Tax Executives Institute - Internal Revenue Service liaison meeting; minutes December 2, 1994.
On behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, Commissioner Margaret M. Richardson welcomed the delegation from Tax Executives Institute. On behalf of Tax Executives Institute, TEI President Linda B. Burke thanked the IRS for meeting with the Institute.
Commissioner Richardson thanked the Institute for the hospitality it had shown her during TEI's Annual Conference in October. She also referred to her recent visit to TEI's Cincinnati Chapter where she was well received. The Commissioner mentioned particularly her participation in the Commissioner's Forum during the Annual Conference, noting that all four past Commissioners had expressed their interest in-and frustration with the funding battles over - tax systems modernization (TSM). She observed that Sheldon Cohen is the only Commissioner in the past four decades to have been successful in modernizing the IRS's processing system, adding that the IRS's "system has not changed much during the intervening years." Indeed, the system installed in the 1960s is still in use.
The Commissioner thanked TEI for its support for full funding of the TSM initiative. She explained that the next year's budget should fully fund the system and restore the funds cut from the current year. She said that some innovative TSM programs will soon be "rolled out" to New Orleans and five other districts. The Newark District is the next site for the integrated collection system (ICS).
Commissioner Richardson also thanked TEI for its support of other programs, including the electronic filing of income tax returns and the earned income tax credit. She commented favorably on the reports she has received about employers' participation in the electronic filing program, and assured the Institute that the IRS plans an aggressive campaign to combat refund fraud during the 1995 filing season.
With respect to the IRS's priorities for issuing guidance, the Commissioner stated that the IRS has made real progress in 1994, releasing a large number of priority projects. She asked for TEI's comments on what the agency's regulatory priorities should be for 1995.
Finally, the Commissioner welcomed Ms. Burke as the new president of TEI and stated she looks forward to working with her.
Ms. Burke observed that by advancing the liaison meeting to December, the IRS and TEI would be able to work together more effectively, especially on process issues. She added that although the TEI members present for the meeting worked for large companies, the Institute represents many smaller companies, as well.
II. Improving the Examination Process
A. IRS Training. Ms. Burke referred to TEI's recent IRS Quality Survey, the results of which have already been provided to the IRS and, in fact, have been discussed by local TEI chapters with IRS district and regional officials. She confirmed that the IRS is already addressing many of the issues identified in the survey, adding that the Institute recognizes the challenge posed by TEI's comments on the need for better trained agents. Ms. Burke then referred to the IRS's November 22, 1994, request for recommendations concerning the dean of the agency's "Tax University." She congratulated the IRS for its initiative and pledged TEI's support, confirming that the Institute believes taxpayers should be supportive of and involved in the IRS's training process. Such involvement will ensure a "real world" approach in the audit process, she said. In addition, if agents are better trained, currency will be served.
Mr. Wilson reported that several IRS districts are already involving TEI members in their training programs, just as IRS representatives have been involved in the Institute's own training sessions. He added that the agency finds TEI's assistance very helpful. He said the IRS will establish a Midwest training center for agents involved in the Coordinated Examination Program (CEP), which will emphasize industry-wide training. He added that the IRS District Directors met during the summer and that one of the topics discussed was the allocation of funds for CEP training. The IRS is also reviewing whether and how its training regimen for specialists (including engineers and economists) should be revamped.
Ms. Burke pledged the Institute's continued support for the IRS's training initiative, adding that the Institute wants to assist the IRS in improving the process. She stated that members had commented on the desirability of agents' receiving training on improving interpersonal skills and added that some TEI members could likely also benefit from such training.
Mr. Wilson stated that the Houston District has instituted a program to teach agents to interact better and to sharpen their writing skills. There is a greater awareness of the need to improve in these areas, he said. Ms. Monaco referred to the IRS courses on conflict resolution.
B. Information Document Requests. Ms. Burke next referred to the quality survey's identification of information document requests (IDRs) as an area needing immediate attention. She added that in some districts (or regions) progress has clearly been made in narrowing the scope and clarifying the focus of IDRs; in others, however, taxpayers report receiving open-ended, vague requests. She gave an example of a recent IDR her company had received asking for all records pertaining to an acquisition. The agent was given a three-foot stack of documents, she noted, adding that neither the taxpayer nor the IRS is served by broad requests and undifferentiated responses. More needs to be done to focus IDRs, she concluded.
