I’m always looking for ways to improve my business.

For some it might be, for me no.

Again, I want the client because they know I am a tax pro not because they blindly believe I am.

Isn’t THAT a good enough reason?

The CPA in my post, is a clear example of why there needs to be a better reign on “who is a tax preparer”, and that is where regulation will come in. At the same time if all of us (including CPAs) are grandfathered in, then nothing will be any different for many years.

It isn’t just un-enrolled preparers that need regulated. Everyone who preparers returns for profit needs to be tested and regulated. EVERYONE!

An Attorney who has his/her specialty it tax law, this makes since for him/her to also become a CPA. As you stated, “CPAs have demonstrated the knowledge and ability to handle numbers and maintain proper books and records.”, A key to preparing an accurate return. (Having properly maintained books.)

How can you not agree that the general public associates tax pro with CPA? Even someone from the AICPA acknowledges this believe by the general public. To not agree yourself would be delusional on your part, and I don’t believe that you are delusional.

Do I need to copy and paste again the quote from the AICPA the quote that stated plainly that tax prep is an area for which the public already ‘believes’ CPAs to ‘own’.

It has been suggested that CPAs are aware of this belief.

Why do we need regulation?

Is this not reason enough? I mean if for no other reason, wouldn’t it be enough to separate the CPAs who have no business preparing returns from those who do? Or as a CPA, should it just be overlooked that there is one who can’t add or subtract (five places on one return), and has no clue about tax preparation, as one bad egg?

My personal decisions are just that, personal. However I will answer your question. I was a CPA has I keep pointing out, When client/taxpayers come to me for assistance I don’t want them doing so blindly just because I have a Certification for being a licensed bookkeeper. I want clients to come to me because I am known for my abilities as a “Tax Preparer”. That is why no CPA.
As for Not becoming an EA, well, Why? I mean a taxpayer regardless of all things is ultimately responsible for their own return. Right? So in a situation before the IRS shouldn’t the taxpayer stand there before them? I believe they should. According to Circular 230, am I not allowed to be there? On the contrary, I am. (I can quote this area of the 230 if you’d like.)

I never figured you for a propaganda sponge. A lot is being said about un-enrolled prepares and how we need to regulate them. The blinding fact is all preparers need to be regulated.

Why are un-enrolled prepares the talk and focus point of regulation?

I cannot say for sure, but it surely couldn’t be because of the blind belief of the public that CPAs and others with professional designations calling themselves Tax pros are doing anything wrong. I mean aren’t they held accountable by private groups.

Funny, I don’t see the AICPA arresting someone. Then again the IRS will. A designation won’t help either, A CPA will be penalized and possibly imprisoned just as any un-enrolled preparer.

I put this to you again, is not anyone/everyone who is a tax preparer (CPA or un-enrolled preparer) governed by Circular 230?

Understandably there are limits placed on an un-enrolled preparer, but they are just as accountable to the IRS as a CPA or some other designation.

If you guys are right in saying that CPA’s are assumed to be competent in tax preparation, then how could being a CPA NOT do anything for you?

I am confused.

Either CPAs have an unfair advantage over unenrolled preparers or they don’t.

You can’t have it both ways.

And are you also saying that being an enrolled agent would do nothing for you?

Robert says he would trust an enrolled agent to prepare a return before he would trust unenrolled preparers or CPAs.

How, then, could this designation NOT do anything for you?

By the way, if unenrolled preparers are so good, as Robert and now apparently you suggest, how come we need to regulate them at all?

I ask:
Why? For what purpose?
Have you forgotten I support the need for tax preparer regulation even Tax Preparer Licensing?

I’ve had a license. It did nothing for me.

When preparer regulation is enacted, I’ll be first in line to do whatever is necessary. At that point I’ll be out front demanding that those falsely accredited the title be dealt with accordingly .

You have read my post incorrectly on two accounts.

1. I never said CPAs are expert preparers. I merely said that given a choice between an unenrolled preparer and a preparer who happens to have a CPA license, it makes sense to choose the latter. Independent studies and Nina Olson’s findings agree with my position;

2. I did not say that unenrolled preparers are incapable of preparing returns. In fact I said the opposite. Some of the best preparers out there are unenrolled preparers. Probably you and Robert fall into that category.

