[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 55 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2394-S2398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal):
  S. 2286. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 
certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State 
of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lower 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Act. I first 
would like to thank my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, for joining me as 
a cosponsor of this legislation, and also wish to thank Congressman 
Chris Murphy, who recently introduced an identical bill in the House.
  My work to preserve and protect the Farmington River dates back many 
years, and holds a special place in my heart. In 1993 and 1994, in my 
first term in office, I worked with Congresswoman Nancy Johnson to 
introduce and pass legislation that added 14 miles of the Upper 
Farmington River, or the west branch of the river, to the National Wild 
and Scenic River System, becoming Connecticut's first addition to the 
system. In 2006, I again had the privilege of working with Rep. Johnson 
and Sen. Chris Dodd to introduce and pass the Lower Farmington River 
and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act, which authorized a 
study of the Lower Farmington, or the east branch of the river. Now 
complete, the study found that the Lower Farmington River and Salmon 
Brook possess outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values. I 
am honored to return to the Senate floor today to introduce this 
legislation, which would add the Lower Farmington River and Salmon 
Brook to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System in order to preserve the 
extraordinary ecological and recreational values it brings to our 
state.
  Passing through ten towns in northwestern Connecticut, the Lower 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook is home to extensive wetlands, unique 
geology, and stunning vistas. The pristine and unique qualities of this 
river system and the surrounding landscape provide visitors and 
residents alike, a special location for hiking, paddling, and fishing. 
This unspoiled natural retreat has a rich history that is only rivaled 
by its vibrant biodiversity. Archeologists have revealed that sites 
surrounding the river date back over 11,000 years. The timeline that 
has been discovered chronicles important Native American development as 
well as the birth and growth of our nation. From

[[Page S2395]]

