New appeals policies: Appeals Judicial Approach and Culture Guidelines.

• Author: Josephs, Stuart R.
• Position: Fed Tax

Phase One of this new appeals prncess heLyai, with a july 18, 20 1:3. Department of the Treasury memo providing guidance to the Oftier tit Appeals personnel for executing the revised procedures.

This memo stated that the Appeals Judicial Approach and Culture (AJAC) project is returnittg Appeals to a quasi-judicial 'approach in the way it handles cases to enhance customer perceptions of a lair, impartial and independent Appeals. That guidance stated that Appeals would not raise new issues or reopen issues agreed to by taxpayers and the Compliance Division.

Appeals will release jurisdiction when the texpayer provides new information, though the release criteria may var based on Appeals' workload, keeping Appealls officers from acting as investigators.

Phase two of this plan, effective Sept. 2, 2014, finalized the interim guidance. A Jul 2 memo to Appeals staff from John V. Cardone, IRS director of policy, quality and case supporl, stated that Appeals will not generally return cases to Compliance for further development. However, he outlined certain circumstances as grounds for returning a case, including (but not limited to):

* The case is missing a protest, or the protest, when required, fails to set forth the taxpayer's position, lacks detail or fails to meet the requiremests of Publication 5;

* Some action must be taken or some event must occur before Appeals can adequately consider the case;

* Technical advice was pending at the time of the referral;

* Appeals discovers potential fraud, malfeasance or misrepresentation of a material fact; or

* The taxpayer provides new information or evidence.

Appeals will (ink hear cases that are fully developed; hearing officerswill not do their own invesfigations and will send any new issues raised it. evidence sbmitted In the taxpayer during the appeal back to the originating function for consideration.

This memo defines a fully developed yeti case as one that has all pertinent evidence wend, wurrwntrd yid., an casv t() audit trail enerally, the case ciitilans the evidence needed to support the revenue agent's proposed adjustnients.

Appeals will attempt to settle a GIs based on factual hazards if it is not ray ckTehiped and the taxpayer has provided no new information or evidence. 'I'he memo also hist nuts the stall that if the taxpayer or representative -unreascmably delays the process In intentionally submitting new inlormation or raisin, new issues multiple times, the case will nt it be sem 10...