Mr. Wilson stated that the IRS has made several efforts to improve the IDR process. He noted that a member of TEI's February delegation, Rebecca A. Muenchen of TEI's Santa Clara Valley Chapter (a former member of the Institute's Executive Committee), has volunteered to work with the IRS in reviewing the IDR process. Mr. Wilson said that the agency has had mixed results in "getting the word down" to the field.
Ms. Burke said that TEI was very much concerned that National Office initiatives are not being uniformly communicated to, and implemented by, field personnel. Mr. Wilson explained that to enhance the National Office's communications with the field, the IRS has revised the Internal Revenue Manual, issued a new Case Manager's Hand-book, established a quarterly CEP Newsletter, and completed a report on generally acceptable auditing standards for examiners. The IRS is committed to ensuring that everyone receives adequate information about and training on the initiatives and is held accountable for implementing those initiatives, he said.
Mr. Murphy reiterated that TEI is eager to assist the IRS in "getting the word down," explaining that TEI understood that "An Open Letter to My Case Manager" by a TEI member would be published in the IRS newsletter. He then asked whether TEI could receive a copy of the newsletter. Mr. Adams explained that taxpayers would find it helpful to know what information the examiners are receiving from the National Office. Mr. Murphy added that the IRS's districts and regions are on TEI's mailing list and routinely receive the Institute's publications; he suggested that examiners often see references to National Office initiatives in The Tax Executive before being officially advised of them by the National Office. Mr. Wilson agreed to consider placing the Institute on the IRS's mailing list.
Apropos the general question of information requests, Mr. Getz remarked that open-ended IDRs are obstructive to the audit process, adding that the agents and taxpayers should discuss the relevance of needed documents before the IRS issues an IDR. Mr. Wilson agreed that there should be more involvement of the taxpayer in the planning process, which should produce more focused information requests. Ms. Burke said that, in her experience, talking to the taxpayer before IDRs are issued results in the faster production of documents and the more timely completion of the audit.
C. Involvement of Specialists. TEI next identified the use of industry specialists--specifically the lack of control frequently exercised by Case Managers over the specialists--as a continuing problem. Ms. Burke observed that the failure to "integrate" specialists' work fully with the overall audit engenders taxpayer frustration with the system. She suggested that the scheduling of specialists should be included in the audit plan to give taxpayers a sense of how the audit will pace itself. The Pittsburgh District (where her company is located) may be "ahead of the game" in this area, she said, since the CEP Branch Chief controls the use of specialists in that district.
Mr. Murphy noted that, while Ms. Burke's experience with the use of specialists has been positive, the integration of specialists into the audit process remains an area of concern among TEI members throughout the country. The use of specialists needs more attention, he said.
Mr. Wilson thanked TEI for its comments. He reported that Sharon Lovell has been appointed to replace Marvin J. Burton in the Office of Corporate Specialties. Ms. Lovell is a former team leader and her primary focus will be on the effective use of specialists. Mr. Wilson agreed that the area needs to be more closely examined.
D. Length of Audits. TEI reported that its IRS quality survey identified currency and its members' "almost universal concern" about the length of audits, including the time needed to resolve issues at Appeals, as key issues. Ms. Burke reported that the Institute's comments on a draft report of the IRS Currency Task Force were near completion. (Editor's Note: The comments were filed with the IRS on December 5, 1994, and are reprinted in the January-February 1995 issue of The Tax Executive.)
Mr. Wilson noted that the length of audits concerns everyone. He opined that the IRS is "moving in the right direction" with more effective use of audit plans and possible inclusion of more years in a cycle. Mr. Murray expressed a concern that the emphasis on currency may not be consistent with the allocation of more resources to the CEP program. He asked whether a mixed message is being sent to field agents. Commissioner Richardson stated that the IRS hopes to speed up the audit process by increasing resources. Mr. Murray asked whether more taxpayers will be examined. Mr. Wilson replied that there is no current plan to significantly increase the scope of the CEP program. The emphasis is more in other corporate areas and in partnerships, he said.
Chief Counsel Brown inquired about the Institute's concern that it is taking more time to move cases through Appeals. Mr. Dougherty explained that the comments conflict with the IRS's own findings, noting that the IRS's statistics demonstrate that in 1993 a case averaged 36 months in Appeals but in 1994 that time had fallen to 24 months. Mr. Dougherty said he discussed this matter with one of the members of the Institute who expressed concern about Appeals lag time before the liaison meeting and has already followed up with the field about the case. He asked the Institute to alert him about specific problems in this area, and while the Institute agreed to do so, it clarified that its concern was not case specific, or wholly anecdotal, but systemic.