the prehistoric campsites, to the Underground Railroad network, and 
burgeoning manufacturing that sent goods to markets across the world, 
the river and its banks are an essential component of our nation's 
history.
  But the importance of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook 
goes beyond its contribution to our nation's history. Among the 
country's most biologically diverse ecosystem, the river is home to 30 
species of finfish, 105 bird species, and the only river in New England 
that is home to all 12 of the freshwater mussel species native to the 
region, one of which is a federally listed endangered species. Since 
prehistory the rich biodiversity has also benefited agriculture along 
the banks of this river system. Driven by the unique qualities of the 
soil, Native Americans, colonists and Connecticut residents have 
harvested tobacco that is known the world over.
  Today, outdoor recreationists visit the Lower Farmington River and 
Salmon Brook in increasing numbers. As Americans return to nature, it 
is essential that policies are in place which enhances stewardship and 
conservation in Connecticut and across the nation. Unchecked 
development threatens to erode biodiversity, destroy unprotected 
historic sites, and consume priceless natural resources. In order to 
combat such destruction we must have the foresight to ensure that 
treasures such as the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook remain 
unspoiled for today's recreational users as well as tomorrow's.
  I thank Congressman Murphy, all the members of the Study Committee, 
and especially the Farmington River Watershed Association and its 
Executive Director, Eileen Fielding, for working with me to advance the 
Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook's status within the National 
Wild & Scenic Rivers System. I reaffirm my strong support today for the 
river's protection, and I look forward to working cooperatively with my 
colleagues in making it happen.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
        Roberts):
  S. 2289. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
with respect to pediatric provisions; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Alexander, 
Murray, and Roberts in introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals and 
Devices for Children Act, BPDCA. This legislation will ensure that 
children are prioritized in the drug development process, as well as 
continue the increase in the number and quality of medical devices 
developed for use in children. I am particularly pleased that this bill 
has the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the 
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
  Indeed, drugs and devices work differently in children than in 
adults, and consequently, must be studied specifically for use in 
children. However, due to the fact that pediatric trials can be costly, 
take several years, and offer less of a return on investment, drug 
companies weren't initiating these trials. As a result, nearly 80 
percent of drugs were used off-label in children.
  This alarming statistic garnered the attention of pediatricians, 
medical experts, families, and ultimately, Congress. In 1997, Congress 
provided pharmaceutical companies with an incentive to invest in 
pediatric research through the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, 
BPCA. In 2003, Congress passed the Pediatric Research Equity Act to 
begin requiring pharmaceutical companies to engage in these studies. 
Since the enactment of these laws, 426 drug labels have been revised 
with important pediatric information and there has been a decline in 
the number of drugs used off-label in children from 80 to 50 percent.
  However, these laws will expire on October 1 unless Congress passes 
legislation to renew them. The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for 
Children Act would ensure that these laws are never at risk of expiring 
again. Laws that examine the safety and effectiveness of drugs and 
devices in adults are permanent. Children should have the same 
assurances. By making these laws permanent, pharmaceutical companies 
will also gain the certainty they need to continue wisely investing in 
these studies.
  In making these laws permanent, we must not miss an opportunity to 
improve their benefits for children to ensure that more robust and 
timely information about the use of drugs and devices can guide 
clinical care. This legislation does just that.
  First, it would ensure pediatric studies are planned earlier in the 
drug development process. Currently, pediatric study plans can be 
submitted to the FDA when a company submits its new drug application. 
This can be a very stressful time for a company and, as such, pediatric 
study plans are often left to the last minute. This has traditionally 
resulted in insufficient and inappropriate study plans, as well as 
delays of important pediatric data. Our legislation would require 
companies to submit a more robust pediatric study plan at the end of 
phase two in the drug development process. By this time in the process, 
a company already has performed the requisite clinical trial or trials 
in adults and has a better understanding of a drug's safety and 
efficacy, as well as dosing requirements. Moreover, experts at the FDA 
initially tried to require companies to submit a pediatric study plan 
at this time in the drug development process in a regulation that was 
struck down by the courts. However, the rationale and justification 
behind the regulation helped inform the drafting of this legislation 
and led us to believe that companies should submit their initial 
pediatric study plan to the FDA at the end of phase two.
  The legislation would also ensure that pediatric studies are actually 
completed. An alarming 78 percent of pediatric studies that were 
scheduled to be completed by September 2007 are currently late or were 
submitted late. While it is appropriate for some studies to take longer 
than expected and we wouldn't want a pediatric study to hold up the 
approval of a drug for use in adults it is unacceptable for companies 
to fail to complete pediatric studies altogether. Our bill would give 
the FDA the authority to distinguish between reasonable and 
unreasonable delays in pediatric studies and provide the agency with 
critical enforcement tools to ensure required pediatric studies are 
completed. This legislation would also provide the FDA with the ability 
to better track the progress of studies and assist with any 
complications.
  The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act also responds 
to the need for the development of pediatric medical devices in 
children, which can lag five to ten years behind those manufactured for 
adults. The pediatric profit allowance for Humanitarian Use Devices has 
proven to be an effective incentive for the development of new medical 
devices that are designed specifically for the needs of children. Our 
bill would continue this important policy. It would also reauthorize 
the Pediatric Device Consortia, which in just two and a half years, has 
assisted in advancing the development of 135 proposed pediatric medical 
devices and helped get life-saving and life-improving pediatric devices 
to the patients that need them.
  This legislation is critical for children's health. It will help give 
parents peace of mind that when their doctor prescribes a medication or 
recommends a medical device for their kids, it is proven safe and 
effective for specific use in children.
  It is my understanding that Chairman Harkin will be including this 
legislation as part of a broader initiative that the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee will soon be considering focused on 
improving drugs and devices. I look forward to working with Senators 
Alexander, Murray, and Roberts, as well as the Chairman and others on 
moving this bill forward before the October deadline.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. 
        Heller):
  S. 2291. A bill to provide a taxpayer bill of rights for small 
businesses; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Business 
Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2012, SBTBOR. I am very pleased that 
Senators Snowe, Hutchison, and Heller are cosponsors of this taxpayer-
friendly legislation.

