Enrolled Agents Credential Act?

[AZ-Tax]

Did anyone else receive an email on this from NAEA? Am I reading this correctly that only Dems so far are either sponsoring or co sponsoring this bill?

Dear NAEA members (with a copy to non-member EAs, too),

I am writing with wonderful news and to make a personal request.

Why are we so excited about the Enrolled Agents Credential Act of 2013? For lots of reasons. The legislation has been a priority of NAEA leadership, which has charged the GR team with doing everything it can to garner Congressional interest. The bill is simple—a one-pager and at no cost to taxpayers—but don’t let that distract you. Enrolled agents hold a federally-granted license to practice, yet in some states they are unable to hold themselves forth by their Treasury-granted name or are otherwise harassed by state regulators for alleged advertising infractions. NAEA has been working for years to provide relief to these beleaguered tax experts and we now have something to show for that.

As part of our strategy, we used the 2013 Fly-in Day as a platform to advocate for the bill. Nearly 90 members from 30 states and the District of Columbia attended this year’s Fly-in to advance causes important to the profession and to raise EA awareness in the process. We advocated in almost 150 congressional offices in the House and Senate for tax reform, return preparer oversight and protection of the EA credential.

For those of you who participated, your efforts both during the visits and through your follow-up were important and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

NAEA’s government relations team (Bob Kerr, Sr. Director, Government Relations and Jeff Trinca, Federal Legislative Counsel) courted members of the tax-writing committees in the House and Senate to find allies in support of a one-page stand-alone bill that would help codify the federal enrolled agent credential approved by the Treasury.

Please note the bipartisan nature of the bills. Representative Xavier Becerra (D-CA), a long-time ally of NAEA, has agreed to jump on board with Dr. Boustany and co-sponsor H.R. 2313. In addition, Representatives Tim Bishop (D-NY) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) are also original co-sponsors of H.R. 2313.
•Write your representative and both of your senators and ask them to co-sponsor the Enrolled Agents Credential Act. Here’s how you do that:
1.Visit the CongressMerge website, type your address into the appropriate fields and click the “Submit It” button.
2.After submitting your address, you should see all three of your elected representatives. To the right, you will see phone and fax numbers and an email contact form hosted on each of their congressional websites. Click on those links one-after-the-other until you have contacted all of them.
3.In your email to your representative in the House, ask your representative to support and co-sponsor H.R. 2313. In your emails to both of your senators, please ask them to co-sponsor S. 1134.
• If you find that your representative or senator is an original sponsor or co-sponsor, write to thank your legislator for his/her leadership on an issue of great importance to you.

Introduction of these bills is an advocacy high-water mark, but we need your help at the grassroots level. Please take a minute to protect enrolled agents and strengthen the profession by contacting your elected representatives and asking them to support the Enrolled Agents Credential Act of 2013.

[Golden Rocket]

It is No Accident

...that finding congressional sponsors for more government regulations finds fertile soil among Democrats.

I have been telling this forum from the very beginning that industry regulation would be a Trojan Horse - hailed initially as the solution to weed out unscrupulous preparers, but when fully hatched will bring forth misery to all but the largest corporate preparation entities.

No cost to the taxpayers? OK, then who does the cost fall upon? Are we all so naive as to believe that no cost exists?

Keep in mind also that the IRS lost a big-time court battle in the court on the issue of regulation, so they will be bugging lawmakers for new legislation.

[DexEA]

Lol

Did Am I reading this correctly that only Dems so far are either sponsoring or co sponsoring this bill?

U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Congressman Charles Boustany (R-LA-03) introduced the Enrolled Agents Credential Act. It was a good thing to start and when it receives Democratic support it becomes a bad thing.

[New York Enrolled Agent]

Did anyone else receive an email on this from NAEA? Am I reading this correctly that only Dems so far are either sponsoring or co sponsoring this bill?

No - you are not correct.

Apparently in your haste to post something you missed the sentence in the NAEA message - Please note the bipartisan nature of the bills.

As DexEA pointed out it was introduced by Dr. Boustany and Senator Portman who are both Republicans. Dr. Boustany is both a cardiologist and a Member of Congress.

Golden Rocket - before you pontificate you really need to know the facts. The Bill simply adds a new section to the Internal Revenue Code that codifies the EA credential. It is completely independent from the regulation of tax preparers and the Loving case and has no revenue consequence.

[Golden Rocket]

Righter than Right

[QUOTE=New York Enrolled Agent;154508]Golden Rocket - before you pontificate you really need to know the facts.

I never claimed to know the facts - all my verbiage was limited to general statements and barely serious at best. I never even knew this bill existed until I read of it on this forum. There is a clear-cut difference between ignorance (as in lack of scienter) and plain stupidity.

NYEA - we have followed you through the years, and there is none more helpful or knowledgeable than yourself. And if someone does spew forth inaccuracies as factual information, that person should appreciate being corrected and not take offense. I myself have often been the benefactor of your knowledge, and if I am corrected for mis-statements then I will only be the wiser. But I am getting weary of this denigration for offering opinions or sometimes just being plain wrong when interpreting information I have at my disposal.

[taxea]

I fail to see a need for this recognition. What we need is for NAEA etc to make us recognizable to the taxpayer.

[New York Enrolled Agent]

I fail to see a need for this recognition. What we need is for NAEA etc to make us recognizable to the taxpayer.

When exactly did you join NAEA? It appears you are not listed on the EA directory on the NAEA site. If memory serves me correctly, you've indicated you don't belong to professional organizations. Perhaps your dues might help NAEA move the profession forward.

