E A

[Jiggers]

Naea, Natp, Nstp

They all have their benefits.

However, NAEA is the only one that REQUIRES you to belong to a state organization and it is MANDATORY to pay the state dues to NAEA. Even if you have a useless state society.

NAEA's comments are that you should get involved in your state society and change it.

Lots of luck. When the society is controlled by a certain group, you can't even get to work on a committee. I have begged my state society for years to be able to participate and have always been ignored. If you can't work on a committee and become known to the membership, you will never get name recognition to be able to be electected as a director.

I pay my NAEA annual dues and pay the state portion under protest (written on the check and copy of the statement).

Just talking to a brick wall.

NAEA says they have no control over the state societies, yet it is mandatory to pay their dues!

[abby]

ha!

[QUOTE=Black Bart]you came up in this recent conversation. I was debating how to tell the world about this EA thing and decided to give the Foxworthy crowd a trial run. I printed "EA" on my forehead with a black Magic Marker and went over to Rube's Lubes, LLC to see my mentor and...hmm...let's see...cousin? great half-uncle? in-law? what? QUOTE]

Good one. Flattered to be included.

I must admit in my three plus years as an EA, the only folks who have been the slightest bit impressed are other tax professionals.

Most others who have asked for details - we've ended up with them looking at me blankly and then going forth with a clear 'whatever' vibe.

My firm describes it in my bio as such:
The Enrolled Agent (EA) designation is granted by the IRS to select individuals who fulfill rigorous educational and ethical requirements. Hmmph.

Now I just answer that it's a national credential - but that only works here because Oregon nearly stands alone in requiring a state test.

All in all, it was much like getting a Master of Fine Arts degree. It doesn't really mean squat in terms of getting work, but it sure feels good to have it done.

Again - hearty congratulations.

[Black Bart]

Recognition

I think you're right about that. The only people that it will impress are other tax professionals. The public doesn't know the difference between one or the other. I've only had one guy ask me in 30 years if I was a CPA or not.

Re: the reference to you -- it wasn't in that first quoted paragrah. It was in the last sentence of the last paragraph.

Thanks for the well-wishes. Regards, BB.

[Armando Beaujolais]

I must admit in my three plus years as an EA, the only folks who have been the slightest bit impressed are other tax professionals.

Revenue Agents are tax professionals. Don't you believe it's a pretty good thing at an audit if a Revenue Agent is slightly impressed with your credentials?

I stepped in at the last minute to go downtown to accompany a client of an associate at an audit targeting support for the client's elderly mother. I didn't have POA and was just there as a representative of our firm. I took the Revenue Agent's attitude as condescending, and nitpicking that an old lady's $3,500 in social security might have been over half her support if you count in her elderly husband's contribution with what he had left over from $7,000 in social security. The return had been prepared with the mom as dependent, and not the dad. We prepared the return going out of our way to be compliant, and the Revenue Agent was not giving that approach any respect. We were told to go home and make a flow chart proving expenses.

I got POA. We did the paperwork, steam coming out of my ears the entire time. When we went back to the Revenue Agent, I turned over the POA that identified me as an Enrolled Agent. The RA sat up straight and said "Oh, you're an Enrolled Agent." The entire meeting took about four minutes, and that included small talk. No change.

Every time I've heard of a taxpayer trying to deal with an audit by themselves, they get rolled. If you identify yourself as an EA, they won't try that garbage.

You can sell the EA designation short if you want to, but I'd say it is what you make of it. With all due respect, I sense it's you that has the "whatever" vibe when you're explaining what an EA is. No wonder you get blank looks from clients.

Personally, I'm proud and enthusiastic explaining to clients about that EA license hanging on my wall.

I know that lots of EAs don't think we get the respect we deserve. But the respect is not going to come falling down from the heavens. If we don't promote our profession, who will?

- Proud to be an EA.

[Acownt4it]

Just wanted

congratulate you on a job well done.

[WhiteOleander]

I have to say that I almost always have better communication when calling the IRS if I identify myeslf as an EA.
I usually call the practitioners' hotline. When they ask me who I am, I tell them at that time I'm an EA.
If I call and don't say I'm an EA, they are much more difficult. Sometimes refusing to fax things I know they can fax. Etc.
So, I tell them upfront now.
So, even if the general public doesn't yet know what an EA is, the IRS does know.