[[Page S2396]]

  As Americans across the country race to meet today's deadline to 
complete their federal tax return, it is important to note that their 
tax burden is more than just the amount of tax paid to the federal 
government. Taxpayers also bear the burden of the cost of complying 
with the tax code. Analysts predict that taxpayers will spend over $350 
billion this year alone to comply with the tax code. In addition, 
according to a survey by the National Small Business Association, over 
half of the respondents reported that they spend more than 40 hours a 
year dealing with federal taxes and spend more than $5,000 each year 
just on the administration of federal taxes. In addition, a dispute 
over a complex tax code with the IRS can become an expensive endeavor 
for small businesses, who have limited resources to fight off frivolous 
IRS claims. With the passage of the 2010 health care act, this burden 
is expected to increase in the future. At a time when job creation 
remains weak, small businesses should be spending their time and 
resources creating jobs, not cutting through miles of burdensome IRS 
red tape. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights seeks to mitigate 
this problem. It would ensure that small businesses spend less time 
dealing with the IRS and more time creating jobs.
  The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights, among other things, 
provides more protections and safeguards for small businesses during 
administrative procedures with the IRS. It would: lower the compliance 
burden on small business taxpayers; strengthen safeguards against IRS 
overreach; increase taxpayer compensation for IRS abuses and; improve 
taxpayer access to the court system. Amid the weakest economic recovery 
since World War II, American job creators urgently need such relief.
  The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will reduce the 
compliance and administrative burdens faced by small business taxpayers 
when it comes to dealing with the IRS. The bill provides an alternative 
dispute resolution procedure through which a small business taxpayer 
may be able to request arbitration with an independent, neutral third 
party not employed by the IRS. In addition, the bill will make more 
small businesses eligible to recoup attorney's fees when a court finds 
that the IRS's action taken against a taxpayer is not substantially 
justified.
  The legislation also reinforces the independent nature of the IRS 
Appeals Office by prohibiting it from discussing the merits of a 
taxpayer's case with any other department at the IRS, unless the 
taxpayer is afforded an opportunity to participate. Second, the bill 
will prevent an Appeals Officer from raising a new issue that was not 
initially raised by the IRS in the examination process. The SBTBOR 
would help to ensure the Appeals Office remains a neutral entity that 
effectively facilitates the taxpayer's appeals process.
  The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will make the IRS more 
accountable to taxpayers by increasing the amount of damages taxpayers 
may receive for any collection action the IRS takes against them that 
is reckless, or by reason of negligence disregards the law or its 
regulations. Second, it increases the amount of damages taxpayers may 
be awarded when the IRS improperly discloses their tax returns and tax 
information. Third, the bill raises the monetary penalty on IRS 
employees who commit certain unlawful acts or disclose taxpayer 
information.
  Finally, the legislation will improve taxpayer access to the Tax 
Court by expanding the role of the current ``small tax case'' 
procedure--an informal and efficient method for resolving disputes 
before the Tax Court--to include a wider variety of cases. The bill 
will permit taxpayers to obtain judicial review from the Tax Court when 
the IRS fails to act on their claim for interest abatement due to an 
error or delay by the IRS. Taxpayers whose property has been wrongly 
seized to satisfy a tax debt will have more time to claim relief and 
bring a civil suit against the IRS. It also makes procedural 
improvements for taxpayers who request innocent spouse relief. By 
requesting innocent spouse relief, taxpayers can be relieved of the 
responsibility for paying tax, interest, and penalties if their spouse 
improperly reported items or omitted items on their tax return.
  Last week, I held an event in Houston, Texas, where I announced my 
intention to introduce the Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act. 
The event was held at the headquarters of Forge USA, which is a family-
owned, medium-sized open-die forging business. Forging is a process 
involving the shaping of heated metal parts in which the metal is never 
completely confined or restrained in the dies. Forge USA has 215 
employees and provides high-quality custom forged products for a 
variety of industries, with about 70 percent of its product going to 
the oil and gas industry. This is what the owners of Forge USA said 
about the legislation: ``Senator Cornyn's efforts to improve the rights 
of small businesses will mean that business owners will be able to 
spend more time growing their businesses and hiring more workers and 
hopefully less time talking to the tax man.'' I am grateful for the 
support of a small business like Forge USA. This legislation is also 
supported by the Texas Association of Business, U.S. Hispanic Chamber 
of Commerce, and the National Taxpayers Union, among others.
  Small business owners face an especially crushing burden of 
paperwork, but they lack the key financial and legal resources that 
multinational corporations do when dealing with the tax code and the 
IRS. This legislation will provide relief for small businesses and will 
allow small businesses to spend more time expanding their business and 
creating jobs and less time dealing with the IRS.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a letter of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2291