Mr. Murray noted that the field's analysis of a protest seems to be taking longer. Mr. Ezrati suggested that the field be required to respond within the same time limit imposed on CEP taxpayers to file a protest (generally, 90 days). He added that computations may often increase the time for consideration. Mr. Murphy suggested that the IRS analyze the amount of time it takes to start Appeals cases from the date the taxpayer's protest is filed.
Mr. Dougherty agreed that computations of items, especially foreign tax credit carrybacks, frequently consume a lot of time. Mr. Murray noted that the examiners sometimes calculate the amount of tax (and interest) only to have Appeals re-calculate the numbers. He suggested that a single unit perform the calculations for both Examination and Appeals. Mr. Wilson thanked TEI for its recommendation and reported that the IRS is already studying that issue.
Ms. Burke requested a status report on the use of the early referral to Appeals procedure, which is set forth in Announcement 94-41. Mr. Dougherty stated that the initial feedback is favorable. Mr. Adams suggested that issues suitable for early referral should be identified early in the audit process, possibly at the opening conference. Mr. Dougherty agreed.
Ms. Burke again emphasized the need to "get the word down" to the field about National Office initiatives. A concerted effort should be made, she said. Mr. Wilson assured TEI that the IRS has heard the Institute's concerns and intends to focus on better communications with the field.
E. Field Service Advice. Ms. Blankley referred to the Institute's concerns about the IRS's field service advice process, noting that members feel that the IRS needs to be more forthcoming in sharing information in this area. She acknowledged that the legal advice rendered by Counsel to the field may be privileged, but expressed the view that the facts on which the advice is given should be shared with the taxpayer.
Mr. Brown invited the Institute to share its concerns about the process, but said that the IRS could not discuss its views because the disclosure issue is the subject of a pending suit under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. McCormally acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue in light of the Tax Analysts suit. He suggested, however, that the Freedom of Information Act suit raises an issue (disclosure to the public) different from the Institute's concern (which focuses on disclosure only to the taxpayer).
Mr. McCormally then referred to a TEI-IRS Mid-Atlantic regional liaison meeting at which IRS Regional Counsel Joseph Maselli referred to recommendations recently made by an IRS task force on the field service advice process. When will taxpayers see those recommendations? Mr. McCormally asked. Mr. Brown reiterated his reluctance to discuss the issue, but expressed a desire to learn about continuing problems. The IRS wants the process to work sensibly on both sides, he averred.
Mr. Murphy noted that the process works better if both sides have input. The Institute views the lack of taxpayer involvement in the advice process as a significant issue, he said. Mr. McCormally added that some IRS districts make Counsel available to the taxpayer and seek taxpayer involvement in the development of requests for field service advice (e.g., the development of facts), whereas others are not so accommodating. The inconsistency promotes taxpayer frustration, and freezing taxpayers out of the process can impair Counsel's ability to render good advice. If taxpayers do not perceive that the process is fair, he concluded, they will be reluctant to use (or support) it. Mr. Brown thanked TEI for its comments, adding that the IRS certainly does not want to issue advice based on a bad set of facts.
Mr. Skinner noted an increase in FOIA requests by taxpayers, adding that the use of such requests results from the secrecy of the process. This creates problems, he said, since the IRS sometimes takes umbrage at the filing of FOIA requests and both parties can be distracted by the time-consuming "side show." Mr. Shewbridge suggested that the formal technical advice process is flawed. Taxpayers may hesitate to participate in the process because of a perception that the IRS agent has more opportunities for expressing his or her views, he added.
Mr. Brown reported that the IRS has made a concerted effort in recent years to involve the field more in the technical advice process to ensure that the examiner's role in the case is not diminished. Mr. Shewbridge suggested that the pendulum may have swung too far in that direction. In some cases, taxpayers believe that decisions have already been made before the conference. Mr. Brown thanked the Institute for the feedback.
III. Improving the Guidance Process
A. Capitalization Issues. Mr. DeLuca referred to the Institute's concern about how field agents will interpret and apply the Supreme Court's decision in INDOPCO v. Commissioner. He commended the IRS for issuing Rev. Rul. 94-77, relating to the deductibility of severance pay, and three other rulings on INDOPCO-related issues. A1-though the rulings are helpful in getting the word down, Mr. DeLuca expressed some frustration that the only word getting down to the field is not to use the word INDOPCO in setting up adjustments.
