[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.
____________________