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Small 
     Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2012''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Modification of standards for awarding of costs and certain 
              fees.
Sec. 3. Civil damages allowed for reckless or intentional disregard of 
              internal revenue laws.
Sec. 4. Modifications relating to certain offenses by officers and 
              employees in connection with revenue laws.
Sec. 5. Modifications relating to civil damages for unauthorized 
              inspection or disclosure of returns and return 
              information.
Sec. 6. Interest abatement reviews.
Sec. 7. Ban on ex parte discussions.
Sec. 8. Alternative dispute resolution procedures.
Sec. 9. Extension of time for contesting IRS levy.
Sec. 10. Waiver of installment agreement fee.
Sec. 11. Suspension of running of period for filing petition of spousal 
              relief and collection cases.
Sec. 12. Venue for appeal of spousal relief and collection cases.
Sec. 13. Increase in monetary penalties for certain unauthorized 
              disclosures of information.
Sec. 14. De novo tax court review of claims for equitable innocent 
              spouse relief.
Sec. 15. Ban on raising new issues on appeal.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS FOR AWARDING OF COSTS AND 
                   CERTAIN FEES.

       (a) Small Businesses Eligible Without Regard to Net 
     Worth.--Subparagraph (D) of section 7430(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' 
     at the end of clause (i), by striking the period at the end 
     of clause (ii) and inserting ``and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) in the case of an eligible small business, the net 
     worth limitation in clause (ii) of such section shall not 
     apply.''.
       (b) Eligible Small Business.--Paragraph (4) of section 
     7430(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) Eligible small business.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (D)(iii), the term `eligible small business' 
     means, with respect to any proceeding commenced in a taxable 
     year--
       ``(i) a corporation the stock of which is not publicly 
     traded,
       ``(ii) a partnership, or
       ``(iii) a sole proprietorship,

     if the average annual gross receipts of such corporation, 
     partnership, or sole proprietorship for the 3-taxable-year 
     period preceding such taxable year does not exceed 
     $50,000,000.

[[Page S2397]]

     For purposes of applying the test under the preceding 
     sentence, rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (2) and 
     (3) of section 448(c) shall apply.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to proceedings commenced after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. CIVIL DAMAGES ALLOWED FOR RECKLESS OR INTENTIONAL 
                   DISREGARD OF INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS.

       (a) Increase in Amount of Damages.--Section 7433(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``$1,000,000 ($100,000, in the case of negligence)'' and 
     inserting ``$3,000,000 ($300,000, in the case of 
     negligence)''.
       (b) Extension of Time to Bring Action.--Section 7433(d)(3) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``2 years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to actions of employees of the Internal Revenue 
     Service after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. MODIFICATIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN OFFENSES BY 
                   OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   REVENUE LAWS.

       (a) Increase in Penalty.--Section 7214 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$10,000'' in subsection (a) and inserting 
     ``$25,000'', and
       (2) by striking ``$5,000'' in subsection (b) and inserting 
     ``$10,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. MODIFICATIONS RELATING TO CIVIL DAMAGES FOR 
                   UNAUTHORIZED INSPECTION OR DISCLOSURE OF 
                   RETURNS AND RETURN INFORMATION.

