On October 21, 2025, a trio of prominent California lawmakers—Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-10) and Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA)—took a public stand against the closure of the Walnut Creek Taxpayer Assistance Center (TAC), a key facility providing in-person help to local taxpayers. Their concerns, detailed in a letter sent to the Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, have ignited a debate about the future of taxpayer services in the Bay Area and the transparency of federal decision-making.
The Walnut Creek TAC is among nine centers nationwide slated for closure this year under President Biden’s Executive Order 14222, which is part of a broader “Department of Government Efficiency” Cost Efficiency Initiative. While the IRS has assured lawmakers that the closure will not affect in-person services or employment, the lack of clarity surrounding the process has left many uneasy. According to the lawmakers’ joint letter, “As you know, the Walnut Creek TAC was recently selected as one of nine centers to be closed this year pursuant to the President’s Executive Order 14222, Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative. While we appreciate your agency’s assurances that this particular closure will not affect in-person services nor employment, we remain concerned about the lack of clarity in your decision-making as well as any further actions that could limit TAC access for Bay Area residents.”
The Walnut Creek TAC has been closed since at least June 2025, leaving local residents—especially those who rely on face-to-face assistance—scrambling for alternatives. TACs like Walnut Creek’s are especially critical for taxpayers who lack reliable internet access or who are elderly and may find online resources daunting. As reported by Quiver Quantitative, the lawmakers’ letter emphasized the importance of these centers: “TACs provide critical free, in-person assistance from trained professionals and are particularly helpful to taxpayers without access to the internet and the elderly.”
In their letter, DeSaulnier, Padilla, and Schiff demanded answers to a series of pointed questions by November 10, 2025. Among their concerns: Why was Walnut Creek selected for closure? What methodology guided the decision? Was a cost/benefit analysis conducted before the closure was announced? And, crucially, has the IRS considered the impact on taxpayers forced to travel farther for help? The lawmakers also queried the number of appointments booked at Walnut Creek during peak times before its closure and pressed the IRS on whether additional Bay Area TACs, such as those in Oakland and San Francisco, are at risk.
The closure comes at a time when the need for accessible taxpayer services remains high. The Bay Area’s diverse population includes many who depend on in-person guidance for tax preparation, audits, and navigating complex federal forms. The lawmakers’ intervention reflects mounting anxiety among constituents who fear that further closures could leave whole communities underserved. As the letter states, “In order to ensure that Bay Area taxpayers are well served by the IRS, we ask that you provide answers to the following questions by November 10, 2025.”
Congressman DeSaulnier has long been an advocate for local access to federal services. According to Quiver Quantitative, he has recently proposed several bills focused on community well-being and accountability, including the School Food Modernization Act and the Advancing Gun Safety Technology Act. While these legislative efforts are not directly related to the TAC closures, they underscore his broader commitment to responsive government. DeSaulnier’s recent fundraising and net worth disclosures—$121,300 raised in Q3 2025 and a net worth of $258,000—reflect his ongoing engagement with both his constituents and the legislative process.
Senators Padilla and Schiff, both vocal on issues of public service and government accountability, have echoed DeSaulnier’s concerns. Their united front signals a growing expectation among California lawmakers that the IRS must operate with greater transparency—especially when decisions have a real, everyday impact on local residents. As the joint letter makes clear, “We remain concerned about the lack of clarity in your decision-making as well as any further actions that could limit TAC access for Bay Area residents.”
The IRS, for its part, has maintained that the closures are part of a necessary drive to streamline operations and cut costs, as mandated by the President’s executive order. However, the agency’s assurances that in-person services and employment will not be affected have done little to quell local fears. Many residents and officials wonder how these promises will be kept if facilities like Walnut Creek’s are shuttered without clear alternatives in place.
One of the central issues raised by the lawmakers is the potential burden placed on taxpayers who must travel greater distances to access in-person help. For some, particularly those with mobility challenges or limited transportation options, the closure of a nearby TAC can mean the difference between filing taxes correctly and falling behind. The lawmakers’ letter specifically asks whether the IRS has “studied the impact on taxpayers of having to travel to the next closest TAC,” highlighting the very real stakes for those affected.
Community advocates have also voiced concern that the closure may disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. Without local TACs, individuals who are less comfortable with technology or who face language barriers may find themselves at a loss. The lawmakers’ inquiry into the number of appointments at Walnut Creek during peak periods before its closure is a bid to quantify just how many people could be left in the lurch.
As of now, the IRS has yet to provide a detailed public response to the lawmakers’ questions. The agency faces a November 10 deadline to explain its rationale and outline how it intends to ensure continued service for East Bay residents. The outcome of this inquiry could set a precedent for how federal agencies balance efficiency with accessibility—a tension that’s only likely to grow as government services continue to digitize.
For now, the future of the Walnut Creek TAC—and potentially other Bay Area centers—hangs in the balance. Local leaders and residents alike are watching closely, hoping for a resolution that puts people, not just cost savings, at the center of federal decision-making.
As the deadline for answers approaches, the debate over the Walnut Creek closure has become a flashpoint in the broader conversation about government efficiency, transparency, and the essential nature of public service. The coming weeks will reveal whether the IRS can address these concerns to the satisfaction of both lawmakers and the communities they represent.
