Attention E.A.s

[dodgedipduck]

I'm not knocking the CPA, far from it. They, mostly, have earned their designation. What I do have a problem with is that I know of many CPAs that put down the EAs as inferior.

The failure of the EA group to advertise to get their name in front of the public seems to me to be of of the big failings. How many times have you heard generic advertisements on radio extolling CPAs as being experts? Then how many times EAs? When driving through Dallas was the only time I heard a generic EA ad.
LT

How much work have you put in with your state and national EA societies to help be part of the solution? Just because CPAs may have a better PR campaign from their societies isn't a reason to resent them.

Personally I don't worry if somebody wants to put me down. It says more about them than it does about me.

[thomtax]

How much work have you put in with your state and national EA societies to help be part of the solution? Just because CPAs may have a better PR campaign from their societies isn't a reason to resent them.

Personally I don't worry if somebody wants to put me down. It says more about them than it does about me.

Since I guess you don't read the answers, this will be short and the last thought I post on it.

1. I don't know where you got it, I didn't say it, so please do not credit me with resenting CPAs. I was pointing out facts. CPAs have a system of PR that works and in the last email I was using it as a goal. What I resented was the ACTIONS of some who try to hurt my business by bad mouthing EAs.

2. Your other question probably is not even worthy of an answer, but I have been a director of the state group for the last two years and have volunteered to write a newsletter this year, plus talking with officials of an adjoining state organization trying to get ideas.

LT

[Black Bart]

To echo Snag's sentiment,

I also thought Roland Slugg said it best -- defining our problem (I'm an EA) more clearly than any other. He concluded we need a name change. I agree. Here's the gist of Roland's post from 4-11-08.

"As specialists, most EA's are very qualified..." (and so on and so forth) "...as qualified as many CPA's..." (etc., etc.). "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 indigantion. I personally have a lot of respect for the EAs I know or have met on this and similar forums."

So...comparing "Enrolled Agent" to "Certified Public Accountant," what's better about theirs? Well, as Roland says, "Enrolled" sounds as if we have signed up for a class, while their "Certified" clearly indicates one authorized by government. And "Agent" does indeed raise the question "Agent for who? IRS?" The last two words of the CPA title leaves no doubt for whom they work (the public) or what they do (accounting).

After getting my certificate, I ordered some stationery listing "EA" after my name (not spelling out "Enrolled Agent"). Knowing me personally and delivering it to a tax preparer's office, the printer still asked "What's an EA?" But even if I had ordered "Enrolled Agent" printed, he would still have been in the dark about it.

So...it's a matter of common sense and clarity. Our egos/pride/hurt feelings and feuds with CPAs are irrelevant. Question is, does the general public recognize our initials or our name? And the answer is a resounding "NO" (ask your next five clients -- four won't have a clue). In fact, ask yourself -- if you weren't in this business and someone told you "I'm an Enrolled Agent," would that mean anything to you? Compare this to "I'm a Certified Public Accountant"; which leaves no doubt whatsoever as to what he/she is and does.

As someone said earlier, you can explain: "I've worked hard, I passed a test, I did this, I did that...etc. etc." but, the thing is, a good title is supposed to do that for you -- there should be no need to explain.

What's a good title? I don't know; I haven't seen anything yet that appeals to me, although I'd like to hijack "Certified" from the CPAs (who says they own that word?).

[Uncle Sam]

Attention EAs

Apparently, you late joiners to this thread didn't read my prior post.

This issue has been hashed and rehashed numerous times by NSA and NAEA. The legal analysts concluded that there are legal obstacles to getting the name changed.

I assume, although I don't know for sure, that among them is the fact that the title came from U. S. Congress during the Civil War, and it would require an act of Congress to get it changed.

So - even though I fully and wholeheartedly agree with all the posts in favor of changing the title, it is not possible to change the term without an some dramatic (and probably costly) action - that I don't feel is cost effective.

[Black Bart]

What about Sam's "legal reasons," L T?

...but I have been a director of the state group for the last two years and have volunteered to write a newsletter this year, plus talking with officials of an adjoining state organization trying to get ideas.

LT

Do you know for sure if NAEA has concluded that a name change is impossible?

As far as being cost effective, we've got nowhere to go but up -- efforts to date have had almost zero effect.

[New York Enrolled Agent]

Black Bart wrote: "What about Sam's "legal reasons," L T?

Bart - IMO, Sam is a little off-target. The roots of the enrolled agent designation trace back to the Enabling Act of 1884. The legislation allowed the Treasury to recognize attorneys and agents. There were various regulatory actions with C230 eventually evolving. There were revisions etc. and (from what I've been told and I believe it to be reliable) the 1966 revision of C230 first use the phrase "enrolled agent" to universally describe those who were admitted to practice before the IRS. The formation of NAEA in 1972 runs concurrent with the appointment of the late Les Shapiro as Director of Practice. Les was a strong advocate for EAs. The phrase "enrolled agent" is a creation of Treasury. There is legislation in Congress right now to formalize enrolled agent into the IRC.