       (a) Increase in Amount of Damages.--Subparagraph (A) of 
     section 7431(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to inspections and disclosure occurring on and 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. INTEREST ABATEMENT REVIEWS.

       (a) Filing Period for Interest Abatement Cases.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (h) of section 6404 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Review of Denial'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``Judicial Review'', and
       (B) by striking `` `if such action is brought' '' and all 
     that follows in paragraph (1) and inserting ``if such action 
     is brought--
       ``(A) at any time after the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date of the mailing of the Secretary's final 
     determination not to abate such interest, or
       ``(ii) the date which is 180 days after the date of the 
     filing with the Secretary (in such form as the Secretary may 
     prescribe) of a claim for abatement under this section, and
       ``(B) not later than the date which is 180 days after the 
     date described in subparagraph (A)(i).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to claims for abatement of interest filed with 
     the Secretary after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Small Tax Case Election for Interest Abatement Cases.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (f) of section 7463 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1),
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``, and'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) a petition to the Tax court under section 6404(h) in 
     which the amount of interest abatement sought does not exceed 
     $50,000.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to--
       (A) cases pending as of the day after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and
       (B) cases commenced after such date of enactment.

     SEC. 7. BAN ON EX PARTE DISCUSSIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(a)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 
     1998, the Internal Revenue Service shall prohibit any ex 
     parte communications between officers in the Internal Revenue 
     Service Office of Appeals and other Internal Revenue Service 
     employees with respect to any matter pending before such 
     officers.
       (b) Termination of Employment for Misconduct.--Subject to 
     subsection (c), the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall 
     terminate the employment of any employee of the Internal 
     Revenue Service if there is a final administrative or 
     judicial determination that such employee committed any act 
     or omission prohibited under subsection (a) in the 
     performance of the employee's official duties. Such 
     termination shall be a removal for cause on charges of 
     misconduct.
       (c) Determination of Commissioner.--
       (1) In general.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue may 
     take a personnel action other than termination for an act 
     prohibited under subsection (a).
       (2) Discretion.--The exercise of authority under paragraph 
     (1) shall be at the sole discretion of the Commissioner of 
     Internal Revenue and may not be delegated to any other 
     officer. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in his sole 
     discretion, may establish a procedure which will be used to 
     determine whether an individual should be referred to the 
     Commissioner of Internal Revenue for a determination by the 
     Commissioner under paragraph (1).
       (3) No appeal.--Any determination of the Commissioner of 
     Internal Revenue under this subsection may not be appealed in 
     any administrative or judicial proceeding.
       (d) TIGTA Reporting of Termination or Mitigation.--Section 
     7803(d)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by inserting ``or section 7 of the Small Business Taxpayer 
     Bill of Rights Act of 2012'' after ``1998''.

     SEC. 8. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7123 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Availability of Dispute Resolutions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The procedures prescribed under 
     subsection (b)(1) and the pilot program established under 
     subsection (b)(2) shall provide that a taxpayer may request 
     mediation or arbitration in any case unless the Secretary has 
     specifically excluded the type of issue involved in such case 
     or the class of cases to which such case belongs as not 
     appropriate for resolution under such subsection. The 
     Secretary shall make any determination that excludes a type 
     of issue or a class of cases public within 5 working days and 
     provide an explanation for each determination.
       ``(2) Independent mediators.--
       ``(A) In general.--The procedures prescribed under 
     subsection (b)(1) shall provide the taxpayer an opportunity 
     to elect to have the mediation conducted by an independent, 
     neutral individual not employed by the Office of Appeals.
       ``(B) Cost and selection.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any taxpayer making an election under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be required--

       ``(I) to share the costs of such independent mediator 
     equally with the Office of Appeals, and
       ``(II) to limit the selection of the mediator to a roster 
     of recognized national or local neutral mediators.