Mr. DeLuca presented an example of an agent's invoking INDOPCO's future benefit language in relation to the deductibility of debt extinguishment costs. Based on several court opinions, as well as Treas. Reg. [sections] 1.163-4(c)(1), taxpayers have generally deducted as interest any premium paid to extinguish a debt, yet agents have recently contended that the premiums must be capitalized when the extinguishment takes place during an acquisition. Mr. DeLuca added that some TEI members have reported that proposed adjustments have been made to capitalize employee training costs, especially in the context of re-engineering (or TQM-related) initiatives. He called such costs analogous to advertising-the subject of explicit regulations as well as post-INDOPCO, taxpayer-favorable revenue rulings. Virtually all ordinary business expenses could be said to have a long-term benefit, he said.
Mr. Navin cited slotting allowances as an area where the field seems confused about the National Office's position. He explained that two years ago a draft of an ISP paper was released. Since that time, taxpayers have worked with field industry specialists to clarify the various factual situations involving slotting allowances and to narrow the issues. The result of these efforts has been a significant revision of the draft, which has not been formally released but which represents a more taxpayer-favorable position than the first draft. Notwithstanding these developments, some agents continue to rely on the unofficial first draft. In such a situation, TEI concluded, there is a need for National Office guidance. (Editor's Note: Following the meeting, TEI agreed to meet separately with the IRS to discuss capitalization issues.)
B. The Role of Anti-Abuse Rules. Mr. Murray referred to the agenda's discussion of the potential ill effects of the proposed partnership anti-abuse regulations. He acknowledged that the proposed rules may be helpful to tax executives in deflecting (or deflating) some of the more egregious schemes being promoted, but the rules are so broad that taxpayers are concerned about their potentially reaching myriad routine business transactions. Stated simply, taxpayers are concerned that examiners may feel free to view the flow-through effect of any partnership as tax motivated and, almost by definition, abusive. Ms. Burke added that taxpayers often use partnerships where they own less than 80 percent of an enterprise. The regulations cast doubt on the efficacy of such arrangements.
Mr. Kugler responded that the IRS has "heard the message" about the breadth of the regulatory language and that the final regulations, which the IRS intends to issue by the end of the year, will clarify the target of the regulations and provide more examples to illustrate the type of transactions that fall within and outside the scope of the anti-abuse regulations. He stated that the IRS has initiated a program to coordinate the audits of partnerships. He asked the Institute to keep him apprised of any problems that may arise in the application of the regulations.
Mr. Kugler stated that the IRS is currently culling through approximately 80 examples. If the Institute believes more guidance is necessary after the regulations are issued, the IRS can issue revenue rulings to clarify open questions. (Editor's Note: The final regulations were issued on December 29, 1994.)
C. Lobbying Disallowance Rules. Mr. Ezrati said that TEI is concerned that section 162(e), relating to the disallowance of a deduction for expenditures relating to the lobbying activities, is unworkable and that the statute's administrability is not enhanced by the proposed regulations. He noted that there are opportunities to make the statute less burdensome. He cited the special imputation rule for volunteers and the presumptions of lobbying and non-lobbying purposes as examples of rules that just do not work. He recommended the adoption of a primary purpose test to ameliorate some of the unadministrability of the statute.
Mr. Baker noted that many of the flaws in the regulations reflect the flaws in the statutory structure. He added that the IRS is considering the comments submitted on the rules and intends to issue final regulations early in 1995.
D. Substantiation of Charitable Contributions. Ms. Burke referred to section 170(f)(8) of the Code, relating to the substantiation of charitable contributions of $250 or more. She noted the high level of corporate giving in amounts over $250 and the administrative burden of obtaining receipts. "C" corporations are not the target of the statute, she said, and should be exempted.
Ms. Gross noted that the IRS is working on regulations in this area, including a possible exception for Sub-chapter C corporations. She referred to the broad statutory authority to provide exemptions and stated the IRS understands the arguments in favor of using that authority. Mr. McCormally commented that the regulations issued earlier this year in respect of payroll deductions are generally helpful to taxpayers. He commended the IRS for its efforts to resolve the problems faced by employers and charities. Ms. Gross thanked the Institute for its comments on the rules, particularly its suggestions concerning inventory property and the use of pledge cards prepared by the employer (rather than the charity). With respect to the application of the $250 threshold to large, aggregated contributions made to organizations such as the United Way, Ms. Gross noted that the IRS takes the position that whenever the donation to the conduit organization (i.e., United Way) is more than $250, then the substantiation rules apply
E. Consolidated Net Hedging Regulations. Mr. DeLuca referred to the final and the new proposed hedging regulations under sections 446 and 1221 (which were issued in July). He commended the IRS for clarifying the treatment of many routine business hedges.
