing and considering this important legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you, and please let me know if you have any questions. I am very willing to answer. The Chairman. Thank you. That is very helpful, and we will have some questions in a moment. [The prepared statement of Ms. Salisbury appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Professor Barrick? STATEMENT OF JOHN BARRICK, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, PROVO, UT Dr. Barrick. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Hatch, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing. Protecting taxpayers from incompetent and unethical tax return preparers is an important topic. To illustrate the problem, I would like to share a former colleague and classmate's recent experience with a taxpayer who previously received return preparation services from a ghost preparer. A new client comes to visit a CPA and indicates that he has a tax problem. The client never attended college, is a single father, has two young children, ages 4 and 6, and is facing uncertain economic times. During the previous year, he engaged a tax return preparer who claimed that he could get him an $8,000 refund at the cost of $800 or 10 percent of the refund due. The return preparer did not sign the return nor did he provide reliable preparer contact information. As promised, the client did receive an $8,000 refund and began spending it. However, a short time later, the client received an IRS notice denying the three American opportunity credits that were claimed, one for himself and each of his two young children. The money had to be returned. Who was to blame? Both the client and the tax preparer knowingly submitted or had opportunity to know that the return claimed false information. The client is now worse off than before. He owes the full amount of the refund, plus he is out the $800 return preparation fee. The preparer is a ghost, not to be found, $800 richer than before. All of us at this hearing would like to prevent this type of behavior from happening again. But how can we best do that? First, our tax system is both necessary to raise revenue and complex, as has been noted today. With 6.1 billion hours spent complying with the law and the code having over 4 million words and containing 4,600 changes since 2001, this complexity has led to the need for tax return preparers. There are three main problems associated with regulations: the inability to regulate the most unscrupulous and unethical, the inability to impose ethics on return preparers, and the creation of winners and losers within the industry. I firmly believe that the current regulatory framework is insufficient to address these limitations, and I will make several recommendations that the Congress and the IRS could follow to better protect these taxpayers. First, voluntary disclosure. We live in a free society. Let the markets decide. Create incentives for the return preparers to voluntarily register. Attorneys, CPAs, and enrolled agents already do this. If the IRS chooses to endorse or certify a new class of return preparers with only 15 hours of education, the IRS will provide a seal of approval and a false sense of security to taxpayers. I do not recommend this latter approach. Second, eliminate or limit refundable credits. The growth of refundable credits in the income tax system encourages unethical behavior by taxpayers, ghost preparers, and others wishing to defraud the Federal Government. The Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and education credits are refundable. The new credits provided by the Affordable Care Act will double the amount of refundable credits available by the income tax system. Prior research has shown that financial incentives do matter, that current law encourages and creates incentives for fraud. To the unscrupulous and unethical, this is easy money. Third, enforce existing return preparer laws. In 2005, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division stated that the IRS currently has numerous tools available to address return preparer fraud. If the IRS already has ample statutorily authorized tools, why do they need regulations to address this issue? Encourage the IRS to use the existing tools. Fourth, educate taxpayers. Taxpayers are ultimately responsible for their returns. They have an obligation to put forth a good effort. If something promised to you by anyone sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Buyers beware. Taxpayer education can be an effective tool that the IRS has historically used successfully. In conclusion, the tax law is large and complex. For these reasons, the majority of taxpayers seek out return preparers to help them. But there are ghosts that attempt to defraud the income tax system. Rather than regulate, please take the previous steps that I have mentioned. The most important protection for taxpayers would be a simpler income tax system, as suggested by Chairman Wyden today. I would encourage the committee to continue to pursue meaningful reform. Thank you for giving me the time and opportunity to speak. The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Barrick. [The prepared statement of Dr. Barrick appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Ms. Wu? STATEMENT OF CHI CHI WU, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, BOSTON, MA Ms. Wu. