CPA or enrolled agent

[czardave113]

I was just wondering what some of your opinions are. I am currently working in Corporate tax for a multinational corporation and was deciding beteween getting my CPA which will take me 21 more credit hours in college ( I have a bachelor degree but it is in Finanace) or becoming an enrolled agent. Is there a substantial difference between the two when it comes to practicing in the tax field and what do you think would be best. The EA would be quicker and cheaper, but is it inferior to the CPA.

[Matt Sova]

CPA or EA

If you are just looking to do tax work EA is fine. Inferiority has nothing to do with your designation. I am a CPA, but I also do financial statements for companies. I have seen shoddy work done by CPA's, EA's and tax preparers. Likewise, I have seen excellent work by CPA's, EA's and tax preparers.

[David1980]

CPA may make more sense from a marketing/sales perspective. Non-tax people, generally your customers, are far more likely to have heard of a CPA than they are an EA. I doubt it would make you more qualified, but some people would think it does simply because they've never heard of an EA.

[gts1330]

If you really only want to do tax work then the EA designation will work out well. I have a BA in Economics, MBA in Accounting and MS in Tax and I am going the EA route because all I want to do is tax work. I worked several years in a Big 4 firm strictly in tax.

I had the opportunity to go out on some audits and quickly realized I did not want anything to do with that. Not that there is anything wrong with audit work, it just wasn't for me. If you want to do audit work, financial statements, etc then you'll need to get the CPA designation.

[Brian EA]

Why not go for both.

brian

[Roland Slugg]

I'd like to echo some of the comments posted above, especially those by Matt Sova and David1980.

As specialists, most EAs are very qualified to prepare tax returns and consult with people regarding tax matters ... as qualified as many CPAs and more qualified than most CPAs who don't specialize in taxes.

Having said that, the problem with the EA title is public perception. It just isn't very well known by the public at large. Furthermore, I believe the name itself is weak. "Enrolled Agent" consists of two words, and both of them, IMO, conjure up negative images. "Enrolled" suggests someone who is on a list of some kind, or perhaps someone who's going to school, and "agent" sounds a bit like "Internal Revenue Agent." I believe the EA "industry" would be wise to change that name to something else.

There is no need for any of the EAs who may read this to reply with crys of outraged indignation. I personally have a lot of respect for the EAs I know or have met on this and similar forums.

[Snaggletooth]

Ditto with Roland Slugg

Sluggo has slugged out the best indictment of the E.A. I have heard yet. Very few have ever heard of it, and after you tell them it stands for "Enrolled Agent" it still has no meaning for them.

The E.A. was the brainchild of the IRS. They created it, they administer it, they regulate it. They couldn't care less if the designation has any public worth in perception. Roland's suggestion should be adopted by the NAEA, even if it meant changing the name of the organization.

To the original poster: E.A. is really for taxes only, specifically U.S. taxes, and you're telling us you work in international taxation. CPA is much broader on entire accounting and economic issues, but is not as deep in the area of taxation. CPAs are bordering on the same problem, however, when in the international arena -- many firms are bailing out of the stock market because of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, and either going private or going overseas where they are not required to do urine tests for auditors. The need for auditors has perhaps never been greater, but the requirement for auditors is diminishing.