TAXPRO
TODAY recently posted my editorial “Who Speaks for the Tax Preparer”, in which
I called for an independent lobby to champion the interests of tax preparers to
Congress and the IRS.
While my
past TAXPRO TODAY editorials have not always generated good, thoughtful comments (on one occasion
it was truly a mucking fess), this time I actually received a good, thoughtful and
responsive reaction from fellow tax pros.
A commenter
identified as “Jeanieb1” (what be Jeanie?) had this to say -
“Nice, Robert. Been doing returns since 1978
and have long since thought the preparer community needed a voice. We are doing
the IRS auditing for them prior to filing a return or else face due diligence
problems. EITC, Child Care & Education credit, to name a few, on the ever
growing list we have no control over. All the prior points are valid. However,
if every one of the current professional organizations added $5.00 to their dues
to help fund a PAC for all, it might be beneficial. The PAC would have no other
agenda than to let the preparers prepare; and, let the IRS auditors audit. The
IRS needs to implement some safeguards of their own, such as not sending 10+
EITC refunds to the same address! They could practice some due diligence and
professional responsibility.”
My reply to Jeanieb1 was -
“The idea of a PAC to lobby for the interests
of paid 1040 preparers (including CPAs who prepare 1040s for compensation)
funded by voluntary $5.00-$10.00 contributions as part of the annual membership
fee of NATP, NSTP, NAEA. NSA, etc., and even AICPA, is certainly something to
consider. As long as the PAC is independent of the individual supporting
organizations and is not "beholding" to AICPA as a major contributor.
I may be prejudiced, but I do not believe the
AICPA as an organization is interested in helping the non-CPA 1040 preparer.
AICPA is only interested in perpetuating the ‘urban tax myth’ that CPA = 1040
expert, which, obviously, is just not true. Perpetuating this myth does not
benefit the paid tax preparer or the taxpayer public.”
From taxprO
-
“I would join and support an organization
dedicated to representing the interests of qualified tax preparers not already
governed by some authoritative organization. This organization could establish
credentialing requirements, in addition to lobbying for fair practice
requirements. IRS should not be dictating these issues as long as there is a
mostly adversarial relationship between it and tax preparers.”
Another
interesting idea – the organization created to lobby could also be the
independent industry-based organization that administers a voluntary RTRP-like
credential that I had talked about in an earlier TAXPRO TODAY editorial. So we could kill two birds with one stone.
EA Joseph
F. Kerner feels -
“We do not need another organization. The
current organizations, NATP, NAEA, CPA groups, and the several other Tax Clubs
that I get emails from on meetings, webnairs, etc must work together.”
Lee
Willard, an EA and a CPA, agreed with Joseph, and also has another suggestion.
“1. We need not have a single large
organization of tax professionals. All we need do is have present organizations
work together to jointly fund a special advocacy team in Washington.
2. But speaking of things that need to be
changed for tax professionals, Enrolled Agents should be professionally
responsible to an authority outside of the IRS - and perhaps other tax
professionals as well (other than CPA's and attorneys supervised by state
authorities). An authority within the Treasury Department, or even the Taxpayer
Advocate, would be a definite improvement in this regard. Why should the fox
guard the henhouse?”
A tax
preparer lobby would certainly need the existing membership organizations to
work together. Lee’s idea to “jointly fund a special advocacy team in
Washington” is fine – but the advocacy team would need to be independent of
the individual funding membership organizations.
Lee’s “#2”
is indeed interesting. Perhaps the
independent industry-based organization created to administer the voluntary
RTRP-like credential could also take over administration of the EA designation,
offering a 2-tiered credentialing program like the one I suggested for the IRS
to institute in the wake of the death of the mandatory regulation regime.
Hezzy
merely wanted to rant, making some good points in the process (highlight is
mine) –
“I don't know about all of you, but the fees
I have been receiving for the preparation of tax returns is hardly worth the
time and anxiety over audits, penalties and increased regulations and
responsibility to assure the information given to me is accurate and truthful.