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Hatch, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today. My name is Chi Chi Wu. I am a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the need to protect taxpayers from incompetent and unethical tax preparers. This is a consumer protection issue, as well as a revenue protection issue. Simply put, there needs to be licensing and competency standards for paid tax preparers. Either Congress needs to give IRS the authority, or the States need to enact such laws. Indeed, mindful of the difficulty in getting Federal legislation passed, we at NCLC have issued a model act to encourage States to adopt such laws. I have worked at the intersection of taxpayer and consumer rights for over a decade. When I began this work, I assumed, as do many Americans, that tax preparers were licensed professionals with certain educational credentials. After all, the tax return is the most important financial transaction during the year for many Americans, and it would only make sense that the preparers in whom consumers place their trust and their sensitive financial information would be required to take some courses and pass a test. To my surprise, the exact opposite was true. Preparers are essentially unregulated in 46 States. Contrast this with other professions that do require licensing in all or most States, such as hairdressers or landscape architects. The lack of regulation for tax preparers has resulted in an environment that breeds incompetence and fraud. One indication is the existence of fringe preparers, tax preparation offered by businesses such as payday lenders, pawn shops, check cashers, used car dealers, jewelry shops, even liquor stores and a ``rent-a-wheel'' business. This, of course, raises questions. How accurate are tax returns prepared by used car dealers? One can imagine that the incentive for accuracy might take a back seat to the desire to sell a car by using a tax refund as a down payment. Unfortunately, the problems go beyond that. In 2008, we conducted mystery shopper testing, the original purpose of which was to investigate disclosures concerning refund anticipation loans. To our surprise, what we found were serious tax errors and fraud in four out of the 17 tests we conducted, or nearly 25 percent. One example involved a preparer who did not know how to handle a Form 1099-D. To quote, ``The preparer said that there was a problem she did not know how to handle. The problem was that there was a $5,000''--that is a fictional number--``dividend that we must pay taxes on. With the dividend, our return would only return $100. If she were to ignore it, then we would receive $3,000 in returns. She then called her `tax people,' who told her we do not need to report the dividend and just ignore it.'' In 2010, we conducted another round of testing and found incompetence and fraud in six out of 19 tests, or about 30 percent. One example involved a preparer who, when realizing the tester would only receive a $1,000 refund and would owe State taxes, began making up deductions. To quote, ``The tester does not attend church, but the preparer included a $2,000 church donation. The preparer also deducted the cost of work clothes and laundry, even showed the tester that her Federal refund would increase to $3,000 from about $1,000. The preparer also tried to convince the tester to make up a dependent, as she does not have any, showing her that her refund would go to $5,000 if she did. The preparer also tried to qualify her for the EITC, even though she is not eligible. Finally, the tax preparer deducted $400 in 2008 tax preparation costs, even after the tester told the preparer she did not pay for tax preparation last year.'' Unfortunately, these test results are not isolated and unique. Similar testing, including the testing announced by the GAO today, has found equal or greater levels of fraud or incompetence. Looking at the totality, we can see these problems are not limited to a handful of bad apples. Thus, bringing enforcement actions on a one-by-one basis is simply inadequate. For example, a recent lawsuit by the Department of Justice against Instant Tax Service might be considered a success because it shut down that chain, but it probably cost the government tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff time by IRS personnel and DOJ lawyers. There are simply not enough resources to go after all the bad actors. Furthermore, we disagree with the notion that preparer regulation could harm taxpayers because preparers will raise their fee to cover the cost of education and testing. First, the interest of consumers in obtaining competent, accurate, and ethical tax preparation far outweighs any increased marginal cost. After all, an erroneous return could put the taxpayer at risk of an IRS audit or even criminal sanctions. Second, we believe that preparer regulation will not actually even create significantly greater costs. Preparer compliance costs are minimal. For example, prior to the Loving decision, the IRS had planned to charge less than $120 for the exam. These costs are dwarfed by the hundreds of dollars in fees that some paid preparers charge for a single return, as we heard from the GAO today, and as our testing revealed--$400 to $500 in somes cases. And the DOJ's lawsuit against Instant Tax Service revealed that that chain typically charged about $550 for as little as 15 minutes worth of work. Preparer regulation has more potential to lower costs than increase them by improving transparency and reducing abuses. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Wu. [The prepared statement of Ms. Wu appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. Mr. Alban, welcome. STATEMENT OF DAN ALBAN, ATTORNEY, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, ARLINGTON, VA Mr. Alban. Thank you, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch, and other members of the committee. Congress should not give the IRS additional power over tax preparers by forcing them to get an IRS license before they can assist taxpayers with their tax returns. Tax preparers are already regulated by numerous Federal statutory requirements imposing both civil and criminal penalties for everything from failing to keep a list of the returns they prepared for the past 3 years to actual tax fraud. Tax preparers are also required to register with the IRS to obtain an individualized number, known as a PTIN, that they must include on every return they prepare, so that the IRS can track and analyze their returns. These tools already provide the IRS with what it needs to identify, track, and penalize the few bad apples without unnecessarily burdening the vast majority of law-abiding preparers. I have three main critiques of preparer licensing as bad public policy, followed by a few recommended solutions that are superior to licensing. First, preparer licensing is protectionist and anticompetitive. Rather than protecting consumers, licensing regulations can protect large incumbents and industry insiders from competition, by erecting costly barriers to entry. Indeed, several financial analysts have concluded that the largest firms, such as H&R Block, stand to benefit the most from licensing preparers. Unsurprisingly, the IRS licensing regulations were a product of lobbying by powerful special interests. H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and Intuit, the makers of TurboTax, all actively supported licensing, while other industry insiders, such as the American Institute of CPAs, obtained special exemptions for their members. Former H&R Block CEO Mark Ernst even oversaw the drafting of the regulations at IRS. Of course, mom-and-pop preparers generally do not have the resources to send lobbyists to Washington, DC to represent their interests. At the same time, licensing burdens usually fall hardest on the little guys who do not have the same financial resources and cannot benefit from economies of scale. Licensing was expected to push out tens of thousands of independent preparers, possibly as much as 10 percent to 20 percent of all preparers. Most of those who would have been put out of business were seasonal mom-and-pop preparers, like my client, 81-year-old Elmer Kilian, of Eagle, WI, who hangs a shingle outside his house every tax season and has been preparing tax returns for over 30 years on his dining room table. Second, consumers would be harmed by preparer licensing, which raises prices and reduces choices. Licensing reduces competition, which is bad for consumers. Between reduced competition and increased regulatory compliance costs, licensing is expected to artificially drive up the prices consumers pay for tax preparation. Licensing also reduces consumer choices and interferes with consumer autonomy over personal finances. Many taxpayers will not only be left with fewer options, but will be forced to pick a new preparer if licensing drives their current preparer out of business. Instead, taxpayers, not the IRS, should be the ones who get to decide who prepares their taxes. Licensing may also result in other unintended consequences that harm consumers. Higher prices and fewer choices may push unqualified taxpayers to prepare their own returns. It will also likely boost the number of unregistered ghost preparers who do not sign the returns they prepare and are, thus, very difficult for the IRS to monitor. Third, preparer licensing offers a false promise and fails to deliver. As an initial matter, licensing regulations cannot do much about fraud prevention that is not already achieved by the PTIN registration combined with existing criminal penalties. Dishonest preparers can take exams and sit through continuing education courses just as well as honest preparers. Moreover, licensing and IRS-mandated training are largely ineffective. For example, IRS-trained and certified preparers in the VITA volunteer program were found by TIGTA to have a 61- percent error rate in 2011. Similarly high error rates have been found over the years in TIGTA studies of IRS employees answering just a single tax question. Likewise, an IRS study found that licensed California preparers had the third-highest error rates in the country for 2 years in a row, despite the State's long-standing licensing program. That is because the real problem is not competency, but tax code complexity. As the National Taxpayer Advocate explained last May, tax code complexity almost guarantees that every return has an error in it, some inadvertent, some intentional. Thus, licensing will not prevent tax preparers from making errors. It will simply limit who is licensed to make those errors. Licensing should be rejected because better solutions for these problems already exist. First, voluntary certification is far superior to mandatory licensing. It allows both consumers and preparers to decide if they value certification and permits them to opt in or opt out. Second, the