ASC X12G TG2 Tax Information Interchange Task Group and
Tax Information Group for EDI Requirements Standardization
(TIGERS) Meeting Minutes
Milwaukee, WI
8/12/98 - 8/14/98
Wednesday August 12, 1998
---------------------------------------------------
Terry Garber (SC and Task Group 2 Chair) gave a brief
description of what TG2 and TIGERS are. Terry noted that
the tentative agenda for the three-day session would be:
Wednesday August 12, 1998
---------------------------------------------------
* EDI Communications Issues
Jointly with Motor Fuel Uniformity
* Property Tax Mappings
Thursday August 13, 1998
---------------------------------------------------
* Child Support Enforcement Reference Model
* Exemption Reason Code List for TS 283
* TXP Convention - Year 2000 Considerations
* TS 151 PBI Error Code Uniformity
Friday August 14, 1998
---------------------------------------------------
* Discussion Continuation
* Internet Usage
Introductions of attendees were made. This was a joint
meeting of TIGERS and the Motor Fuel Uniformity Committee
participants. Next, a discussion was begun on Value Added
Network (VAN) alternatives. Terry Garber briefly reviewed
the TaxConnect VAN history. Terry asked what are the issues
surrounding EDI VAN roles. Terry passed out a document from
Bill Gray (Sinclair Oil Corp.) which was titled "Motor Fuel
EDI Analysis".
Terry pointed out that many of the issues raised in the
document were not really new issues. The FTA had sponsored a
Business Taxes Task Group a few years ago that had attempted
to address many of these issues. This was early in the
period of EDI use within tax administration. The first
section in the document is the "Role of the VAN".
The first item was # 1 Provides the Equivalent of a
Postmark.
There was some discussion as to what the "postmark date"
encompasses. It was noted that there needs to be agreement
among the states as to what constitutes timely filing. A
participant noted that in a California EDI application, a
VAN (used as a trusted third party) modifies the GS segment
date to use for the "postmark" date. Another participant
noted that the 242 Data Status Tracking was actually
designed for this purpose. Ginny Crane (AT&T) noted that
AT&T would not modify transmission data. She noted most
VANs would not modify data. Ginny noted that the 242 was
initially designed for status tracking during VAN
Interconnects.
Ray Grimm (WI) noted that each state has to address the
date/time stamp issue themselves. Ray said that in
Wisconsin, they said when the data was delivered into the
state's mailbox, this is their date received. Ray noted
that they have currently implemented E-mail filing which
facilitates date/time stamps. They allow an E-mail to be
sent by the taxpayer notifying the state that a filing will
soon be coming via E-mail. This allows contacting the
taxpayer if the filing isn't forthcoming. Jim Paradise
(Burr Wolff) asked why Ray considered this a short-term
solution. Ray responded by saying it is because of the
difficulty in trying to automate the process. He noted this
is largely a manual procedure to process these returns.
A question was raised regarding penalties surrounding filing
a return. Terry Garber (SC) noted that they have both a
failure to file timely penalty and failure to pay timely
penalty. A brief discussion of postmarks in the Internet
ensued. Some present indicated that files should be
considered filed when received on the FTP receiver's server.
Item # 2 involves what is processable data. It was noted
within IFTA, an FTP file is posted to their database and
considered good as long as the data is readable and a 997
Acknowledgment is created. Phil Czerkies (Amoco) noted that
in our discussions, we should distinguish between the "pipe"
and what is true EDI. He noted that we need to separate the
two subjects and discuss them individually. Terry Garber
(SC) noted that if you send a file that can generate a 997
with good syntax, some states consider this as filed.
The next item was # 3 Help Support. The document indicated
that TaxConnect had provided support with data formats,
communications, etc. Frank Walusek (AAMVANET) noted that in
the Internet environment, unless the VAN provider is also an
ISP, there could be problems arising regarding help desk
functions. Terry Garber (SC) noted that in doing
communications yourself, the help desk function is a large
investment. Stan Whaley (FL) brought up that in Florida,
AT&T had 24 X 7 help desk availability. It was also noted
that the state had instituted their own help desk.
The next item # 4 involved "Provide any to any connections".
Terry Garber (SC) asked how critical is this for an agency
to accommodate? Jim Paradise (Burr Wolff) noted that in the
property tax area, it is important to have alternatives such
as the Internet, because of costs. He noted that for a long
time, multiple solutions will need to be offered.