That on top of the total waste of time and money with my passing the RTRP exam
which the IRS did not have the authority to impose. The IRS is so overburdened with responsibility it can no longer
function in the capacity for which it was formed. Now more of their burden
in issuing bogus EITC to criminals and illegals will be placed on us. We might
as well give it up to the big lobbied tax preparation firms who seem to get
away with anything since they fund the political parties.”
I also
received some good response to my TWTP post “Should the RTRP Survive? My More Than 2 Cents Worth”, a response to another TAXPRO TODAY item.
Over at Twitter,
fellow tax blogger Jason Dinesen of DINESEN TAX TIMES tweeted his reaction to
the post -
“I believe in leaving things as they are and
encourage the unenrolled to become EAs, rather than creating a new designation.”
And asked -
“But is there really a ‘need’ for a voluntary
RTRP designation?”
Joe Kristan
of the ROTH AND COMPANY TAX UPDATE BLOG shared his agreement with Jason.
I replied to
the guys -
“Still see need for a ‘less extensive’
credential, & like the 2-tier idea. All taxpros don't want to represent.”
Joe
admitted -
“I could get behind an industry based {RTRP
- rdf} credential. I only oppose IRS role.”
But just
said “no” when I asked -
“Do you think the current EA designation
should be administered by an independent organization instead of IRS?”
My final
tweet to Joe and Jason was -
“Whatever happens, the most important thing
is that the IRS should not be able to force all unenrolled preparers to become
RTRPs.”
Chris Johnson, EA, a frequent commenter to
TWTP, submitted this comment to the post -
“Great
post, Bob!
I'm
an EA who has posted here before who actually agrees with this post, for the
most part. I'm not totally against regulation of tax preparation, but don't
have anything good to say about the RTRP designation either, partly because I
believe it would dilute the value of my own EA designation but also partly
because mandating such a designation would only push the
"underground" tax preparation business further underground. You know
what I'm talking about- people who prepare tax returns, sometimes using pirated
software, only take cash for their services, no PTIN on the return and there is
no written record of them preparing the return anywhere. The RTRP designation
is not going to put an end to that. Also, there are many other unenrolled
prepares like yourself who have prepared returns for satisfied clients for many
years without any real problem. While I believe my EA designation adds to my
marketability (and also allows me to do other things such as audit representation,
which I actually enjoy sometimes), I think that would-be clients should be free
to choose who prepares their returns and it all comes down to personal choice.
There
are some people out there who will only go to a CPA to prepare their taxes, no
doubt I've lost out on a few would-be clients because of that, but I do just
fine as an EA, and from the looks of it you do just fine as well.
I do
think that continuing education is essential in the tax business, as tax codes
are always changing and you can never know too much tax and of course I must do
it to maintain my EA designation. While it's great that you choose to do
continuing education, I am certain that not every unenrolled preparer chooses
to do so. Perhaps the IRS thinks that the RTRP designation would force more of
those in the business to take continuing education but again, those in the
"underground" tax preparation community will never abide by such a
rule anyway.
Anyway,
keep up the good postings!”
When asked his thoughts on my suggested IRS
administered two-tiered credentialing program Chris replied (highlight is mine –
I couldn’t resist) –
“The
two-tiered credential program involving the RTRP and EA would probably be a
good idea - the EA designation would be less obscure and wouldn't be diluted by
the RTRP designation like it has been (to some small extent anyway). Both
credentials are administered by the IRS anyway, so how hard could it be for
them to do?
At
the end of the day, it could be a lot of free publicity for the EA designation,
so I guess I'm all for it! Too many
automatically assume that CPAs are the only people who can do tax returns, yet
plenty of CPAs don't belong anywhere near a tax return.”
So, taxpros and taxpayers alike, what do
you think about these issues?
TTFN
No comments:
Post a Comment