Comment on FR Doc # 2012-06072

As a former law clerk at a firm that worked primarily in the trusts and estate field, I have an interest and am familiar with the EIN process. I wish to comment regarding the estimated burden. I disagree with this estimate as to the effect it will have on small entities. An EIN must be acquired for each trust itself as a taxpaying entity, and the responsible party is the grantor of the trust. As this is already the practice at the firm I practiced at, requiring updated information regarding the name and taxpayer information of the responsible party would not be a “substantial burden.” However, I take issue based on continued monitoring and the requirement covering persons who previously applied for an EIN by listing a person other than the applicant’s responsible party. First, continuing to monitor the responsible party’s information on a year-to-year basis could place a possible financial and time burden on small entities, like my former firm. Unless the client met yearly with the attorney, it would be difficult to ascertain if their information had changed; therefore, to adhere to the “updated information” it would be prudent for the firm to send out yearly contact information updates, which would take time and resources. By factoring this time into the analysis, I believe that 15 minutes per respondent is an underestimate. Secondly, if the requirement covers person who previously applied for an EIN by listing a person other than the applicant’s responsible party, the firm would have to filter through all EIN applications to double check if a responsible party was previously listed with each trust that applied for an EIN (even though it is likely that a responsible party was listed due to the firm’s common practice). Again, this would put a time burden of over 15 minutes on each respondent in order to assure that a responsible party was listed. I believe that the proposed rule places at least a 30-minute burden on small entities.