best way to reduce errors is to reduce complexity. Simplify the tax code to reduce error rates. And, third, the IRS already has the legal and technical tools it needs to identify, track, and penalizes the few bad apples. Enforcement of these existing laws is far preferable because, unlike licensing, it does not impose substantial costs on the vast majority of law-abiding tax preparers. Thank you. The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Alban. And all of you have been very helpful. [The prepared statement of Mr. Alban appears in the appendix.] The Chairman. I want to see what I can do to draw out some key questions. Mr. Alban, as I understand it, is particularly concerned about the small practitioner, and I certainly understand why small businesses can be frustrated with needless government red tape and bureaucracy. My understanding, however, here, Ms. Salisbury, is that you are a small practitioner. Are there not two practitioners at your firm? Ms. Salisbury. Yes. There are a total of four. Two are CPAs and two are licensed tax consultants. The Chairman. So I think that would certainly qualify you as a small practitioner. Do you all feel, apropos of Mr. Alban's point, that somehow this disadvantages you against Mr. Cobb? Because it looks to me like both of you passed a competency test. That does not look to me like a disadvantage to a small practitioner. Ms. Salisbury. Well, the numbers prove it is not in Oregon and in California. In Oregon, with our licensing, and as recently as 2011--these are the most recent facts I have-- nearly 84 percent of the practitioners in Oregon are not employed by H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, or Liberty Tax Service, the three big companies in Oregon. And in California, it is nearly 89 percent. So it disproves that small practitioners will be affected, and both of those States have some form of registration for practitioners. Mr. Cobb. Mr. Chairman, if I may add, quickly, forty percent of our system is small business people. We have 1,670 franchisees, many of whom are like Ms. Salisbury, have one or two offices, and really they are small businesses. The Chairman. So now that we have at least addressed, to some extent, this question of whether small practitioners are disadvantaged by having some minimum standards, I want to ask you, Ms. Salisbury--we have had our system for decades, and we Oregonians are pretty outspoken souls. I can tell you, I have been on the Finance Committee now since 2005, and I have not had anybody who is a practitioner come and say, ``Oh, my goodness, Ron, it is going to be bureaucratic water torture if we have the kind of thing that you have in Oregon.'' We pass a competency test. We undertake 30 hours per year of continuing education, audit preparation, and sanctions for those who are not competent. We have done this for decades. Nobody is marching in the streets, nobody is picketing. There is no sign of unhappiness. Is that a fair appraisal of what we have had? And then, of course, the results have been documented by the Government Accountability Office, which you have referred to as well. We have superior results with this kind of system, and I think Oregonians would agree that appropriate oversight is missing today, which is the minimum competency standard. Is that a fair assessment? Ms. Salisbury. Very much so, very fair. The Chairman. What lessons can the IRS learn from Oregon's experience over these decades? I heard discussion from Mr. Alban about the cost. I have not heard complaints about Oregon's cost or things of this nature. Are there other lessons here from the standpoint of Oregon's experience for the IRS? Ms. Salisbury. Well, the costs in Oregon are very affordable. Probably the most expensive cost is education, but because we require education, we have a lot of resources in the State that provide cost-effective education. Rather than spending $200 or $300 or $400 for a day of education, you can get education through other resources, not as expensive. So education is not an issue. The registration fees are very affordable for even a small business. I had a larger business in years past and paid those fees for my employees and still managed to keep my head above water with the business. So it is not a concern. We have wondered why it has taken the Nation so long to be---- The Chairman. We are always too logical for the rest of the country. One other question, if I might, for you, Mr. McTigue. One of the things that concerns me about some of these questions with respect to having minimum competence and the like is, those who are opposed say we already have these tough standards, and it seems to me what you all have found is that that is not the case. What we basically have is reactive, after the fact, when the harm is done to people who just want to get every single dollar back that they are owed. Is that a fair characterization? Mr. McTigue. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is a fair characterization. As you stated, the majority of tools and actions that the IRS can take are after the fact, after the refunds have gone out, after the paid preparer has disappeared in some cases, and it is the taxpayer who is left explaining, dealing with the back taxes, having to pay back interest and penalties, whereas up-front regulation has the potential to prevent some of these return errors. The Chairman. My time has expired. I just appreciate the fact that you have done this second independent inquiry. People can question the value of one independent inquiry. I would not, because I have watched the professionalism of your office over the years, but you have now found it twice. I also know, because you are quite scrupulous in documenting the facts, you said, ``Look, we have looked at 19 sites,'' but as you know, there have been other analyses which are pretty much in line with yours. So we have a lot of heavy lifting to do to fix this, and we are going to be working with all of you. Senator Hatch? Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of you for being here. Each of you has presented us with the various perspectives that I think will benefit the committee and hopefully the IRS as well. Dr. Barrick, let me just ask you a question. Credentialed preparers, such as attorneys, CPAs, and enrolled agents, have long been regulated and subject to professional standards of competence and ethical conduct. Is there clear evidence that returns prepared by these credentialed preparers are less prone to error than those returns that are prepared by now- unregulated preparers or even ghost preparers? Dr. Barrick. I am unaware of specific evidence that shows that credentialed preparers in those specifically mentioned groups are fundamentally different. However, I do not have full access to the data that the GAO or TIGTA or others have used. As an academic, though, I am always willing to help them design more statistically reliable and more educated studies examining these important questions. Senator Hatch. Thank you. Mr. McTigue, let me ask you this. Software developments and increasing computer literacy have made it easier for many people to prepare and, of course, file their own tax returns. In fact, the percentage of self-prepared returns has been increasing in recent years. Is this trend one that is improving or degrading the overall quality of tax compliance? Mr. McTigue. Senator Hatch, that is an issue that we did not look at in this study. But when we did look at data from IRS's national research program database on error rates for preparer-filed returns versus self-prepared returns, and we did see a significant difference. Returns prepared by paid preparers had an error rate of 60 percent versus 50 percent for self-prepared returns. Senator Hatch. Let me throw this one out. When a tax filer stops using the services of a paid preparer and instead uses software to self-prepare their own return, do we know or have any statistics or any evidence--do we know what happens to the quality of their tax filings? Mr. McTigue. The data that IRS collects through random audits--the most recent national research program audit covered tax years 2006 through 2009--estimates error rates for both paid preparers and self-prepared returns, both in the aggregate and, also, for specific tax issues or line items. For example, for the Earned Income Tax Credit, the estimates showed that returns prepared by paid preparers had an error rate of 51 percent versus 44 percent for self-prepared returns. Senator Hatch. Now, some have expressed concern that regulation will drive unethical preparers underground, turning them into what have been referred to here as ghost preparers who are very difficult to discover and shut down. How big is this problem of ghost preparers, and is the problem getting worse? What is being done to address that particular problem? Mr. McTigue. I am not aware of any data that exists, either IRS data or otherwise, that goes to the scope of that problem. Again, GAO feels that some basic level of regulation can help provide consumers with assurance that the people whom they are using to prepare their tax returns meet certain qualifications, and they have a certain level of assurance that their tax returns will be as compliant as they expect. Senator Hatch. Well, I want to thank all of you. H&R Block certainly does a great job, as do others. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to put this Intuit letter into the record. The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered. [The letter appears in the appendix on p. 129.] Senator Hatch. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. The Chairman. Senator Casey? Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have time for one question, and I know the panel will not necessarily be upset about that. But, Mr. Cobb, I wanted to ask you a question that relates to your testimony. On page 12, you summarize what the so-called VITA folks have to go through, the Voluntary Income Tax Assistance folks, in their minimum standards. We all would agree, I think, that that is especially important. Those kinds of standards are especially important to vulnerable populations, folks who are easily misled or often isolated and who have to depend upon someone whom they come into contact with who might mislead them. I would assume that when we talk about kind of basic minimum standards here, that you would hope that everyone would have an opportunity to be served by an individual who goes through the minimum standards that would be comparable to your Appendix D, which were the requirements that these so-called volunteer tax preparers go through. Is that generally accurate? Mr. Cobb. Yes. That is generally accurate, Senator. For our people, we have continuing education every year. For people who start out wanting to be a tax preparer for us, it is over 100 hours of training, and 