[abby]

point taken

I have to agree that having that credential when talking to the IRS is quite useful.

Armando, you pegged me - it's true that I brush over the explanation more than I used to - not having found a clear way to express it - maybe if I actually went to audits (I don't) and ran my own business (don't want to) it would all fall into place differently.

The main point, that despite my gentle disparagement, I'm quietly proud to have passed the tests and did not wish to disparage the credential, only express mild exasperation at its lack of public profile - EA are two letters that don't have the instant identification that PHD, MD, DDS, etc do.

Thanks for perspective. Appreciated.

[Armando Beaujolais]

There was an effort several years ago (might still be going on) where many EA's wanted to change the term to something "certified" to enhance prestige among the public. It's true that most people have no idea what an EA is. Reaction is usually indifferent, and maybe negative ("Enrolled Agent" could sound awfully close to "IRS Agent" to uninformed ears).

My position is that changing the designation would waste years of PR efforts, and wouldn't solve the problem. I think the job of building prestige is the job of EAs. EAs are becoming more recognized among the public, and I don't believe it will be too long before most of the public catches on.

From a standpoint of comparing EAs with other professional designations such as CPAs, attorneys, doctors, etc., I don't believe EAs should have comparable status. I'm proud of my credentials and I worked hard to get them, but all I had to do was pass a two-day test. Is it really fair for me to compare my professional level with someone who had to complete years of schooling and internship before they even got to sit for the exam? In my younger days I considered going after a CPA license, but it would take much more time, effort, and expense than I was willing to give, even assuming that I'd be successful. If I had put myself through that, I'd have quite a nasty attitude toward anyone who wanted to hold themselves as equal professional status after I spent six years and they spent two days.

When folks ask "What's an EA?," first I tell them it's license granted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, as opposed to CPAs whose licenses are granted by state governments. That usually gets their attention. I tell them it is a license to represent taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service, which can be done only by EAs, CPAs, and attorneys. I tell them that a person becomes an EA either by passing an examination administered by the IRS on taxation of individuals, partnerships, corporations, estates, and trusts; or by being a Revenue Agent with the IRS for five years. That puts some meat into the EA designation, and lets folks know you didn't just send in an entry fee.

I also compare an EA to a CPA, since most people equate "tax" with "CPA." I'm not apologetic about the fact that CPAs are required to successfully complete years of college education in accounting and other business courses, and often are required to serve years as an intern, in addition to passing a tough test. I explain that a CPA's field of competence is much broader than an EAs, with CPAs being proficient in accounting, business law, auditing, and several other fields in addition to taxation. I explain that the EA designation is directly specifically at taxation, and EAs are specifically tax specialists.

Most folks seem pretty satisfied with the explanation.

[Bees Knees]

When people ask me about my EA status, I say it is similar to a CPA, only we are licensed by the federal government rather than the state. That seems to impress clients more than trying to explain how the EA exam differs from the CPA exam.

[veritas]

" Is it really fair for me to compare my professional level with someone who had to complete years of schooling and internship before they even got to sit for the exam"

I saw the tax potion of the Oregon Bar exam some years ago. Attorney's should not be representing anyone before the IRS based on what I saw.

[geekgirldany]

I'm looking forward to taking my EA test. I know that it will help in the eyes of the IRS and customers.

People can confuse "enrolled agent" with "irs agent". They may think you work for the IRS. I found this out one day when talking with a customer about taking the test. Told them I would be an enrolled agent with the IRS. I saw this look come over their face and he asked if I would be working for the IRS. I had to explain a little better.

Like I said I am looking forward to getting the EA desgination. After being called a "number cruncher" by a agent... makes me even more determined.

[Black Bart]

Two-edged sword

From a standpoint of comparing EAs with other professional designations such as CPAs, attorneys, doctors, etc., I don't believe EAs should have comparable status. I'm proud of my credentials and I worked hard to get them, but all I had to do was pass a two-day test. Is it really fair for me to compare my professional level with someone who had to complete years of schooling and internship before they even got to sit for the exam? In my younger days I considered going after a CPA license, but it would take much more time, effort, and expense than I was willing to give, even assuming that I'd be successful. If I had put myself through that, I'd have quite a nasty attitude toward anyone who wanted to hold themselves as equal professional status after I spent six years and they spent two days.