EVERYONE has an opinion about the "correct" designation for enrolled agents. I would suggest those who are EAs work to promote themselves as tax experts. NAEA continues to make progress in this area - probably the most recent public recognition was the 8 enrolled agents who appeared on the NBC Today show as "the" tax experts who answered over 700 tax questions from viewers. But without any doubt, the most successful way to promote the EA designation is by telling your clients how great you are as a tax professional!!! I respect Roland's opinion and he is correct to some degree. But, IMO, the answer is not to change the name - the answer is to self-promote. Make your clients aware of who you are.

Personally, I view CPAs as professional colleagues. They have certain skill sets I don't have. But, then I have certain tax skills that some of them do not have (nor desire to have). I don't understand the attempt by some to knock others when it's so much easier to build myself up.

[lenboush]

I am neither an Enrolled Agent nor a CPA

I am neither an Enrolled Agent nor a CPA, however I have been a professional tax preparer for over 30 years. Two of the preparers who work for me are starting to work on their EA and, although I swore I'd never deal with that after all these years, I can''t believe that they are actually shaming me into "considering" going for it. (unless I just get too lazy)

On the other hand, I have taught CPA's in classes, had CPA's as clients and had CPA's refer clients to me on a number of occasions simply because a lot of CPA's just do not wish to deal with taxes. It's not because they're not smart enought; they definitely are. Taxes are just not their area of specialty.

I, too view CPA's as colleagues and friends. Like any profession, including EA's, Non-EA's like myself and CPA's and any other profession, there are good and bad and everything in between in all of them.

I don't think most of the readers here question the quality of any of these categories of people. What they question is the value of a name that means absolutely nothing to the general public. That's why I have felt zero need to sit for the exam. Because to most people "EA" or "Enrolled Agent" means absolutely nothing. Believe me, if it did, I wouldn't have waited 35 years to even consider sitting for the exam.

[Snaggletooth]

Boush (and Lomb) Lens

Len, you finally hit the nail on the head, although you sound very competent and I wish you would join our fraternity.

I appreciate the healthy dialogue on this thread -- the very premise is not whether we should be proud to be EAs (I am), nor to compare with CPAs or anyone else. The entire question revolves around perception by the public. Perception sells, and makes the world go around whether this is fair or not.

...and whether or not we would benefit if we collectively succeeded in changing the name and the misleading corollary image that we work for the IRS.

Thanks to everyone for their perspective on this thread.

[Black Bart]

N Y E A

...I would suggest those who are EAs work to promote themselves as tax experts...the most successful way to promote the EA designation is by telling your clients how great you are as a tax professional...the answer is not to change the name - the answer is to self-promote...

Thanks for the comments on "legal reasons," but the self-promotion routine, again, takes us right back to forcing each individual EA to explain things our title should explain for us. While some can/will do it, others (including clients) may see it as "bragging" or feel that the forced detailing of our credentials and accomplishments equates to begging for approval. We should not have to explain "what's an EA" to each and every one of our clients.

The CPAs' title carrys the load for them. Ours doesn't. The worst CPA in the world can simply say "I'm a CPA" and no further explanation is needed. That's because clients realize the letters "CPA" stand for Certified Public Accountant, which in plain English means something to ordinary people. There's nothing wrong with the letters "EA" except that, translated to plain English, they stand for Enrolled Agent which means nothing to people.

Personally, I view CPAs as professional colleagues...I don't understand the attempt by some to knock others when it's so much easier to build myself up.

You may view them as your colleagues, but not all of them view you as theirs. I've run across a few who obviously preferred not to fraternize with the rank and file of the unenrolled (of which I once was a member). But...I'm not interested in them one way or the other because, again, that's a side issue and beside the point. It won't matter what either party thinks of the other if we can get a title as recognizable to the general public as CPA is.

That's where the challenge lies and...that's why we need a name change...

[thomtax]

Do you know for sure if NAEA has concluded that a name change is impossible?

As far as being cost effective, we've got nowhere to go but up -- efforts to date have had almost zero effect.

I don't know the answer to your question. What I do know is that in some states you are not even allowed to advertise that your are an EA. I would have to check to be sure of the state, but I recently read that (I think it was Virginia) has introduced a bill to allow persons to advertise the EA credential. This varies by state and I think often it depends on how powerful the CPA organization is in the state.

As you know, Arkansas used to have a PA, that is now gone except for old time license holders. Colorado did have a Public Accountant classification. I haven't looked in the last year or so and don't know if this has changed.