You fail to see the need for the Act. Based on your signature line - "You do the research so you will remember it longer", I'll only give you a hint why it's needed and then you can do the research.

Hint = Sperry

[taxea]

When exactly did you join NAEA? It appears you are not listed on the EA directory on the NAEA site. If memory serves me correctly, you've indicated you don't belong to professional organizations. Perhaps your dues might help NAEA move the profession forward.

You fail to see the need for the Act. Based on your signature line - "You do the research so you will remember it longer", I'll only give you a hint why it's needed and then you can do the research.

Hint = Sperry

At that time i didn't. Since that statement I have become a member of NATP, ASTPS and NAEA. In order to keep unwanted spam from my email, as well as contacts by unwanted clients i asked that my status not be posted on the site.

[Bees Knees]

I fail to see a need for this recognition.

Well, I'll give you more than a hint. As mentioned in the linked letter from the original post, if you lived in certain states that require certain state licensing, you would not be allowed to advertise your federal EA credentials to the public.

A case of state law trying to regulate a federal license. All the bill does is say a state has no right to overrule a federal license.

[Bees Knees]

I have been telling this forum from the very beginning that industry regulation would be a Trojan Horse - hailed initially as the solution to weed out unscrupulous preparers, but when fully hatched will bring forth misery to all but the largest corporate preparation entities.

I will weigh in on this issue.

In my old age, I am growing tired of the ever increasing complexity in the tax code due to Congressional tinkering and then fooling ourselves into thinking that our voluntary tax reporting can somehow stand on its own. I believe there are only two choices:

1) Replace the tax code with a simple flat tax or national sales tax, or
2) Continue the current complex system coupled with increased funding to the IRS for enforcement efforts, and increased regulations on tax preparers charged with enforcing these ridiculously complex rules on their clients.

Case in point…the recent court case about an EA who told his client he could amortize the value of his life over 15 years and take the amortization deductions on his LLC partnership return.

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/MillsMemo.TCM.WPD.pdf

To put it more bluntly, I am sick and tired of tax cheats. I am honest on my tax return. I pay my fair share. I expect the rest of society to do the same. If that means turning tax return preparers into government administrators and agents, then so be it. If a tax preparer can’t find a way to charge his/her clients for all the new regulations, then perhaps a job change is in order.

[Uncle Sam]

Enrolled Agent Credential Act

I guess taxea - under your thinking - there probably shouldn't even be an EA title.

These professional organizations have fought extremely hard to obtain the recognition for
EAs so you can have the right to practice and show the designation for the exam you took.

And you don't feel the need to respect their efforts - is that what the attitude is in Hawaii?

[Golden Rocket]

Who is the Client

Understand that Bees and I have been on different sides of this issue from the outset of regulation - although we both feel the same way about tax cheats. Nor do I think the govt should sit back and do nothing. But -

If that means turning tax return preparers into government administrators and agents, then so be it. If a tax preparer can’t find a way to charge his/her clients for all the new regulations, then perhaps a job change is in order.

This raises the issue of exactly who are we working for - the govt or our clients? Finding a way to charge for our services may absolve itself into who is getting the benefit of our services. Some inside the IRS are already making statements as to how to convert us into another arm of their function and they're serious. This is not a flippant response to Bees Knees - it's simply that when the rubber hits the road, our clients really do have a concern about who they're paying, and for what. They don't know much about taxes, but they're not stupid - and there will be broadbased resistance from those whom we have to collect our fees.

I can't think of a better encouragement to send our clients to "shifty-eyed Sam" (and to ensure his continued existence) than to portend both the cost and perspective of new regulations onto their shoulders.

[Gary2]

1) Replace the tax code with a simple flat tax ...

Tangent alert: I'm growing tired of the erroneous equating of "flat tax" with "simple". The MA state return is technically flat, but by no means simple. The tax calculation on the federal return is the one step that takes "taxable income" to compute "tax", which is usually a simple calculation handled by the computer, and is legislated in a handful of short tables in section 1 of the code. Changing from progressive to flat is a negligible simplification to that calculation.

To be fair, there are ways in which the progressive tax affects other aspects of the code and tax planning - such as worrying about selling an asset as long or short term, or the implications of depreciation recapture. With a flat tax, the dependency rules become a bit less important - but not simpler. So going to a flat tax will produce some simplification, but still very little.

The overwhelming complexity in the code comes from issues that have nothing to do with the flat vs. progressive tax tables. Just consider the passive activity and at-risk rules. Or the uniform capitalization rules.

[Snaggletooth]

Simple Flat Tax

Gary, to reinforce your point, bear in mind that the 1986 tax "simplification" reduced the number of tax brackets from thirteen to only two. By the time the implementation became effective, there were three, a few more were added by successive aggressive Congress sessions. The much-ballyhooed "simplification" did nothing but reduce the number of buckets when we had to look up the rates to compute the tax.

I am absolutely certain Bees Knees is fully aware that flattening the tax rate doesn't even scratch the surface for unraveling the complexities that have been foisted into the tax code. As an adjective, you might consider his "simple" as modifying "tax" rather than modifying "flat".

As an additional thought, I might add that simplification can be achieved in a revenue-neutral fashion so that Congress can do this without whining about revenue. Indeed, none of their 11th hour Christmas dramatics in recent years seem to have lessened year-to-year revenue.

[Bees Knees]

When I say flat tax, I mean flat tax rate, period. No credits, no deductions. When I go to the store and buy an item, I pay a flat sales tax on that purchase. No filing out dependency exemption forms, no earned income credit based on my income....

A flat tax on income does not mean flat tax rate only. Flat tax has also been used to describe a system of taxing income with no credits and no deductions.