       ``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to any 
     taxpayer who is an individual or who was a small business in 
     the preceding calendar year if such taxpayer had an adjusted 
     gross income that did not exceed 250 percent of the poverty 
     level, as determined in accordance with criteria established 
     by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     the taxable year preceding the request.
       ``(iii) Small business.--For purposes of clause (ii), the 
     term `small business' has the meaning given such term under 
     section 41(b)(3)(D)(iii).
       ``(3) Availability of process.--The procedures prescribed 
     under subsection (b)(1) and the pilot program established 
     under subsection (b)(2) shall provide the opportunity to 
     elect mediation or arbitration at the time when the case is 
     first filed with the Office of Appeals and at any time before 
     deliberations in the appeal commence.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 9. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONTESTING IRS LEVY.

       (a) Extension of Time for Return of Property Subject to 
     Levy.--Subsection (b) of section 6343 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``9 months'' and 
     inserting ``3 years''.
       (b) Period of Limitation on Suits.--Subsection (c) of 
     section 6532 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``9 months'' and inserting 
     ``3 years'', and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``9-month'' and inserting 
     ``3-year''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to--
       (1) levies made after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and
       (2) levies made on or before such date if the 9-month 
     period has not expired under section 6343(b) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (without regard to this section) as of 
     such date.

     SEC. 10. WAIVER OF INSTALLMENT AGREEMENT FEE.

       (a) In General.--Section 6159 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (f) as 
     subsection (g) and by inserting after subsection (e) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Waiver of Installment Agreement Fee.--The Secretary 
     shall waive the fees imposed on installment agreements under 
     this section for any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income 
     that does not exceed 250 percent of the poverty level, as 
     determined in accordance with criteria established by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and who has 
     agreed to make payments under the installment agreement by 
     electronic payment through a debit instrument.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 11. SUSPENSION OF RUNNING OF PERIOD FOR FILING PETITION 
                   OF SPOUSAL RELIEF AND COLLECTION CASES.

       (a) Petitions for Spousal Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (e) of section 6015 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:

[[Page S2398]]

       ``(6) Suspension of running of period for filing petition 
     in title 11 cases.--In the case of an individual who is 
     prohibited by reason of a case under title 11, United States 
     Code, from filing a petition under paragraph (1)(A) with 
     respect to a final determination of relief under this 
     section, the running of the period prescribed by such 
     paragraph for filing such a petition with respect to such 
     final determination shall be suspended for the period during 
     which the individual is so prohibited from filing such a 
     petition, and for 60 days thereafter.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to petitions filed under section 6015(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Collection Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 6330 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``appeal such determination to the Tax 
     Court'' in paragraph (1) and inserting ``petition the Tax 
     Court for review of such determination'',
       (B) by striking ``Judicial review of determination'' in the 
     heading of paragraph (1) and inserting ``Petition for review 
     by tax court'',
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3), and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Suspension of running of period for filing petition 
     in title 11 cases.--In the case of an individual who is 
     prohibited by reason of a case under title 11, United States 
     Code, from filing a petition under paragraph (1) with respect 
     to a determination under this section, the running of the 
     period prescribed by such subsection for filing such a 
     petition with respect to such determination shall be 
     suspended for the period during which the individual is so 
     prohibited from filing such a petition, and for 30 days 
     thereafter.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 6320 
     of such Code is amended by striking ``(2)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``(3)(B)''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to petitions filed under section 6330 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 12. VENUE FOR APPEAL OF SPOUSAL RELIEF AND COLLECTION 
                   CASES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7482(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (E),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) 
     and inserting a comma, and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(G) in the case of a petition under section 6015(e), the 
     legal residence of the petitioner, or
       ``(H) in the case of a petition under section 6320 or 
     6330--
       ``(i) the legal residence of the petitioner if the 
     petitioner is an individual, and
       ``(ii) the principal place of business or principal office 
     or agency if the petitioner is an entity other than an 
     individual.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to petitions filed after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 13. INCREASE IN MONETARY PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN 
                   UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of 
     section 7213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each 
     amended by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to disclosures made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 14. DE NOVO TAX COURT REVIEW OF CLAIMS FOR EQUITABLE 
                   INNOCENT SPOUSE RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6015(e)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new flush sentence:

