X12G - Government
Tax Information Interchange Development
June 1998
Document No:: ASC X12G/TG2/98102
ASC X12G TG2 Tax Information Interchange Task Group and
Tax Information Group for EDI Requirements Standardization
(TIGERS) Meeting Minutes
Columbus, OH
5/31/98 - 6/4/98
Prepared by: Dan Cornwell - TG2 Secretary
Illinois Department of Revenue
Sunday May 31, 1998 - Tax Information Group for EDI
Requirements Standardization (TIGERS)
---------------------------------------------------
Terry Garber (TG2 Chair - SC) opened the meeting with the
tentative agenda.
The planned agenda was:
Sunday - TIGERS
* Speaker
* Mapping Presentations
Monday - X12
* TS 283 Tech Assessment Response
* TS 154 Tech Assessment Response
* Data Maintenance TAS Response
* Ballot Responses
* Miscellaneous Data Maintenance
Tuesday - TIGERS
Reference Model for Child Support
* Reference Model Overview
* Implementation Guide TS 521
* Implementation Guide TS 540
* Mapping of Bank Match Formats
Wednesday - X12
* EDIFACT Recasting of 813 (TAXFIL)
Jointly with Finance
Thursday - TIGERS
* TXP Conventions and the Year 2000
* TS 151 PBI Uniformity
* Internet Uses and Approaches
* Recommendations for Tax Billings or Assessments
Stan Whaley (FL) noted that Brooks Knight (TX) had recently sent an E-mail regarding TIA codes. Brooks asked that states which had requests for new TIA codes for Sales Tax, to get them to him as soon as possible.
Dan Cornwell (IL) noted that he was asked to meet with some Lottery Agency representatives in his state on EDI technical aspects. He noted that there appear to be some Lottery specific EDI transactions sets in development. Terry Garber (SC) said that she thought the X12M subcommittee is where this work is being done.
Jim Paradise (Burr Wolff) presented the revised 813 Kansas Property Tax filing. He noted that he has converted all his mappings from Version 003070 to 004010. The date data elements are now CCYYMMDD. He noted that in the FGS loop, it can now indicate "Mobile Homes Used for Residential Housing", which was added in the Oklahoma mapping. He said that codes would be added for various mobile home attachments within the FGS loop, for the Kansas mapping.
Jim presented the "e.assess" which is a mapping of the 149 Notice of Tax Adjustment or Assessment. He noted that assessments vary widely in their complexity from the various collectors to the taxpayer. These assessments usually go from the county to the taxpayer. He noted that TFS loops are used for location and the FGS is the assessment for that location. Jim noted that they may need some addition BGN08 Action Codes for assessment use in Property Tax. Terry Garber (SC) questioned if the 149 transaction set had the TIA segment at the TFS level. Jim Paradise checked and confirmed it did not. The mapping will have to be revised to not use the TIAs at this level. Jim said this mapping was a very generic mapping taking into account the 39 states assessment notices he had reviewed. Jim noted that shortly this mapping will be out on the PET web site at "www.proptaxedi.org". He said there is quite a bit of interest in getting this assessment notice out and available for use.
Terry Garber (SC) suggested that the AMT Monetary Amount segment may be the appropriate segment to use for the dollar amounts, rather than the TIA Tax Information and Amount segment. Jim noted that he could probably put the amounts in the AMT and the property description in the TIAs, but there may need to be some additional AMT01 Amount Qualifier Codes added. Jim said that many large companies use EDI in their business functions and want to use EDI for their property tax activities. Jim said Burr Wolff is working on software which will take assessor data and produce an EDI assessment. Their software is envisioned to handle all aspects of the property tax transactions in EDI. Jim said that other software vendors are also going to offer this based on what comes out of the Property Electronically Taxed (PET) activities relating to EDI Property Tax standards.
Monday June 1, 1998 - Tax Information Interchange
Development (TG2)
---------------------------------------------------
Terry Garber opened the session by saying that today we would review the April TAS responses to our data maintenance. Terry noted that her new E-mail address is "garbert@dor.state.sc.us".