With respect to the proposed regulations on the timing of recognition and character of hedging transactions by members of consolidated groups, Mr. DeLuca recommended that the proposed rules in respect of "net" hedges by affiliated groups filing consolidated returns be applied, at the election of the taxpayer, on a consistent and retroactive basis to open tax years. He noted that the Institute discussed the issue the previous day with Treasury representatives, who were "receptive" to making the regulations retroactive.
Mr. Novey stated that the IRS must first determine the "economics" of the transactions. Wryly observing that the sincerest form of flattery (by taxpayers) is not imitation, but requests for retroactivity, he commented that TEI (and other stakeholders) are requesting more than retroactive regulations; because retroactivity would affect what is and is not a hedge, retroactivity would create the need for some relief from the rules requiring same-day identification of the transactions--a requirement that the IRS regards as key. The IRS must avoid being whipsawed by a hindsight new identification or failure to re-identify, he stated. He expressed some concern that making the regulations retroactive will lead to this problem for transactions entered into after December 31, 1993. Mr. DeLuca offered TEI's assistance in crafting a solution to any whipsaw potential for the IRS. (Editor's Note: TEI is in the process of developing comments on this issue and has had a follow-up discussion with Mr. Novey.)
F. Third-Party Information Requests. Mr. Navin referred to the Institute's concerns about the issuance of information requests to third parties having no transactional nexus with the taxpayer. Another issue has arisen in this area. he said, concerning the use by the IRS of data obtained by examining agents in the audit of one taxpayer in litigation with a second, unrelated taxpayer. He expressed concern about the effect of this transfer of information on taxpayers' faith in the confidentiality of the information provided to IRS examiners. Mr. Shewbridge noted that a related issue involves IRS requests for proprietary data provided by taxpayers to other government agencies, citing as an example a recent request by the IRS to the Federal Communications Commission for data on seven regional telephone companies. The request was not made in respect of a tax audit of the companies, he stated. Mr. Navin commented that taxpayers do not want to be placed in the position of "sanitizing" data submitted on audit, citing administrative and time constraints.
Mr. Brown noted that this is one area where the law and the policy may be different. The IRS has concluded, based on its analysis of the applicable cases, that it has the legal authority to summons third-party information, but it must decide whether (and when), as a matter of policy, it should exercise that authority. The issue is not new, he added, but the IRS needs to know whether it has become more problematic. Mr. Brown expressed an interest in pursuing this issue at a follow-up meeting. (Editor's Note: Such a meeting was held on February 22.) Mr. Brown also stressed that section 6103 clearly prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of tax return information (e.g., to an unrelated taxpayer). Any violations of the confidentiality rules will be taken very seriously, he assured TEI.
G. Rev. Proc. 91-59. Mr. Adams requested a status report on the IRS's revision of Rev. Proc. 91-59, relating to basic record retention requirements, and on a revenue procedure on digital imaging. Mr. Kennedy stated that the IRS is committed to issuing the revision of Rev. Proc. 91-59 as soon as possible.
With respect to the digital imaging revenue procedure, Mr. Kennedy stated that the procedure is on the IRS's 1995 business plan and drafting will start during the first quarter of the year. Mr. McCormally noted that Revenue-Canada recently issued an announcement adopting a procedure on digital imaging. He offered to provide the IRS with a COpy. (Editor's Note: The announcement was forwarded on December 6, 1994.)
Mr. Adams referred to the frustration of several TEI members who are trying to reach a digital imaging agreement with their local District Directors. The lack of a procedure produces a "real roadblock," he stated. He asked the IRS (National Office) to urge the field (District Directors) to proceed with such agreements pending publication of an imaging revenue procedure. Mr. Kennedy agreed to discuss this with the Office of the IRS Assistant Commissioner ( Examination).
H. Restricted Interest Calculations. Mr. Adams referred to the difficulties taxpayers experience with understanding the IRS's computation of interest on tax refunds and deficiencies. Taxpayers would like to receive an explanation of how interest is calculated, he said, adding that interest may often be higher than the amount of tax. The entire process of obtaining and verifying interest calculations is slowing down the process, he concluded.
Mr. Wilson stated that some IRS districts are already providing explanations, adding that the IRS will soon issue guidance to the field on this issue. Mr. Getz underscored the need to review the calculations, urging the IRS to provide all taxpayers with an explanation. Ms. Monaco noted that when the IRS's TSM program is fully in place, explanations will be routinely provided, but conceded that was several years away.