     ``Any review of a determination by the Secretary with respect 
     to a claim for equitable relief under subsection (f) shall be 
     reviewed de novo by the Tax Court.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to petitions filed or pending before the Tax 
     Court on and after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 15. BAN ON RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 7529. PROHIBITION ON INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RAISING 
                   NEW ISSUES IN AN INTERNAL APPEAL.

       ``(a) In General.--In reviewing an appeal of any 
     determination initially made by the Internal Revenue Service, 
     the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals may not 
     consider or decide any issue that is not within the scope of 
     the initial determination.
       ``(b) Certain Issues Deemed Outside of Scope of 
     Determination.--For purposes of subsection (a), the following 
     matters shall be considered to be not within the scope of a 
     determination:
       ``(1) Any issue that was not raised in a notice of 
     deficiency or an examiner's report which is the subject of 
     the appeal.
       ``(2) Any deficiency in tax which was not included in the 
     initial determination.
       ``(3) Any theory or justification for a tax deficiency 
     which was not considered in the initial determination.
       ``(c) No Inference With Respect to Issues Raised by 
     Taxpayers.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     provide any limitation in addition to any limitations in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this section on the 
     right of a taxpayer to raise an issue, theory, or 
     justification on an appeal from a determination initially 
     made by the Internal Revenue Service that was not within the 
     scope of the initial determination.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     77 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 7529. Prohibition on Internal Revenue Service raising new issues 
              in an internal appeal.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to matters filed or pending with the Internal 
     Revenue Service Office of Appeals on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

                                                     United States


                                 Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, April 9, 2012.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn, The United States Hispanic Chamber of 
     Commerce (USHCC) would like to express its support and thank 
     you for introducing the Small Business Taxpayer Bill of 
     Rights Act of 2012 (SBTBOR). As our organization advocates 
     for legislation that helps to build Hispanic owned businesses 
     and enhance America's economy, it is encouraging to see the 
     SBTBOR introduced on the Senate floor.
       As you are aware, Hispanic-owned firms are the fastest 
     growing segment of business across the country. We applaud 
     you for recognizing this fact and, as a result, taking the 
     initiative to provide sensible solutions for the USHCC 
     constituency of Hispanic enterprises. The four pillars of the 
     SBTBOR--lowering compliance burden for taxpayers, 
     strengthening taxpayer protections, compensating taxpayers 
     for IRS abuses, and improving taxpayer access to the judicial 
     system--are crucial to the efficiency of small business, and 
     we hope that your Senate colleagues join in your efforts to 
     pass sensible, pro-growth legislation.
       In the USHCC's recently released 2012 2014 Legislative 
     Agenda, regulatory reform is noted as a critical part of the 
     Hispanic small business community's potential for job 
     creation and economic development. The SBTBOR, by addressing 
     problematic regulation and interaction with the IRS, is 
     parallel to the USHCC mission. In order for the Hispanic 
     community to continue leveraging its entrepreneurial spirit, 
     we cannot allow for entrepreneurs to be subject to slow and 
     costly resolution of audits, low civil damages when the IRS 
     disregards the law, fees on installment agreements for low-
     income taxpayers, and many other harsh burdens that exist for 
     small businesses.
       The SBTBOR is clearly something that will positively affect 
     the Hispanic business community and American economy as a 
     whole. Please let us know how we may assist in your effort to 
     promote an environment where entrepreneurs focus more on 
     growing their businesses rather than dealing with 
     unreasonable regulations. We are here to help.
           Respectfully Submitted,
                                                 Javier Palomarez,
                                                  President & CEO.
                                                        Nina Vaca,
     Chairman of the Board.

                          ____________________