A couple data maintenance items needed discussed. They were code adds for the 521 Income or Asset Offset transaction set. Terry asked for comments on responses she had developed. The first response was regarding DE 309 Location Qualifier where we wanted codes "New Address" and "Changed Address". The TAS comment was asking if "Changed Address" was the same as "Corrected Address". The group determined these were two different meanings, so our response indicated they are not the same. These codes will actually be carried in N106 DE 98 Entity Identifier Code.
The other response regarded a date qualifier meaning "Withheld Date". This was for a withholding order stating when the money was actually withheld. The respondent thought this was the effective date. Laurie Rhea (CA) had responded earlier that the "Effective Date" was when the order got the force of law and not when the money was withheld. These are two different dates. This was the response offered to the ballot comment. It is hoped that these two data maintenance items will pass on rebuttal ballot.
Terry Garber brought up the next item which was the 283 Tax or Fee Exemption Certification transaction set. This transaction set would typically be from a buyer to a seller indicating that a transaction is exempt from tax. Terry presented the 283 as it had been developed to this point. She noted that LX Assigned Number loops could be repeated for each purchase order and PID Product/Item Description segments could be repeated for each exempt item. TAS did not like this construct. TAS had indicated that this is where an HL Hierarchical Level loop should be used. Terry said John Lutz had offered another alternative by using a new looping structure. This revised looping structure was the preferred method of handling this by the group.
The Table 1 stays the same in the transaction set. There is still an LX loop. This would include the LX, PID, AMT, QTY, and REF segments. There is also a subordinate PID loop. The LX loop would repeat for each exempt item. Terry said that if you just want to specify individual items, there would be an LX for each item. If you wanted to do a bill of lading for different entities, the N1 loop would be available to specify separate parties. The LX gives the flexibility of going to the PID directly or going immediately down to the N1 loop. Terry noted that if we agree with the new looping structure, it will have to go past the full G Subcommittee and then on to TAS on Wednesday.
Some examples of the new looping structure were demonstrated. It was noted that if you just wanted to list exempt organizations, you would only use the LX, N1 loop, skipping the PID segment. Dan Cornwell (IL) noted we should take a look at Stan Farmer's (MO) exemption mapping example to see if it still is compliant with the new looping structure. We reviewed this and verified that the example fits the modified structure. Terry Garber said she preferred this structure to the HL, but we should develop an implementation convention for its use. She said we want to develop some additional examples to get to TAS showing the new looping structure use. Stan Farmer (MO) made a motion to approve the new looping structure. The motion was passed and this will be presented to full G.
The next item was on the 154 Secured Interest Filings transaction set. We had wanted to add four segments, change the transaction set name and purpose and scope to make it more generic, and add some additional code values. This would make the 154 able to handle tax liens. Basically TAS's response was to verify that the codes requests are still valid, because some codes have been already due to other data maintenance. One code we needed was "Certificate Number". There is a "Current Certificate Number" code. Lissa Henderson (ECRC) said she thought we should still ask for just "Certificate Number". The group agreed to still ask for codes for "assessment number" and "certificate number". We had also asked for some amount qualifier codes. Upon further research, some codes such as "Release of Lien" and "Lien Recording Fee" are already present. We have deleted the request for the similar codes we had requested. Stan Farmer (MO) made a motion to delete our requests for codes for "Warrant Number", "Book Number", "Release Amount" and "Release Fee" due to these codes already being in existence. This motion was passed.
Additionally, TAS asked that the word "Tax" be deleted in every tax type code that we were requesting to be added to Data Element 963, for example "Estate" rather than "Estate Tax." Terry noted that all the codes currently in the Standards included the word "Tax," and that we would not be consistent. It was agreed to leave the word "Tax" in the codes.