I. Section 482 Issues. Mr. Bergquist referred to taxpayers' efforts to reconcile differences in the applicable section 482 rules where different sets of regulations apply to different years in the same audit cycle. Ms. DeGrosky noted that the IRS has prepared a chart showing the effective dates for the regulations. Mr. Getz commended the IRS for preparing the guidance.
J. Clevelarld District Program. Mr. DeLuca noted that the IRS's Cleveland District and the local TEI chapter have recently cooperated in establishing capitalization thresholds for purchases. He urged the IRS to consider issuing similar guidance on a national level, noting the need for flexibility in establishing capitalization thresh-olds based on the size of the company.
Mr. Wilson noted that the IRS views the Cleveland agreement as a local initiative. He stated that Case Managers already have the authority to enter into capitalization agreements on a taxpayer-by-taxpayer basis, but that there are no plans either to issue similar guidelines on a national scale or to encourage other districts to follow Cleveland's lead.
Mr. DeLuca remarked that establishing broad guidelines would permit taxpayers to know before the audit begins what the rules are. Mr. Murphy asked whether the Institute should encourage its chapters to pursue similar agreements with local IRS districts. Mr. Wilson stated that the IRS is not encouraging the use of such agreements, preferring a case-by-case approach. Ms. Burke acknowledged the IRS's position, but stated that such an approach does not help the taxpayers plan for future audit cycles; guidance is needed to permit taxpayers to record transactions on their books. She then noted that the federal contracting rules establish a $1,500 threshold for capitalization. Mr. Wilson agreed that the IRS needs to think about the effect of capitalization agreements on future audits.
On behalf of the IRS, Commissioner Richardson thanked the TEI delegation for taking the time and effort to prepare for the meeting. She noted her appreciation for the Institute's comments and suggestions, adding that she hoped the two organizations can work on the concerns raised during the meeting. The IRS wants to make the rules work, she said.
Ms. Burke then thanked the IRS representatives for meeting with the Institute.
RELATED ARTICLE : IRS Delegation
Margaret M. Richardson Commissioner of Internal Revenue Stuart L. Brown Chief Counsel Robert Wenzel Chief, Strategic Planning & Communication Monte Jackel Deputy Associate Chief Councel (Domestic Technical) Paul F. Kugler Assistant Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Industries) Judy K. Van Alfen Chief, Taxpayer Services Thomas W. Wilson, Jr. National Director Corporate Examinations E. Leon Kennedy Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting) James A. Dougherty National Director of Appeals Michael S. Novey Counsel to Assistant Chief Counsel (Financial Institution & Product) Karin G. Gross Senior Technical Reviewer, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting) George Baker Assistant to the Branch Chief Office of assistant Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting) Joy DeGrosky National Administrator, International Field Assistance Specialization Program Larry Westfall Modernization Executive Beverly P. Monaco Acting National Director, External Relations Division Heather C. Maloy Assistant to the Commissioner J. Paul Whitehead III Assistant to the Commissioner James Nelson Chief, Commissioner's Staff Jacquelyn Warnsby Acting CAG Program Manager
RELATED ARTICLE : TEI Delegation
Linda B. Burke(*) TEI President Aluminum Company of America Jack R. Skinner(*) TEI Senior Vice President Halliburton Company James R. Murray(*) TEI Secretary PacifiCorp Sandy J. Navin(*) TEI Treasurer General Mills. Inc. Kathy M. Blankey(*) Bell Atlantic NSI Lester D. Ezrati Hewlett-Packard Co Alan Getz(*) Mitsui & Co. (USA). Inc. James Hutchison(*) Bramalea Ltd. Charles W. Shewbridge,III(*) BellSouth Corporation Robert D. Adams Chair, TEI IRS Administrative Affairs Committee Halliburton Company Philip J. Bergquist, Chair, TEI International Tax Committee Apple Computer Inc. Michael A. DeLuca Chair,TEI Federal Tax Committee Household International. Inc Michael J. Murphy TEI Executive Director Timothy J. McCormally TEI General Counsel and Director of Tax Affairs Mary L. Fahey TEI Assistant Tax Counsel Jeffery P. Rasmussen TEI Assistant Tax Counsel
(*) Members of TEI Executive Committee
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Liaison Meeting Special|
|Date:||May 1, 1995|
|Previous Article:||Survey results of German transfer pricing audits.|
|Next Article:||Tax Executives Institute - U.S. Department of Treasury liaison meeting; minutes December 1, 1994.|