IRS seminar today

[JohnH]

Yes, and to reinforce your last comment, look at page 17:

"Lastly, we will continue to work closely with tax software manufacturers to ensure that their customers – both preparers and taxpayers – have access to the most accurate tax information possible.
STRATEGY 1: Enable partners to better serve their customers by providing faster issue resolution and tailored service
STRATEGY 2: Treat partners as the “first line of compliance” by providing them with the tools and information to encourage taxpayer compliance and prevent mistakes"

I didn't know until now that IRS considered itself a "partner" in my business. I also thought I was an advocate for the client, when all the time IRS is forcing me into the box to simply serve as a "first line of compliance" , under threat of severe penalties or removal of their blessing & forcing me out of business.

How close is that to being forced to function as a "pre-audit auditor" for them?

[JoshinNC]

Hola, bienvinidos a Wal-Mart!

If that happens, I'll still participate on the forum.

Meanwhile, I'm going to start practicing for my anticipated retirement career. Finding just the right way to say "Hello, welcome to Wal-Mart" and "Thanks, come again soon" ought to cover most of my responsibilites.

That'll cover 1/2 the people coming through the door in Charlotte, I'm sure.

[Black Bart]

Hoff,

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3744.pdf

See Objective 4 on Page 10...

I believe it's on page 16 instead -- but I agree with you and John, I don't want to be in partners with them either. Actually when I first read the thing, I thought maybe they were talking about the partners in a partnership -- couldn't figure out how the heck I got in bed with 'em.

Funny how these PC-oriented characters coin euphemisms like partners* and slyly slide 'em right into a speech without any fuss or fanfare and first thing you know, you've unknowingly, unwillingly, and uncompensated become part of their family.

*Brings to mind a software rep I asked about continued product support; said "Sorry, we've sunsetted that item." By the time I kick the bucket, they'll probably be saying "Bart? Oh, didn't you hear? He sunsetted last week."

[jimmcg]

I believe it's on page 16 instead -- but I agree with you and John, I don't want to in partners with them either. Actually when I first read the thing, I thought maybe they were talking about the partners in a partnership -- couldn't figure out how the heck I got in bed with 'em.

Funny how these PC-oriented characters coin euphemisms like partners* and slyly slide 'em right into a speech without any fuss or fanfare and first thing you know, you've unknowingly, unwillingly, and uncompensated become part of their family.

*Brings to mind a software rep I asked about continued product support; said "Sorry, we've sunsetted that item." By the time I kick the bucket, they'll probably be saying "Bart? Oh, didn't you hear? He sunsetted last week."

BB..........How can you doubt that the government is here to help you. You should feel honored that you have been invited to become part of the "family."

[Black Bart]

Hey Jimm,

BB..........How can you doubt that the government is here to help you. You should feel honored that you have been invited to become part of the "family."

Thanks; indeed I am honored and no doubt they are "here to help," but I've been asked a few times if I was any kin to the Beverly Hillbillies and I denied all connection. So if it's all the same to IRS I'd like to be given the option of declining membership in their "family" too.

[BHoffman]

You make it sound paternal.

The IRS is shifting the cost of enforcing compliance onto the tax preparer.

We should raise our fees.

[jimmcg]

You make it sound paternal.

The IRS is shifting the cost of enforcing compliance onto the tax preparer.

We should raise our fees.

I agree with you. You summed it up very well. I for one am opting out of the "family." I have more work than I wish to do in tax planning and tax representation. Tax preparation, if necessary, can always be sub contracted out. I will leave the more mundane chores to others.

[joanmcq]

attorneys, CPAs & EAs don't have to test. we've already taken at least one. BTW, to pass the CPA test, I spent $800 on a review course (that I bought at a silent auction, so I paid half price), spent several hundred to sit for the exam, and spend several hundred every two years to renew, not to mention the 80 hours of classes I need every two years. I think the higher fees to get the PTIN are for the unlicensed preparers who are now going to be licensed albeit at a lesser level (like CTEC here in CA). Those that will need the testing. Now if yinz 'r *****in', you should listen to the folks out here that have been doing their CPE for their CTEC license as well as paying the CA fees and now finding they need to take another test!

IMHO, making everyone that does taxes take at least a few classes each year is not a bad thing.

[Possi]

Glad to see...

... I'm glad to see that some of you agree with me, that the IRS wants to "partner" with me. I am not up for adoption. I have always had a PTIN, a CAF and an EFIN, and I'm confident the IRS watches me. They won't sleep with me, though!

[BHoffman]

... I'm glad to see that some of you agree with me, that the IRS wants to "partner" with me. I am not up for adoption. I have always had a PTIN, a CAF and an EFIN, and I'm confident the IRS watches me. They won't sleep with me, though!

They don't want to sleep with you. In fact, you are an unwelcome bedbug as far as they are concerned. This is a lovefest between the big tax prep companies and the IRS. The smoke and mirrors is that the IRS wants to have more qualified people preparing tax returns. If that were true, then the general public would not be permitted to prepare their own tax returns.

A few large tax prep firms are easier to control than many small ones. Small and/or unlicensed competitors are assumed to charge lesser fees and that puts downward pressure on the prices the larger firms can charge.

The large firms want the small guys to get out of town so they can raise their fees. The IRS want the small guys to get out because a few big guys are much more efficiently controlled than a bunch of little guys. This is Big Gov getting in bed with Big Business. I predict one of the large tax prep franchisers will be publically excoriated by the IRS very soon. Like the great, big, political campaign donors Goldman Sachs or BP. It's all a stupid show.

Barrier to entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_To_Entry Anyone who disbelieves in this might actually take the time to actually read this information instead of glancing at its boring ugliness before rushing to the comfort of a Vente Chai Latte with soy to calm that fluttery feeling when confronted with such ickiness as hard fact that goes against the dreamy utopian fantasy that nothing is really real.

This whole regulation / fee thing is just to get small fry out of the business and keep other small fry from getting in. Might also consider the pending change to how small SCorp service provider shareholders are getting taxed. Another cost to the small practitioner.

[veritas]

So can we all agree

That more regulation in our industry will raise the cost to the consumer?

[Black Bart]

Tax Preparers -- AKA "Silent Partners"

...I didn't know until now that IRS considered itself a "partner" in my business. I also thought I was an advocate for the client, when all the time IRS is forcing me into the box to simply serve as a "first line of compliance" , under threat of severe penalties or removal of their blessing & forcing me out of business...

IRS has long been headed here, but has never before put it so bluntly: "Our partners/first line of compliance"-- just like something a government PR/BS artist would write, eh? Odd, I've never seen our trade publications discuss this funadmental role-reversal (enforcer rather than advocate).

A board member here (can't remember who) once mentioned that his father -- back in his day -- considered it malfeasance to be less than a forceful advocate for one's clients. The new unwarranted unwanted "partnership annexation" of our unwilling profession stands that view on its head and seems unethical at the least. Maybe IRS should attend their own mandated "ethics" CPE courses.

...The large firms want the small guys to get out of town so they can raise their fees. The IRS want the small guys to get out because a few big guys are much more efficiently controlled than a bunch of little guys. This is Big Gov getting in bed with Big Business...

This is the trend. While politicans say "small-business is the nation's backbone...hires the most workers...blah, blah, blah;" nothing much is ever really done for us ("those awful under-reporting Schedule Cs and low-salaried S Corps"). New-hire reduced FICA credits (and the health care credit for a few) help but we're side beneficiaries -- they're not really for us. So I wonder; will we ever see something that's ours alone -- that actually helps us stay in business?

I've always thought...what about an EIC program to encourage production of new small businesses...instead of new small voters??