Attention E.A.s

[BHoffman]

Affiliation

I think Snag is correct that EAs get affiliated somehow with the IRS in the mind of the general public. It would be better to be perceived as an offshoot of CPAs than the IRS. After all, EAs are like CPAs who specialize only in tax work.

I also think that, in general, EAs don't charge enough for their work. This gives a perception of less quality and that simply isn't true. Perhaps that is a self-imposed problem. I also think that, in general, EAs view the unenrolled preparer as their main competitor instead of the CPA.

Is there some pervading sense of scorn among EAs for CPAs? I've seen it here and on other forums to the point where I feel almost apologetic for having that license. I think this does the EA professionals more harm than good. Because the AICPA does such a good job of promoting CPAs, I think EAs have a great opportunity to gain the respect they deserve in the eyes of the general public by aligning themselves with CPAs instead of against them. I think this would go a long way in gaining the respect EAs deserve. You certainly have mine.

[erchess]

I think

that the idea is very interesting. A name change might be a good idea but I think that instead or in addition, NAEA needs to seek for us what the CPAs and Attorneys have, which is control over who becomes one of the group and a role in the policing of those who have been admitted. I think that the IRS might willingly go along if everyone who gets paid to do a return stood under the provisions of Circular 230. That would also be advantageous to all enrolled preparers because our clients would not be able to run to preparers who face lesser penalties than we for doing wrong. I think the IRS could be persuaded to go along because in many ways unscrupulous unenrolled preparers are their worst problem in terms of paid preparers.

If we do change our name our choices will be limited by the CPAs and Tax Attorneys because it is their right to have us not use a name easily confused with either of theirs.

[BHoffman]

Cpta

Certified Public Tax Accountant.

[Snaggletooth]

Some time back, Roland Slugg made an observation I would like to carry to a thread:

EAs are those of us who practice at a high level (for the most part).

The "title" of our group (as collectively called) has been endowed upon us by the IRS, as the entire program has been created by, administered by, and tested by, the IRS. Hence, we are collectively known as "enrolled agents."

Sluggo suggested we try to change the name. Hard to do if the head of the snake is the IRS, and the head moves the rest of the snake. However, we do have the NAEA where our own people drive the bus.

So IRS calls us "enrolled agents." What does this say to the public we serve? Does it imply we are agents working for the IRS?? We all know better, but why would the public think any differently than we are going to put the interests of the IRS ahead of the public?

To reinforce this perception, just think of the "acceptable" definitions for an E.A.:
"...a preparer enrolled to practice before the IRS"
"...one who is enabled to practice before the IRS"
"...a preparer whose qualifications have been accepted to practice before the IRS"
...etc. etc.

It is as if these definitions are literal proof that we work for the IRS primarily, and for the public only secondarily.

This might be a question better posed to the NAEA, but can we collectively find some way to move away from this IRS-endowed perception?