Bill Gray (Sinclair Oil Company) noted that the "one
connection solution" would be acceptable to taxpayers, if
all the states adopted the single solution. It was also
brought up that there are many "small" companies that aren't
able to do EDI.
Ginny Crane (AT&T) noted that one thing they do with
"smaller" entities is use what is called Hub Rollout. She
noted this entails fax to EDI which basically takes a faxed
document and turns it into EDI. One person noted that
Kansas has a tax credit for buying equipment to do EDI.
Terry Garber (SC) noted that they are going to provide
software which will produce X12 EDI for taxpayers.
A brief discussion of security of tax data was held. Some
departments allow no outgoing tax data to travel via the
Internet at this time.
After break, Terry Garber opened up the discussion on
"automation". Jim Paradise (Burr Wolff) noted that E-mail
doesn't necessarily have to be person-to-person. He noted
that it can be automated to the level of computer-to-
computer. Stan Whaley (FL) noted that they are doing this
in Florida using E-mail mailboxes.
Security was the next topic. Phil Czerkies (Amoco) noted
that it is certainly an issue with them. He noted
encryption is available. A participant questioned if
encryption software has to be the same to utilize
encryption. It was noted that by and large, this is the
case. The same software has to be used by both the sender
and receiver. It was noted that Internet access is still a
security issue. Terry Garber (SC) asked how much is the
security issue an "appearance" versus "reality" issue? A
respondent said that to capture anything on the Internet is
difficult and Secured Socket Layer (SSL) allows encryption
to provide good security. It was noted that node attacking
is where risks occur. Security needs to be applied around
the nodes and data removed quickly.
Terry Garber (SC) noted there were at least four states at
the FTA Technology Workshop that are going to soon have some
Internet filing applications. It was noted that there are
several architectures for applications to file tax data on
the Internet. It was noted that in Motor Fuel tax data,
there is a fear of the commercial value of the data to
competitors.
Terry Garber (SC) summarized the discussion and noted that
the Motor Fuel EDI Analysis document ends with an evaluation
check-list which has some valuable points to consider.
Next, Jim Paradise (Burr Wolff) went over the 813 for
Alabama Property Tax mapping. This is called the
e.Return.al. Jim went through the mapping explaining
various code uses.
Next, Jim went over his e.assess mapping. This is a mapping
of transaction set 149 Notice of Tax Adjustment or
Assessment. Jim has used AMT Amount segments in this
revised mapping. He noted two data maintenance items he is
requesting. One is adding the TIA Tax Information and
Amount segment at the TFS level. He is also asking for a
new code for data element 522 Amount Qualifier Code to
stand for "Assessment Ratio". Jim also noted that he may
need to express a tax rate as a percentage. Terry Garber
(SC) suggested using the PCT segment. Codes can be added
for PCT01 if required. Jim will notify Terry of the codes
he needs to have added.
Jim next gave a brief demo of the e.return software. This
is the assessor software (freeware) that his company is
making available.
We adjourned until 9:00 Thursday morning.
Thursday August 13, 1998 - Tax Information Interchange
Development (TG2)
---------------------------------------------------
Terry Garber (SC) recapped the agenda. Christine Wilder
(ADP) started the review of the Welfare Reform Business
Model draft document. Christine's agenda was:
ASC X12G
TG2 Tax Information Exchange Development
Welfare Reform Business Reference Model
Task Force Status Report
* Business Reference Model Review & Discussion
* TS 820 Status
* TS 248 Status
* TS 521 Status
* TS 540 Status
* Wrap-Up and Confirm Commitments
Christine stated the review of the document. She noted that
references to existing documents, when available, will be
used. We won't be replacing any existing relevant
documents. The Table of Contents was reviewed. She noted
that a Glossary has been added made of three parts - EDI,
Welfare Reform Terms, and Banking Terms.
The next section was the Introduction. Christine said that
this document will follow DISA's format for structuring
reference models. The Legislative Background and
Requirements section was reviewed. This section goes into
what data is required to be reported and when the reporting
is to be due. This section detailed the responsibilities
of the employers and states for reporting New Hire
information.
The next section reviewed was Child Support Enforcement -
New State Automated Systems/Case Registries. This section
gives some of the basic requirements for automated systems.
