I tend to agree with the thoughts expressed in an earlier thread. I have difficulty understanding why an enrolled agent would want to relinquish that credential and take the RTRP instead.
The idea that you have to take fewer hours of CPE seems silly and unpersuasive to me. Plus, one would be giving up the ability to represent a taxpayer in an audit where someone else prepared the return.
What I find credible, and reasonable, is the argument that some tax pros might want to be able to advertise with both credentials, or just use the RTRP designation after their name, even if they are also an enrolled agent.
Holding both credentials is not the same as dropping the enrolled agent license.
The theory behind this argument is that with the IRS campaign to educate the public on the new rules, the public may not understand the EA designation. So some EAs feel that they are at a disadvantage, because unless they take the RTRP exam, they can't use those letters after their name.
Put another way, some feel that the letters RTRP may have more value than the letters EA for marketing and advertising purposes.
While I understand and respect this reasoning, I don't agree.
The public has never had a good understanding of the EA credential. NAEA has worked for many years to try to increase public awareness. NAEA has also tried to get the IRS to develop marketing and public awareness of the EA credential. These efforts have not failed, but they have not been wildly successful either.
With the implementation of the new rules, we have a wonderful opportunity to educate the public about both credentials.
I've been an EA for about four years. My business card does not have the letters EA on it. Instead, just below my name, it says "Admitted to practice before the Internal Revenue Service." This verbiage is authorized by Circular 230.
I may decide to change my business card in the next couple years, depending on what kind of marketing and publicity is done by the IRS and the NAEA. But right now I am comfortable with what I have.
I won't be surprised if the IRS ultimately decides that you can't hold both credentials at the same time. If an EA really wants to be an RTRP, they could ask the IRS to put their EA license into inactive status. There is a procedure for this in Cir. 230. It is meant mainly for someone who is retired. But it makes it possible to return to active status later.
As for the question of what would happen if an EA takes the RTRP exam and fails, I have no idea. I don't think it would lead automatic revocation of the EA license.
It has been said that the RTRP exam is meant to be a "subset" of the EA exam, i.e., Part 1 of the EA exam, because it is limited in scope to individual returns.
While this may be a reasonable way to describe it, it is not entirely accurate. The RTRP exam has some stuff in it that is not in Part 1 of the EA exam, such as ethics and practice requirements. The RTRP exam is not Part 1 of the EA exam. It is a different exam.
Failure to pass that exam should not automatically invalidate the EA credential.
It might raise questions about the person's competency, but that's not the same as automatically revoking or cancelling the EA license.
Most lawyers who have been practicing for many years could not pass the bar exam today without a massive amount of study and preparation. But that doesn't mean that they are not qualified to practice law.
Personally, I think it is probably a mistake for an EA to take the RTRP exam.
With the right marketing, we can educate the public that an EA has qualifications and privileges that are greater than that of an RTRP. I just don't see EAs actually losing business because they cannot use the letters RTRP.
BMK
The idea that you have to take fewer hours of CPE seems silly and unpersuasive to me. Plus, one would be giving up the ability to represent a taxpayer in an audit where someone else prepared the return.
What I find credible, and reasonable, is the argument that some tax pros might want to be able to advertise with both credentials, or just use the RTRP designation after their name, even if they are also an enrolled agent.
Holding both credentials is not the same as dropping the enrolled agent license.
The theory behind this argument is that with the IRS campaign to educate the public on the new rules, the public may not understand the EA designation. So some EAs feel that they are at a disadvantage, because unless they take the RTRP exam, they can't use those letters after their name.
Put another way, some feel that the letters RTRP may have more value than the letters EA for marketing and advertising purposes.
While I understand and respect this reasoning, I don't agree.
The public has never had a good understanding of the EA credential. NAEA has worked for many years to try to increase public awareness. NAEA has also tried to get the IRS to develop marketing and public awareness of the EA credential. These efforts have not failed, but they have not been wildly successful either.
With the implementation of the new rules, we have a wonderful opportunity to educate the public about both credentials.
I've been an EA for about four years. My business card does not have the letters EA on it. Instead, just below my name, it says "Admitted to practice before the Internal Revenue Service." This verbiage is authorized by Circular 230.
I may decide to change my business card in the next couple years, depending on what kind of marketing and publicity is done by the IRS and the NAEA. But right now I am comfortable with what I have.
I won't be surprised if the IRS ultimately decides that you can't hold both credentials at the same time. If an EA really wants to be an RTRP, they could ask the IRS to put their EA license into inactive status. There is a procedure for this in Cir. 230. It is meant mainly for someone who is retired. But it makes it possible to return to active status later.
As for the question of what would happen if an EA takes the RTRP exam and fails, I have no idea. I don't think it would lead automatic revocation of the EA license.
It has been said that the RTRP exam is meant to be a "subset" of the EA exam, i.e., Part 1 of the EA exam, because it is limited in scope to individual returns.
While this may be a reasonable way to describe it, it is not entirely accurate. The RTRP exam has some stuff in it that is not in Part 1 of the EA exam, such as ethics and practice requirements. The RTRP exam is not Part 1 of the EA exam. It is a different exam.
Failure to pass that exam should not automatically invalidate the EA credential.
It might raise questions about the person's competency, but that's not the same as automatically revoking or cancelling the EA license.
Most lawyers who have been practicing for many years could not pass the bar exam today without a massive amount of study and preparation. But that doesn't mean that they are not qualified to practice law.
Personally, I think it is probably a mistake for an EA to take the RTRP exam.
With the right marketing, we can educate the public that an EA has qualifications and privileges that are greater than that of an RTRP. I just don't see EAs actually losing business because they cannot use the letters RTRP.
BMK
Comment