Circular 230 disclosure for Board Answers

[Zee]

I'm curious, when questions are asked by the general public on this board and we provide a response, does this fall under the Circular 230 rules of providing tax advice even though it's "free"? Is the answer different, if the response is directed to another preparer asking a question?

[BOB W]

This subject was brought up in the recent past. I don't remember the answer but I would think that if you finish with a disclaimer and to tell the poster he/she should contact a local professional for advice that is more acurate to their personal situation> would do it...???

Of course no one needs to answer a personal poster, just us big mouths

[DaveO]

Paid Preparer

At the very least no one is a paid preparer of anything here. Check out the Yahoo answer site sometime. Look up the tax site, there is some pretty wild advice being dispensed. At the same time there are a few knowledgable posters there as well.

[dtlee]

At the very least no one is a paid preparer of anything here. Check out the Yahoo answer site sometime. Look up the tax site, there is some pretty wild advice being dispensed.

Yes, some of those responses are downright scary.

[geekgirldany]

On one of the Yahoo groups I belong to they have it automatically putting a disclaimer on each email/post that is sent to the group.

[Koss]

Circular 230

I'm curious, when questions are asked by the general public on this board and we provide a response, does this fall under the Circular 230 rules of providing tax advice even though it's "free"? Is the answer different, if the response is directed to another preparer asking a question?

It would be a real stretch for the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility to hold anyone responsible for anything posted here. In order for a penalty to be applicable, the advice would have to be so outrageous that there would almost certainly be several replies from other board participants attacking the advice. And that would put the taxpayer who relied on the advice on notice that it was not reliable.

Also: the message board itself has a disclaimer at the bottom. It appears to protect only The Tax Book. But anyone trying to hold an individual poster liable would probably have to go through TTB to establish the person's identity. And I don't think they would get very far.

I am actually one of the rare exceptions; I routinely post not only my full name, but also my e-mail address. If someone really wants to find me, they will.

But most of this community uses only first names or fictitious names, or "handles," as we sometimes call them.

I don't think this will ever happen, but it's amusing just to think about it. If TTB or their host was served with some sort of subpoena or other instrument seeking to identify one of us, my guess, for what it's worth, is that they would fight it on general principle.

These boards permit anonymity for a reason. There are good reasons to preserve it.

BMK

[WhiteOleander]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the audit when the T/P told the auditor that "White Oleander" said they could take such and such deduction.

Gotta laugh.

[Zee]

It would be a real stretch for the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility to hold anyone responsible for anything posted here. In order for a penalty to be applicable, the advice would have to be so outrageous that there would almost certainly be several replies from other board participants attacking the advice. And that would put the taxpayer who relied on the advice on notice that it was not reliable.

Also: the message board itself has a disclaimer at the bottom. It appears to protect only The Tax Book. But anyone trying to hold an individual poster liable would probably have to go through TTB to establish the person's identity. And I don't think they would get very far.

I am actually one of the rare exceptions; I routinely post not only my full name, but also my e-mail address. If someone really wants to find me, they will.

But most of this community uses only first names or fictitious names, or "handles," as we sometimes call them.

I don't think this will ever happen, but it's amusing just to think about it. If TTB or their host was served with some sort of subpoena or other instrument seeking to identify one of us, my guess, for what it's worth, is that they would fight it on general principle.

These boards permit anonymity for a reason. There are good reasons to preserve it.

BMK

I agree. I really enjoy reading this board and the wealth of knowledge it provides to those in a sole practice. I provides an opportunity to interact with others and obtain differing opinions on issues and interpretations. I think any risk is nominal in answering questions of other professionals, and probably a little higher for taxpayer's looking for free advice, but still nominal. But, I also wouldn't be surprised to learn a taxpayer printed a string and filed it as support in case he's audited. How would he auditor react? I don't know, but he'd probably be impressed since most of the information and suggestions are good.

[Snaggletooth]

Liability

We are going overboard on this liability thing as a culture.

There are reasons why there have been no diving boards higher than 10' built
in years. Reasons why we have no flu vaccine manufactured in the United
States leading to a shortage two years ago. Reasons why if you recruit to
fill a job, no company today will recommend a former employee. The list
goes on and on.

Are we going to fold up and wither away any meaningful discussion and
position on the board? The previous posters say "no" and so do I. Who is
there, however, to blow the whistle on this litiguous and avaricious group of
"easy money" crowd?

One of the criteria necessary for an attorney to pursue a case is the existence
of a target with pockets deep enough to make it worth his while. It is more helpful
that these targets who have the pockets are NOT deep enough to defend themselves
ad infinitum.

In other words, guys and gals, in general this means US! They might be able to
squeeze a couple hundred grand out of me, but if I had a hundred million, I could tie
them up in court forever.

Wonder if NAEA or NATP have solutions for this...

[Bees Knees]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the audit when the T/P told the auditor that "White Oleander" said they could take such and such deduction.

Gotta laugh.

IRS auditor: "Who said you could claim your hair cut as a tax deduction?"

Taxpayer: "Well, I remember White Oleander, Bees Knees, Zee, geekgirldanny, and Snaggletooth all telling me not to do it, but when Armando Beaujolais said I could do it, I did it. I think he is some kind of French gravy, or something like that. Are you going to subpoena him to testify?"

[Nashville]

Armando

Whatever happened to that avant-garde Frenchman? Last time we heard from him he was filling out a 1065 for two eight-year-olds who had a lemonade stand. Mopeo hasn't been around in awhile either. Shore do miss these guy.

[dsi]

What if TTB folks place a disclaimer at the very beggining (on top of) this forum that covers all of us?

[Nashville]

Stottlemyre

David that's an excellent idea! However, I don't think it would do what you propose.

I believe all they could do is put a banner disclaimer which in effect says that TMI is not responsible for comments on this forum and absolve themselves from bad tax advice. That might help TMI but I don't think they could successfully put an umbrella of protection over all of us who post.

Hopefully, a public forum such as this one should be perceived as caveat emptor. I do know that products are advertised with information ranging from "puffing their wares" to downright lies, and they seem to enjoy very broad protection.