Regulation of unlicensed tax preparers.

[Safire]

Anyone esle see the paragraph in Kiplinger?

Said the proposal is likely to become law soon, but the earliest IRS can implement would be 2008.

[OldJack]

I don't know why the government wants to limit preparers when all my clients say their friends are tax experts.

[WhiteOleander]

I am totally flabergasted at the notion of testing all preparers every three years. At least that's what I read they are intending at this point.

They couldn't even handle giving the EA exam each year and had to farm that out. How will they ever test millions of preparers every 3 years?!!!

[Safire]

White Oleander

I don't think that was ever the intention. The real intention ( I think ) is to weed out those out there that have no business preparing returns.

There will be alot of "part-timers" who will give it up if faced with actually have to prove some sort of competency.

Hopefully it will do away with alot of theses places that spring up every year to offer those fast refunds too.

[Jiggers]

Part-timers not licensed

White Oleander

I don't think that was ever the intention. The real intention ( I think ) is to weed out those out there that have no business preparing returns.

There will be alot of "part-timers" who will give it up if faced with actually have to prove some sort of competency.

Hopefully it will do away with alot of theses places that spring up every year to offer those fast refunds too.

You will see an abundant of "Self-Prepared" returns! I see them now, when someone gets a letter or CP2000 from the IRS. I ask if they actually prepared the return and am always told that a "friend" did it. That is obvious, why else the IRS correspondence?

And, when I have to help straighten out those "Self-Prepared" returns, I laugh all the way to the bank.

[geekgirldany]

I can't say that I disagree with license tax preparers. Every three years seems to be reasonable. Like Safire said it will weed out alot. But Jiggers is right there will start being more self prepared returns popping up.

I'm sure they have already consider who is going to do the testing..... Thomson. This could be a huge money maker for them. They already do alot of the comptuer, cpa, and other various testing. Or it will probably give rise for new companies to go into business to offer the training and then the testing.

[WhiteOleander]

I can't say that I disagree with license tax preparers. Every three years seems to be reasonable.

My point is that re-testing every three years is insane, I'm an EA. I don't re-test every three yeats. I do have to do the Cont. ED.
Is the IRS, through Congress trying to limit fee paid preparers?

[geekgirldany]

Okay I see what you mean.

It maybe that the testing would not be as comprehensive as the EA exam so the IRS thinks they need to retest every three years to make sure they are keep up with the laws. I don't know. Would be a difficult process coming up with a test.

Where is the line drawn between a licensed tax preparer and a EA? The IRS would have to figure out how the testing would be different. I mean would a licensed tax preparer be tested on Individual and business only? Wouldn't it be better just do the EA test?

[RLymanC]

CA Testing

California requires testing to prepare CA returns. Around 160 questions, 90% of the questions pertain to federal taxes. I would think that if a preparer is CA registered that should satisfy the IRS.

[sea-tax]

My point is that re-testing every three years is insane, I'm an EA. I don't re-test every three yeats. I do have to do the Cont. ED.
Is the IRS, through Congress trying to limit fee paid preparers?

I am sorry but I have to disagree. You can't have it both ways. You can't be for testing but say because I am a EA it doesn't apply to me or I am from CA so it doesn't apply to me.

I am a licensed series 7 investment rep, I have to continue my education every year as well as take an exam on various subjects to show my knowleedge. My broker dealer requires it and so does the Securities Exchange Comm. and NASD.

I am sorry but I don't thnk you can make exceptions for one and not the other. If you have to take a test every three years then so be it, or don't support the legislation. Unfortunately I have seen many EA's and Cpa's over the years make very careless and simple mistakes. A test is just a test it doesn't replace your working knowledge. If you passed a test 25 years ago that means very little today look how many tax regulations and codes have changed since then.

[jainen]

inexperienced preparers

In California only preparers who are not an EA, CPA, or attorney have to take a test. After the initial test they only have to pass CPE courses. Furthermore, the state does not even monitor the testing or CPE requirements--that is self-regulated by "tax industry reps."

In other words, the basic idea is to let H&R Block control/exploit all the inexperienced preparers.

[Unregistered]

There is NO provision in the legislation that requires a test every 3 years. There is an initial test, followed by annual CPE and a 3 year renewal (NOT a new test).

[jimmcg]

If you want the facts of the propossed legislation natptax.com has a good summary of S.832 or just google it for updates on committee reports.

[Unregistered]

just came from IRS fourm-Orlando. Even if current senate bill lives, there is no house bill and IRS says "It's dead this year!"

[RLymanC]

Inexperienced

In California only preparers who are not an EA, CPA, or attorney have to take a test. After the initial test they only have to pass CPE courses. Furthermore, the state does not even monitor the testing or CPE requirements--that is self-regulated by "tax industry reps."

In other words, the basic idea is to let H&R Block control/exploit all the inexperienced preparers.

Jainen:
I hope you never have to fly anywhere on US carriers.
After initial test most examinations and recurrent trainning of all commercial pilots, including airline pilots, are administered by the "airline industry" that the pilot is employed by.