I'm with you, would like to go up.

LT

[Uncle Sam]

[QUOTE=thomtax;61023] I think often it depends on how powerful the CPA organization is in the state.

The state rules governing what EAs (and CPAs for that matter) are determined not by the CPA societies, but by the State Boards of Accountancy. Yes, the CPA societies have a lot of influence on what the Boards eventually approve or disapprove, and I agree that depending upon each State Board, there are members on there representing the big CPA firms. However, it's the policy setting of the State Boards of Accountancy that control what the practice of accountancy in that state is.

[thomtax]

[QUOTE=Uncle Sam;61024]

I think often it depends on how powerful the CPA organization is in the state.

The state rules governing what EAs (and CPAs for that matter) are determined not by the CPA societies, but by the State Boards of Accountancy. Yes, the CPA societies have a lot of influence on what the Boards eventually approve or disapprove, and I agree that depending upon each State Board, there are members on there representing the big CPA firms. However, it's the policy setting of the State Boards of Accountancy that control what the practice of accountancy in that state is.

Thanks for your comments.

In our state things are governed by laws passed by the legislature and administered by the board. The board makes proposals to the legislature, which are normally "rubber stamped". And the board consists of 7 members. 5 of these are CPAs and the executive director is a CPA, if that gives you an idea of the influence here. One of the bureaucrats there got real "high and mighty" treating some of the local EAs, including myself, in a real hateful manner. If you contacted him to clarify whether something was allowed by regulation in the state, he would treat you without any courtesy, tact or manners if you were not a CPA.

This happened to be a budget year and fortunately I served on the school board when our local representative was the school superintendent. After he had a polite discussion with the executive director, I received a letter from the bureaucrat telling me to please contact him in the future and not the representative, if I had any problems.

LT

[dtlee]

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.

Wow, do you and I have a different set of experiences. I have a great deal of respect for CPAs, but find that they generally have no regard for Enrolled Agents. A group of them near here reluctantly hired an EA friend of mine and found out eventually how little they know, but it took years. Another EA friend of mine does nearly all the returns in the office she works in. The CPAs keep the lion's share of the fees and pay her a small salary.

Two tax software companies who had errors in their software apparently have CPAs on their payroll who told me through their phone representatives, that they should tell the EA that a CPA says it is correct. One CPA had the nerve to have me told to read the instructions on the form if I didn't believe them. Of course, the CPA himself was above reading those same instructions which would have shown him to be incorrect.

In our local EA group, they have been suggesting that once testing is required of all tax preparers, the value of an EA will go up. One even naively suggested that they should be called Enrolled Tax Preparers (not understanding that this is one of the designations once used by EAs). Whatever they call those (Certified Prepararers? Licensed Preparers? Authorized Prepararer?) it will definitely like they are more qualified than an Enrolled Agent does to the general public.

I can hear HRB professing that all of their preparers are Licensed Preparers. People won't want to bring their return to someone who is just an Enrolled Agent.

[erchess]

Pa

As you know, Arkansas used to have a PA, that is now gone except for old time license holders. Colorado did have a Public Accountant classification. I haven't looked in the last year or so and don't know if this has changed. LT[/QUOTE]

LT when I was a child I was seen by two different ophthalmologists both of whom were older men and both of whom were in NC with "John Doe MD PA"on one line on their doors and "Ophthalmology" below that. What would PA have stood for? As far as I know neither man was running a side business as an Accountant.

[Snaggletooth]

PAs

What would PA have stood for?

Erchess, "PA" stood for "Public Accountant" and almost every state has them, or at least they did. Many of them were extra sharp bookkeeping, payroll, and tax people, most of whom were missing some of the CPA qualifications. For example, some of the better PAs did not have a college degree, and 40-50 years ago, a degree was not absolutely necessary for anything as long as someone could do the work. In rural cultures a degree was actually disdained by many, as there was a Charlie Daniels' mentality ("A Rich man goes to college, a Pore man goes to work"). In those days, a PA could often make a decent living with a corner bookkeeping shop.

Public Accountants were governed by the same State Boards of Accountancy that govern CPAs. My most prodigious observations with these State Boards were 1)issuing state licenses to CPAs and PAs - functionally a cash register for the state 2)administering and proctoring the AICPA exam in their state and 3)issuing "internship" requirements for future CPAs so the existing CPAs could employ an unending flow of sharp young minds and pay them little more than minimum wage.

There are not many Public Accountants anymore. One of the earlier posts said that his state doesn't license new ones but has grandfathered existing PAs. Some PAs eventually became eligible to be CPAs, some good ones actually sold their practices to CPAs and went to work for them, scores of them literally evaporated with the advent of electronic bookkeeping and payroll, such as Excel and QuikBooks.

They're like the other categories we've discussed - good ones and bad ones.