The next item regarded the 813 transaction set. It was to change the comment regarding the TFS segment, TFS05 and TFS06 elements. It states they define the taxpayer's identity. This comment is technically incorrect, because this information is typically in the BTI segment. Terry Garber (SC) said we probably should change the comment to say something like "TFS05 and TFS06 can provide further breakdown of the tax filing". The comment prepared reflects this. We will press for this revised comment.
Lissa Henderson (ECRC) passed out copies of a new Electronic Commerce publication called Government EC News.
Tuesday June 2, 1998 - Tax
Information Interchange
Development (TG2)
---------------------------------------------------
Terry Garber (SC) opened the session by reviewing the agenda. The main business this session will be the reference model for child support enforcement. At 4:30 today, we need to join Task Group 1 to review the 154 data maintenance proposed TAS responses. On Wednesday, we will address PBI Uniformity. Terry noted that on Wednesday we need to go to TAS for the data maintenance review.
Christine Wilder (ADP) began the discussion on child support enforcement by passing out a folder on the work her task force has done so far. She gave a background on the transaction sets we are planning on using for the data flow. She noted that she had met with Laurie Rhea (CA) recently to address issues that came out of the Orlando, FL meeting. Christine had prepared the shell of a document which is to be the reference model.
In the document was a Welfare Reform Reference Model Task Force Worksheet which listed the tasks involved and assigned responsibility. Christine noted the Worksheet's to be completed tasks. Laurie Rhea (CA) had asked Christine to let the group know that she will be working on a generic 521 Income or Asset Offset Implementation Guide, which will be based on her California 521 guide. Christine said Byron Warren (Finance Center, U.S. Treasury) had an example of a 248 Account Assignment/Inquiry and Service/Status transaction set mapping. This could be a good basis for our mapping for the financial institution data match.
Next, Christine reviewed the Table of Contents document. Some of the suggestions she had received were incorporated. She noted that existing EDI "Start-Up" information of an educational nature will not be included, but rather referenced. She noted there will be a place for form examples, as well as mappings.
Next, the Introduction document was reviewed, which covers the Legislative Act background. It also goes into the Reference Model description and what EDI X12 Standards are. Terry Garber (SC) noted we should identify the work group formed to work on the model as a work group formed under X12G TG2.
The next document called Legislative Background & Requirements was reviewed. The first section discusses New Hire Reporting. Then it speaks on Child Support Enforcement - New State Automated Systems/Case Registries. The last section discusses the Financial Institution Data Match. Terry Garber (SC) suggested that this section be beefed up a bit to give more detail.
The next document piece is the Business Process Overview. The first section is New Hire/Income Offset Process. The document also contains flowcharts of the Business Process relating to new hire/income offset. Christine asked if anyone has or knows what the Notice of Obligation form looks like. This goes from the National Office to the State Child Support Enforcement Agency. Jonathan Lyon (FTA) suggested Christine contact Pat Hagen (Office of Child Support Enforcement) for this. Christine said there is a new piece, "Employment Verification", from the State CSE Agency to the Employer. The next section explains the Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM) / Asset Offset details. A flowchart of this process then followed. Jonathan Lyon (FTA) noted that many small financial institutions will not have the capability to do matches on obligors, so they will probably report on all of the accounts within a state's jurisdiction. Terry Garber (SC) noted that there should be a payment line on the flowchart from the Financial Institution block to the CSE Agency.
The next document is the X12 Solution. The first section goes into the New Hire / Asset Offset with a detailed explanation and a flowchart showing the trading partners and transaction sets involved. It also includes appendix references to mappings of the transaction sets. It was suggested to split the flowchart into two pieces to make it "less busy". Stan Farmer (MO) and Terry Garber (SC) noted that there are no payments shown on the flow. It was agreed that these will have to be added. Stan Farmer (MO) said the 820 transaction set should also be explained in the narrative. The next section is the Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM) / Asset Offset Process.