I agree with some of your statements: EAs should "push the product" as much as possible and tax preparers are impressed with the title--I'm also expecting that any Revenue Agents I run into will be. However, I think abby's right in that the general public is not. You presented an explanation that's as good and well-thought-out as any I've ever seen, but it seems to me that the more complex the argument, the less the clients understand it (those "whatever vibes" are coming from them alright--why should abby feel guilty for the ignorance of another?--that sounds like the viewpoint of a flaming liberal). A client once asked me if I was a "C-P," as he put it. I explained to him in about the same number or words you used that I was not a CPA, but rather a PA (Public Accountant) in the state of Arkansas. I later overheard his wife ask "What did he say that was?" and he replied "Oh, it's some kind of government license." I think we might convert some of our clients, but the public at large tends to simplify these things and I'm not so sure we're not all "CPAs" (or C-Ps) to them.

About your above quote, I've got a "nasty attitude" myself when it comes to attorneys. I agree with Veritas on that. To me it's a complete travesty that they're allowed to even do taxes. I don't know if or what training they get in law school, but it's certainly not impressive. A lot of them do their own taxes, but as far as tax expertise goes, they seem to me to be on a level with the average taxpayer.

Also, the comparison's unfair. Lawyers (you're probably right about doctors) didn't spend that many more years of schooling, time, effort, and expense than we did. I'd say many people here put in four years of college majoring in accounting and taxes and have attended tax seminars for years. I studied months for that EA exam. There's no way anyone can say I spent "two days" on it--I spent two days "filling in the blanks" of the test paper, but there was certainly a heck of a lot more time and effort than that spent to prepare for it. Actually, if you wanted to look at it like that, you could say the lawyer spent "two days" (or however long it lasts) taking the bar exam.

Other than a couple of specialists, I haven't yet seen an average lawyer that knew beans about taxes. Years ago, I knew one that was on retainer year-round for my employer who had died. At his office a few days later I saw a $3 paperback entitled "How to Prepare Estate Tax Returns." I wrote a check for five thousand dollars to pay the bill he sent the company.

Not too long ago, an attorney borrowed a book on LLCs from me. I didn't know it, but he was applying for that status and a federal ID number for one of my clients. The attorney later told me "all LLCs are corporations." He wasn't interested in arguments, so I didn't make any, but when the client came to me with their taxes (he and his wife had intended to be a partnership), I told them it was wrong and to have him "fix it." They did, but he either didn't want to or didn't know how, so he told them "it doesn't make any difference, has no effect, etc." I'm filing them as a partnership, so we'll just see how that plays out and charge accordingly.

Anyhow, in a reverse sense, I agree; they should not have comparable status with us. With regard to taxes, they're nowhere near our stature.

[veritas]

Here is an Orator!

"Anyhow, in a reverse sense, I agree; they should not have comparable status with us. With regard to taxes, they're nowhere near our stature."


Now this is what I call a quote.

[Armando Beaujolais]

About your above quote, I've got a "nasty attitude" myself when it comes to attorneys. I agree with Veritas on that. To me it's a complete travesty that they're allowed to even do taxes. I don't know if or what training they get in law school, but it's certainly not impressive. A lot of them do their own taxes, but as far as tax expertise goes, they seem to me to be on a level with the average taxpayer.

I agree. It seems like any time an attorney gives tax advice, they screw it up. And it's aggravating that they charge ten times the fee when they don't know what they're doing. The only exceptions I know of are lawyers who specialize in taxes.

That having been said, the problem is not prestige of the credential. The problem is people who take on work that isn't within their range of expertise.

[OldJack]

And it's aggravating that they charge ten times the fee when they don't know what they're doing.

The real problem is that as a profession we shoot ourselves in the foot by charging to little just to get an extra taxpayer client and make an extra $50. So who is the smarter.. the tax pro or the Attorney? Which is best 10 clients @ $500 or 100 clients @ $50 ? If you are HRB the 100 clients because you can sell them something else, but as my clients I don't want to fool with 100 clients when I can do the work for 10 and then have time to play with momma.