Next, the Financial Institution Data Match section was
reviewed. It describes the data requirements of states for
obtaining financial information on accounts of non-custodial
parents owing child support. Terry Garber (SC) noted that
we may want to note that this is a requirement of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (PRWORA). Stan Farmer (MO) noted that we may
not want to have specific names in the document as contacts,
but rather titles of contacts. Terry Garber noted that in
body of the text, it may not be good to have individual
names, but in the forward of the document supply names to
allow for giving credit to contributing parties.
Next the New Hire/Income Offset Process section was
reviewed. Terry Garber (SC) said that we need to use
consistent names of entities throughout the document. The
New Hire Reporting flowchart was reviewed. Christine noted
that an Error Notification footnote was added to indicate
this can happen anyplace in the entire process.
Stan Whaley (FL) noted that the National New Hire Agency box
should also include the State New Hire Agency Registry.
The Income Offset flowchart was reviewed next. This is
where a match has taken place and now the process of income
offset is started. Terry Garber (SC) noted that for
consistency, Wage Assignment should be termed Wage
Withholding.
Next the Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM) / Asset
Offset section was reviewed. There are two methods noted
for reporting. One reports on all accounts and one reports
on only selected accounts as requested by the state agency
on delinquent child support cases.
This section gives the X12 transaction sets that can be
utilized. Terry Garber (SC) said that it should be made
clear that the 820 transaction set cannot be substituted for
the 521 when the 521 is used for a withholding order. The
820 can only be used for a payment in response to a
withholding order.
The Income Offset flowchart was reviewed. Terry Garber (SC)
noted that an alternate arrow showing the 820 or the 521
could be used for the response between the State Child
Support Enforcement Agency and the Employer boxes.
The next section was the Financial Institution Data Match
(FIDM) / Asset Offset Process. This includes the two
reporting methods. One is the all accounts method; the
other is the matched accounts method. Terry Garber (SC)
noted that again the 820 should be shown on the Offset
flows.
The next section was EDI "Start-Up". Christine Wilder (ADP)
noted that she is not happy with this section. She
questioned if this should give a reference to the Reference
Model for Taxing Authorities document developed by this
group for start-up information. The other approach would be
to duplicate the relevant information here in this document.
Terry Garber (SC) noted that it may be best to duplicate it
here, due to the tax specific nature of the other document.
Christine noted that at the next meeting, she will include
the relevant information from our Volume I, "EDI Business
Reference Model for Taxing Authorities: A Reference Model
on Business Issues For Taxing Authorities". By using this
language in the new document, specific tax related language
can be left out and just the generic EDI language used.
Harriet Ormsbee (ProBusiness) volunteered to verify the
noted Internet addresses for accuracy and their appropriate
inclusion into this document. Included in this section are
catalog numbers for transaction set reference guides. A
suggestion was made to reference IRS Rev. Proc. 91-59 in
this document. Christine said she would look at the legal
considerations from Volume I to include here.
Christine noted that in the Mapping Example section, actual
transaction set maps will be included. She said that in the
Forms Examples section, she has obtained numerous forms to
include. Christine will E-mail the revised document for
review prior to the next meeting. Terry Garber (SC) thanked
Christine for all the hard work she has put forth in
developing this document.
Christine noted that Mike Teller (Lockheed Martin) will be
working on the 820 mapping. The 248 mapping is in progress.
Laurie Rhea (CA) is working on various 521 mappings for
inclusion. Christine is working on the 540 mapping.
Christine supplied her E-mail address "clwilder@yahoo.com".
In commitments to this document, Stan Whaley (FL) will work
on a combined glossary, Stan Farmer (MO) will check for
Volume I language to incorporate into the EDI Start-Up
section, and Harriet Ormsbee (ProBusiness) will work on the
Internet section.
Next, Terry Garber (SC) brought up the question of if a
December meeting is actually needed this year? Terry noted
that there is a conference in Phoenix targeted at States
Electronic Commerce. We may want to have a December meeting
in conjunction with this conference. She noted that there
is work that still needs to be done by this group in EDI
implementation conventions and the Child Support Reference
Model document. Terry also noted that the Volume II needs
to be finished.
The afternoon session was opened by Terry Garber (SC). She
had an update of the 283 Tax or Fee Exemption Certification.