Byron Warren (Finance Center, U.S. Treasury) stopped in to speak on the 248 Account Assignment/Inquiry and Service/Status transaction set. Byron has taken a look at the data requirements and asked for some assistance from the American Collectors Association, who also had a hand in the 248 transaction set development. He sent some information to them on our activities and is waiting for a response back. Byron indicated that technically the data could be mapped to the 248. He also did some research on where in the bank the 248 transaction set should be sent. He concluded that it should be sent to the cash management services areas. He indicated that obtaining a consolidated listing of all an obligor's accounts could be hard, because these accounts may reside on many different systems within a bank. He thought we may miss part of the inquiry information because of this situation. Nick Scoble (IN) questioned what is the bank's responsibility for complying with this legislation. This was not immediately determined. A discussion was held on what format the banks may supply this match information. Byron noted that the Cash Management people are probably the most savvy with EDI. He said that the Federal Reserve produces a file of banks Routing Transit Numbers and this can be obtained by authorized parties.
Dan Cornwell (IL) questioned how the agencies would get this information to the banks for matching purposes. Would we use information provided by the Federal Reserve to target certain financial institutions? Jonathan Lyon (FTA) said he thought Pat Hagen's group had addressed some of these issues. Christine Wilder (ADP) will list this as an issue to research.
Christine Wilder (ADP) continued on with the reference model. The EDI "Start-Up" Recommendations document was next. She questioned if individual vendors should be listed. It was decided to give references to directories which contain vendor listings and to not list individual companies. Christine asked for any other EDI information type web sites be brought to her attention so they could be added as a resource. Nick Scoble (IN) noted that we should add a reference to the "model record retention guidelines" document within the Additional Considerations section. It was decided that this section should just be a bullet point list of considerations and not to go into a detailed description of the points.
The next section was the Appendix with the first part being Mapping Examples. It is intended to contain all of the transaction set mapping examples required in the various aspects of the model. Paul Connelly (OK) suggested that the actual mapping documents for the transaction sets be included, not just mapping examples. Christine Wilder (ADP) asked if these mappings should be included here. Stan Farmer (MO) said he thought that the specific use of the transaction sets for Child Support Enforcement be included here. The group agreed, and the documents will be included here. Christine said that examples of the corresponding paper forms will be added.
In closing, Christine Wilder (ADP) said that the model document will be updated and will be E-mailed to attendees for review. Christine asked for volunteers for preparing the mapping documents of the 248 transaction set and noted that Mike Teller (Lockheed Martin) will do the 820 processes. Stan Whaley (FL) will do the state-to-state process. Terry Garber (SC) said she would review the 248 mapping information and possibly work on it with some help.
Next, the group met with TG1 to go over the 154 Secured Interest Filings data maintenance responses to TAS comments and to get TG1's approval.
Wednesday June 3, 1998 -
Tax Information Interchange
Development (TG2)
---------------------------------------------------
Walt Barnett (First American Real Estate Information Services, Inc.) joined our group. He was there to present the Mortgage Bankers Association Tax Work Group Development Guide for the 245 Real Estate Tax Service Response for Tax Service transaction set. Its purpose is to "simplify the reporting of real estate tax information between real estate industry participants, mortgage organization lenders or services, and interested parties".
Walt explained the basic structure of the transaction set then went into the required data maintenance. He indicated a BPR segment may be added later to accommodate payment initiation. In going over the data maintenance, Terry Garber (SC) noted that in the E08 Type of Taxing Authority Code, a code be added just to mean "State". Rick Rodriquez (Kern County, CA) noted that in data element E10 Delinquency Type, the code 7 Mello-Roos, may need to be changed because there are more than one type. This may need to be more specific. Paul Connelly (OK) said that in the data element 143 Transaction Set Identifier Code, the code meaning should match the transaction set name of "Real Estate Tax Service Response". Walt then went over an example of the transaction set use.
