At two separate seminars last fall, there was interpretation of new Sec 7216 with respect to client confidentiality. Of interest were the instructors who NOW were saying they had a "hypothetical" client who....
Prior to this year, they said they had a "client who..." Their explanation was that with the new Sec 7216 they were not even allowed to make reference to a real-case client situation even if they didn't mention his name. Something about a listener evaluating the facts, and by the circumstances, might know who the client really was.
Guys/Gals, I hope we're not going down that road. I have had literally dozens of real-life situations where I came to this board for advice and reflection. For years, I have been referring to "a client who" had this or that, and using those examples around other clients, other tax preparers, and forums such as this one.
Prior to this year, they said they had a "client who..." Their explanation was that with the new Sec 7216 they were not even allowed to make reference to a real-case client situation even if they didn't mention his name. Something about a listener evaluating the facts, and by the circumstances, might know who the client really was.
Guys/Gals, I hope we're not going down that road. I have had literally dozens of real-life situations where I came to this board for advice and reflection. For years, I have been referring to "a client who" had this or that, and using those examples around other clients, other tax preparers, and forums such as this one.
Comment