This transaction set is out for vote. She noted that this
is to supply tax exemption information, typically from the
buyer to the seller. Hopefully, this transaction set has
passed on the ballot. Terry noted that the code list for
the reason for exemption was originally to be maintained by
the FTA organization. Since the first draft and the final
draft, the maintainer of the code list was changed to IPT,
the Institute for Professionals in Taxation. Terry noted
that IPT wanted to get more active in Sales Tax. Terry said
that since the last meeting of the EDI Audit Group, she was
contacted to see if the code list maintainer could be
changed back to the FTA. Terry replied that since the 283
is out for ballot, this would have to be done after the
ballot is over.
Terry asked Stephanie Rosenbush (FTA) to speak on this.
Stephanie said that because of the FTA structure and the
groups they have contact with, such as IPT, COST, etc., it
may be best for the FTA to maintain the list. Stephanie
said IPT has no problem with this change. She noted that
the initial code list has been developed and now has
approximately 30 codes. She noted the codes are very
generic but should satisfy most of the states needs.
Stephanie said that there are two issues outstanding: 1)
whether the states will accept this format, including the
generic code list, and 2) how states will deal with the
signature issue.
Terry Garber (SC) noted that the 283 may be included in
version release 004020. She noted that we may need to try
to get the states to accept the certificate for audit
purposes. Stephanie said that several states that had
agreed to follow the model Record Keeping and Retention
Recommendations also would accept this electronic format.
Terry said that we can put in data maintenance to have the
FTA as the maintainer of the code list instead of IPT in
October. Terry said it would be good if we could have
written notification from the FTA saying they would be the
maintainer of the code list. Stephanie noted that the FTA
could recommend that states take a look at the use of the
exemption certificate. It might also be possible to get an
endorsement from the MTC, since it had gotten 30 states
to agree to its uniform exemption paper form.
Terry said on our to-do list would be to see if we could
swap the IPT with FTA after ballot and get it in before
publication of the 283 in 004020. Terry emphasized the code
list needs to be ready to use when the 283 is out for
publication. Stephanie will send the code list to Dan for
inclusion with the minutes.
The next subject was the TXP addenda record. Terry gave a
background of the TXP. She noted that the CCD+ TXP addenda
record can be up to 80 bytes. The addenda record contains
information such as taxpayer ID, tax period ending, the tax
type code, etc. Terry noted that this is the TXP banking
convention. She said there is a TXP segment that is used in
the X12 standards. Some states are mandated to use 8
character dates which poses a problem because the TXP
addenda record is already using 79 of the 80 characters
available.
Terry said NACHA is looking at a field in the body of "07"
record to give the version of the addenda record. This in
effect would tell the format of the date used. Terry
thought this was being considered in a record sequence
number field. Dan Cornwell (IL) had a copy of the addenda
record and noted there is a 4 digit numeric field called
"Special Addenda Sequence Number", which would probably
always be 0001 for a CCD+ with only one addenda record. It
appears that the version could be used in this field. Terry
asked Stephanie to follow up with the states and Priscilla
Taylor (Chair of NACHA EDI Banker's Council) to get the
exact information on the proposal. It was agreed that our
group needs to find out what this proposal entails.
Next, Dan Cornwell (IL) presented the PBI01 Error Code
uniformity work-to-date. Dan gave a brief history of how
this methodology for the error code list was developed. The
Petroleum Industry Data Exchange (PIDX) original work was
the basis, and Dan expanded this to make the scheme more
generic and expand the capacity for additional error codes.
Dan called for volunteers to take on the role of maintaining
this list due to his leaving the group due to a job change.
No firm commitments were made; however, Terry Garber (SC)
noted that it would be good for a state currently using the
151 to be the keeper of these codes.
The meeting was adjourned until Friday morning.
Friday August 14, 1998 - Tax Information Group for EDI
Requirements Standardization (TIGERS)
---------------------------------------------------
Ray Grimm (WI) gave the status of a Motor Fuel Uniformity
Committee meeting on Electronic Commerce issues. Ray noted
the minutes of their latest meetings will be put on the FTA
Web site for review. Ray noted that people should view the
minutes and send any comments to Bill Gray and they will be
available at the Pittsburgh September 11 and 12 meeting.