Next Rick Rodriquez (Kern County, CA) reported on his activities on the Property Tax Bill. He showed the California example of a bill that his county must mail to taxpayers. They are working on the ability to electronically convey the tax payments back to the county. Rick said they are looking at possibly using the 820 Payment Order/Remittance Advice. Rick noted they are mainly interested in conveying the bill and payment information electronically. He noted there is a Business Property Statement which identifies the property, value, etc. This is the closest thing to a return, and this is returned directly to the county assessors in California. Rick said they are looking at using the 149 Notice of Tax Adjustment or Assessment transaction set for bills for corporations and tax services.
Dan Cornwell (IL) gave the status on his work on PBI error code uniformity. Dan noted that he had based his work on the earlier work of the Petroleum Industry Data Exchange (PIDX) group. Basically, this work was expanded to allow for additional error code growth in numbers and tax types. The error code will be a six digit code made up of a 4 digit Major Code and 2 digit Minor Code. Dan noted that he had contacted some PIDX folks for their views on the concept. Dan noted that he had spoken with some PIDX participants, Tim Allard (Minerals Management) and Lissa Henderson (ECRC) prior to this week's meeting. Both had lent their support of the efforts. Lissa Henderson (ECRC) noted that PIDX strongly supports the uniformity efforts in tax related error codes for the 151 transaction set. The group sanctioned the error code structure, and this will be maintained by the TIGERS group. Jonathan Lyon (FTA) asked Dan Cornwell (IL) to send him his information regarding the error code work so it can be posted on the FTA web site. Dan will do this.
Terry Garber (SC) and Dan Cornwell (IL) went to Technical Assessment (TAS) where Terry responded to comments on the 283 Tax or Fee Exemption Certification and 154 Secured Interest Filing TAS comments.
Upon reconvening TG2, a brief discussion was held on the use of the Internet and EDI. Paul Connelly (OK) said he thought that the output of their Internet filing projects would be X12 EDI format. This would be their internal format. Stan Farmer (MO) noted that they are looking at doing Individual Income Tax returns on the Internet in a questionnaire type format. This is termed an "interview" format.
A brief dismission of electronic signature legislation was held. The question of the need for signature documents was brought up by Terry Garber (SC). Stan Farmer (MO) said that this year they were not requiring the use of signature documents with ELF.
Thursday June 4, 1998 -
Tax Information Group for EDI
Requirements Standardization (TIGERS)
---------------------------------------------------
Ted Cole (Waltrip and Assoc.) and Christine Dohm (Wachovia Corp.) from the Finance Subcommittee joined our Task Group. They joined us to talk about the finance-related segments of our EDIFACT message recasting. This included the BPR X12 segment block. Ted noted that his contacts had said there should be the ability to convey the BPR block consistently in EDIFACT EDI. Ted said a group will be formed to accomplish this. Terry Garber (SC) noted that the 813 Electronic Filing of Tax Return Data transaction set only contains the BPR segment, but the 521 Income or Asset Offset contains the BPR block of segments. Ted noted that he will try to have something on the recasting of these segments by the next X12 meeting in Miami. He would like to have our two groups get together at roughly the same time next meeting. This is tentatively set for the Monday morning meeting at Miami.
Ted is developing a model for joint development. He thought that development would be more functional driven, rather than organizational driven. He spoke briefly on the modeling training he had taken all day Wednesday. The end result of this modeling is a UML document. A brief discussion was held on the subject of future EDI and objects.
Terry Garber (SC) brought up the subject of the TXP convention. Terry said NACHA was originally planning to keep the TXP convention with the six byte date. Terry noted that some states are mandated to convert to eight byte dates. Christine Dohm (Wachovia Corp.) said that NACHA had indicated they are going to find a place for the X12 Version Release number in the NACHA format.
Terry Garber (SC) recapped the accomplishments of the week. Terry asked if anyone had any need for any new transaction set development. Bob Shickora (NJ) suggested someone should get in touch with industry people to see if they have found a need for any new tax-related transaction sets. Terry Garber also mentioned industry may need more support, such as implementation conventions, in implementing what we have developed thus far.
The meeting was adjourned until the Interim meeting in Milwaukee, WI, August 12 through 14.