75 hours of it is income tax training, including ethical training. We also do skills training. For continuing education, we average around 35 hours--15 hours of income tax training plus 20 hours of skills training. For anyone, even if you have been a tax preparer for 30 years, you have to come in and get that. And we can adjust the hours, depending upon what the statute is. But, generally, we agree with your point. Senator Casey. And what is set forth in this appendix, these requirements that you just outlined, you would think that those would be the best direction that the Federal Government should move in? In other words, how do you effectuate this as a matter of national policy for all taxpayers to benefit from? Mr. Cobb. And again, I think Ms. Salisbury--I think we have a great model. The chairman has certainly pointed out with pride what Oregon does. I think that is a model to be built off of. I think the research we have done shows that this is--you have heard all day about fraud and various cases that people have cited. I think that we have a standard which has been implemented for a number of years in Oregon. We have the test in the market, if you will. We do a lot of training. So I think the outline is there to put the national policy in place. Plus, you have clients, consumers, who in our research are saying, ``Of course, I want to know that the person sitting across from me has certain standards.'' Usually, people in my position are not in front of a committee like this asking for more regulation. I do not imagine you would find that very often. What we want is a level playing field. What we want to do is protect consumers; this is not about anticompetitive behavior. This is about going up against people who are just looking out for themselves. You have heard the horror stories about tax preparers in a furniture store or somewhere else saying, ``How big is your refund,'' to make loans to people based on that amount. We do not do refund anticipation loans. We just want to clean up this industry. Senator Casey. Thank you very much. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Casey. I want to thank all of our witnesses for their participation. Members of the committee are going to have until the close of business on Friday, April 11 to submit questions for the record. I just want to make a short statement and then give the last word to Senator Hatch on this topic. Last week, in this room, on a bipartisan basis, our committee committed to dealing with what are called the tax extenders. There are a number of provisions that expired, that will expire this year and next year, and we indicated this was going to be the last time this committee did this. We called the proposal the EXPIRE Act because it was meant to expire. That is it, turn the lights out on it. So really, with this hearing, we begin the effort at overhauling the tax system and particularly making it simpler, doing it in a bipartisan way, so that Americans this time of year do not feel like they are going through bureaucratic water torture to comply with the tax rules. You have given us some very helpful suggestions here. Senator Hatch and I will be working together on this in a bipartisan way. The challenge is to figure out, with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the appropriate oversight of preparers. The two of us are going to talk about it, and then we will inform members of our proposal. But, clearly, what we have learned today, starting with the GAO, is this problem persists. You have documented it a second time. It is consistent not just with your analyses, but with others. Nina Olson, the independent Taxpayer Advocate, said not only does the problem exist now, but there are incentives for additional opportunities for the unscrupulous--who are, fortunately, a minority--to fleece our people, and very often those are the most vulnerable, those are the low-income. So that ought to concern us. Then, Ms. Salisbury, we are really glad that you came, because you have shown once again that Oregonians know that there is a better way. We do not just sit around and say, ``Oh, this is wrong, and that is wrong.'' We roll up our sleeves, and we come up with solutions. So you all have been very helpful to us, and I just want you to know I am going to work very closely with Senator Hatch on comprehensive tax reform, and on appropriate oversight with respect to tax preparers. I want to give my friend and colleague the last word here. Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to all of you for being here, and all I can say is that, the more I look into this, the more I worry about the problems that are involved. On the other hand, there are a lot of good people in this industry who are trying to do what is right and who do do what is right. So we have to look at this very carefully. I do not want another great big bureaucratic institution to make it even more expensive to file tax returns. I have certain feelings for your libertarian approach toward tax preparers as well. So I am grateful that you all took time to come and see us here, helping us to understand this better, and hopefully you will continue to weigh in and give us your ideas on how we might do a better job here. Thanks so much. The Chairman. The committee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] A P P E N D I X Additional Material Submitted for the Record ----------Communications ----------
![]()
![]()