IRS Cir 230

[Barnett]

This is a generalized industry question , but would someone like to comment.
Cir 230 approves a qualified /person tax preparer as someone who either, is an Attorney, CPA or an Enrolled Agent, I don't think they mentioned a degree accountant in there , but I may have missed it, other than a CPA, that leaves out a whole (block) of preparers ,whom may have been practising before the general public in the past, and who may not have the required qualifications as per 230.If I am correct this proposes a major labor crises, no, I haven't been asleep , As of now ,good for those who qualify , In my area there are some who obviously would be affected, Do we automatically lose them , or is there moves a-foot to allow them to practise based on ........experience ?. Penalities for unqualified personnel lodging client tax returns and true and fair disclosures appear to be the deciding factor in whether you're in or out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can bring a horse to water , but you can't make it................

[solomon]

See Publication 470 for the limitations for an unenrolled preparer. You are misconstruing the meaning of "practice" in this context.

[New York Enrolled Agent]

Agree with Solomon.

C230 governs the "right to practice before the IRS". "Practice" generally refers to the representation of any taxpayer in matters involving the examination, collection and appeals units of the IRS. "Practice" does not refer to the preparation of tax returns.

An unenrolled preparer has a right to "limited practice" under C230 §10.7(c)(viii) to represent a taxpayer before the examination unit on a tax return prepared by the unenrolled preparer for that taxpayer.

[veritas]

It is my understanding now

that Treasury can impose monetary penalties to Tax Advisors for violating Circular 230. From my class materials it was stated that the Office of Professional Responsibility was formed in 2003 to enforce Circular 230 and that agency is in a "hiring frenzy" to increase enforcement.

[Golden Rocket]

Sleeping Legislation

They have been working on legislation for a couple years to restrict tax preparation to ONLY those from the prescribed groups you mention, e.g. attorneys, CPAs, EAs, etc. The legislation as last visited excludes unenrolled preparers.

Those of us trying to conduct our practice ethically would applaud any attempt to rid our industry of incompetent and unscrupulous preparers. This statement is not intended to equate unenrolled preparers to incompetency, but if some standard is not prescribed, there will be no progress in the "cleansing" of the industry.

The above language sounds like a Mr. Clean attitude. That's not the intent either, and be advised that I'm sure the legislation will exempt those who work as employees, so long as the employer has someone on staff who qualifies. This will still leave thousands of very inexperienced preparers in our industry -- as some of the worst returns I've seen have come from those situations.

Sounds like "Block-bashing" or "Hewlitt-bashing." This doesn't have to be the case either, as from this group of inexperienced preparers will come some of tomorrow's very finest and knowledgeable tax people. I personally know several of today's elite tax people who started this way.

If you are an unenrolled preparer, or work for a tax franchise shop, this post does NOT mean you can't be a good preparer. It's simply a matter of specifying standards, and no improvement will occur until some standards are in place.

[tilt53]

I am an unenrolled preparer

in CA which means that to prepare taxes I must be a CRTP (CTEC registered tax preparer). CTEC stands for California Tax Education Council. Only CA and OR register their preparers. We must meet minimum eduction requirements (I regularly exceed that) and post bonds.

My understanding is that the IRS is looking closely at both CA and OR to see about modeling their program at what these states do.

[Snaggletoof]

Reciprocity

Sandy, I think the IRS should examine these state requirements, and allow them a status similar to that of an EA if they find out the requirements are sufficient. Reciprocity among jurisdictions for various licenses of all kinds is common.

[Davc]

Sandy, I think the IRS should examine these state requirements, and allow them a status similar to that of an EA if they find out the requirements are sufficient. Reciprocity among jurisdictions for various licenses of all kinds is common.

The OR tests for preparer and consultant aren't equivalent to the EA exam.

[joanmcq]

Neither are the CA.

[tilt53]

I'm not saying that

CA or OR requirements are as stringent as those for EAs or CPAs, but am merely making the point that 2 states have provisions in place to regulate preparers and try to safeguard the public, somewhat. But since the IRS is looking at ways to regulate the industry, they are looking at those states as possible model programs.

I certainly agree that there needs to be minimum guidelines. John Doe down the street shouldn't be able to just open his garage to the public with "boxed" software.

[Bees Knees]

CA or OR requirements are as stringent as those for EAs or CPAs, but am merely making the point that 2 states have provisions in place to regulate preparers and try to safeguard the public, somewhat. But since the IRS is looking at ways to regulate the industry, they are looking at those states as possible model programs.

I certainly agree that there needs to be minimum guidelines. John Doe down the street shouldn't be able to just open his garage to the public with "boxed" software.

I did a CA nonresident for one of my MN clients. I never registered in CA as a paid preparer. Will I get arrested if I ever cross the border into CA?

[tilt53]

Oops!

I meant that the CTEC regulations are NOT as stringent. Only those who have their businesses in CA are required to register.

[DonPriebe]

IRS Test for tax volunteers

I certainly agree that there needs to be minimum guidelines. John Doe down the street shouldn't be able to just open his garage to the public with "boxed" software.

The IRS insists that volunteer preparers in its VITA and TCE programs be certified before preparing any returns. The test this year is reasonable; something similar could serve as a screening tool for paid unenrolled preparers as well.

[Note that the IRS "certifies" volunteers, while Enrolled Agents are specifically prohibited from using that term.]

See the IRS discussion of certification at http://www.irs.gov/individuals/artic...150848,00.html and the actual test at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f6744.pdf

[Barnett]

Solomon you are misconstruing

See Publication 470 for the limitations for an unenrolled preparer. You are misconstruing the meaning of "practice" in this context.

my post , you are objecting to my use of the word Practice , May I suggest you read the bedtime story , Concise English Oxford Dictionary , The book of knowkedge , from whence we all came, after all it was only last year the President (Bush) proclaimed the English language is the adopted language of the USA , about 200 years late.

[DonPriebe]

English? The IRS don't use no stinkin' English

May I suggest you read the bedtime story , Concise English Oxford Dictionary , The book of knowledge, from whence we all came, ...

Repeat after me:

Your "Qualifying Child" need not be your child

A "Qualifying Relative" need not be a relative

A "SIMPLE" IRA is not, nor does the acronym refer to the word "simple"

...