Ray said this group will meet to formulate a matrix in 3
sections. This will tell the oil companies the options
available to get tax information to taxing authorities. It
will be broken down by large companies, mid-sized companies
and small companies, giving options to file taxes
electronically. Ray said the charter of this work group is
to address concerns of the oil companies regarding the
direction that various states are going on Motor Fuel
filing. This was a result of a teleconference where several
oil companies and states participated. The companies wanted
a single vendor similar to TaxConnect for Motor Fuel EDI.
Ray said that they could develop a set of business
functional requirements to accomplish the "one-place" filing
option.
Ray said their work group is now looking at the business
requirements which will cross the tax lines. He hopes that
they can arrive at a single vendor for handling data
transfer only. Ray said that there are several states
adding Motor Fuel EDI shortly, bringing this number up to
nine states. Ray said a cooperative purchasing scheme may
be developed in an attempt to secure a vendor for the data
handling activities. They are looking at AT&T as a possible
vendor for this cooperative pricing plan. Ray noted the
initial pricing would be based on the five states that
currently have Motor Fuel EDI activity. He noted that
Wisconsin doesn't need translation services, just data
handling services.
Terry Garber (SC) noted that the cooperative bid could be
complicated by participant states that would not only
require data handling services but also translation
services. Bob Martin (WI) noted that by separating the two
functions of translation versus data handling, it has
simplified their pricing. Ray Grimm (WI) noted that by
breaking the components down, it makes it easier for people
with common goals to pick the pieces they need. He noted
his work group wanted him to go back to the Motor Fuel
Uniformity Committee and say that they need to encompass
Electronic Commerce and not just EDI.
Stan Whaley (FL) noted that timing may be a problem in
getting other states to hold off programs until this
cooperative Motor Fuel VAN initiative can be accomplished.
Terry Garber (SC) noted that they had talked to several VANs
and found that volume is the determining factor in pricing.
Ray Grimm (WI) noted that by combining the states as a
group, hopefully the volume would be brought to the contract
with a VAN. Ray noted that states need to talk to their
procurement people to find out their ability to enter into a
cooperative agreement such as this. Terry Garber (SC) asked
what the work group would really accomplish. Ray said that
they would make prospective states aware of the agreement,
help them enter into the group, and help them try to reach
higher volumes. He said the matrix will be designed with
the 3 sections mentioned and will be incorporated into the
Uniformity documents. He said that when states start doing
Motor Fuel EDI, this document will give guidelines for them.
This will help oil companies build their infrastructure to
do Motor Fuel EDI.
Ray Grimm (WI) encouraged people to attend the next Motor
Fuel Uniformity meeting in Pittsburgh on September 11 and
12. This meeting will ratify the 1998 Combined Reporting
Map. Ray asked states to see if they would consider
entering into this cooperative agreement.
Next, Stan Whaley (FL) gave a brief presentation on their
Sales Tax remapping. He noted he had gotten with Brooks
Knight (TX) to get additional TIA01 codes. Stan showed the
old codes they used and noted that they only had to add
about seven new codes. Stan said Brooks Knight has aided in
reconciling the old codes Florida used to arrive at the new
codes. Stan noted that they have made the new codes more
generic.
Stan noted that they have new legislation which will require
reporting intangible property, i.e. stocks, etc. There is a
return with associated schedules. He also noted that he had
attended a good presentation by 3Com which basically told
the roles of people involved in implementing EDI and the
number of people required for these positions. Stan said he
will get the group copies of his revised map Sales Tax map.
Next the discussion turned back to Motor Fuel. Ray Grimm
(WI) asked what we could do to market EDI programs to
facilitate management backing. Stan Farmer (MO) noted the
difficulty of getting company participation in EDI filing,
where tax departments are generally low on the priority list
in many companies. Stan noted that are few states that have
a successful voluntary program. Ray said he thought we, as
a group, should come up with new ideas to help states in
marketing EDI filing. He said we need to bring to light the
success stories. Ray suggested a work group may need to be
formed to address this marketing task. Ray thought that
this may be the responsibility of the FTA to aid in this
task. He would like to add this to the agenda to address
the marketing issue at the next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned.
On a personal note, many of you know I have changed jobs
within my agency and will no longer be attending the X12
activities. I would like to thank everyone for the nice
engraved paperweight I was presented with at this meeting.
I have enjoyed meeting and working with all of you over the
past several years and serving as secretary to TG2. I wish
you all the best in your future. - Dan Cornwell
-----------------[ Uuencoded File Attachment: 9808MINB.TXT ]----------------