The good unenrolled preparers should do everything possible to either become CPAs or become IRS Enrolled Agents.

However, being an expert bookkeeper does not make an expert tax preparer.

I am aware greatly that “unenrolled preparer” is NOT a designation. What I read into your words are that because one does not have a designation they aren’t capable because they have no one to answer to.

This just isn’t so.

What higher regulatory body is there in taxation than the IRS?

Does Circular 230 not regulate us as well as a CPA or other prepares with title such as Attorneys.
Enrolled agents, Enrolled actuaries?

This just isn’t so.

What higher regulatory body is there in taxation than the IRS?
Does Circular 230 not regulate us as well as a CPA?

My detailed response to your post will be published tomorrow morning.

Read my post again. Here is what I said:

“All but the militantly nefarious and hopelessly deluded will concede that CPAs are experts at keeping books and records. There simply is no higher accounting designation.”

You can’t possibly disagree with this statement?

Are you saying that a CPA is NOT an expert in accounting?

If you are (and I pray you aren’t), then you’re indeed either nefarious or deluded.

Bruce, “unenrolled preparer” is NOT a designation.

It simply means that the preparer is neither a CPA, lawyer or IRS Enrolled Agent.

It is a negative or non-designation meaning anyone who is NOT licensed, has not been required to demonstrate a minimal level of ability or knowledge and does not have to comply with a regulatory body’s professional standards.

This is stunning that you cannot concede something as basic as this logical formulation:

An unenrolled preparer with a CPA license is, presumptively, a better trained and educated preparer than,

Just an unenrolled preparer.

I am confused. Why I should prove my accounting ability?

Is it possible that mentioning concern about the increase in negligence and outright fraud amongst CPAs might have reduced her credibility?

No that is just militantly nefarious and hopelessly deluded.

From IRS Publication Circular 230
10.2 Definitions.
(1) Attorney means any person who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any state, territory, or possession of the United States, including a Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia.

(2) Certified public accountant means any person who is duly qualified to practice as a certified public accountant in any state, territory, or possession of the United States, including a Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia.

(4) Practice before the Internal Revenue Service comprehends all matters connected with a presentation to the Internal Revenue Service or any of its officers or employees relating to a taxpayer’s rights, privileges, or liabilities under laws or regulations administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Such presentations include, but are not limited to, preparing
and filing documents, corresponding and communicating with the Internal Revenue Service, rendering written advice with respect to any entity, transaction, plan or arrangement, or other plan or arrangement having a potential for tax avoidance or evasion, and representing a client at conferences, hearings and meetings.

(5) Practitioner means any individual described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of §10.3.

§ 10.3 Who may practice.
(a) Attorneys.
(b) Certified public accountants.
(c) Enrolled agents.
(d) Enrolled actuaries.
(e) Enrolled retirement plan agents

(f) Others. Any individual qualifying under paragraph §10.5(d) or §10.7 is eligible to practice before the Internal Revenue Service to the extent provided in those sections.

§ 10.7 Representing oneself; participating in rulemaking; limited practice; special appearances;
and return preparation.

(c) Limited practice —
(1)
(viii) An individual who prepares and signs a taxpayer’s tax return as the preparer, or who prepares a tax return
(2) Limitations.
(iii) An individual who represents a taxpayer under the authority of paragraph (c)(1) of this section is subject, to the extent of his or her authority, to such rules of general applicability regarding standards of conduct and other matters as the Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility prescribes.

(e) Preparing tax returns and furnishing information.
Any individual may prepare a tax return, appear as a witness for the taxpayer before the Internal Revenue Service, or furnish information at the request of the Internal Revenue Service or any of its officers or employees.

Publication 470, Limited Practice Without Enrollment (PDF) explains Revenue Procedure 81-38, which prescribes the standards of conduct, scope of authority, and the circumstances under which an individual preparer of tax returns may exercise the privilege of limited practice as the taxpayer’s representative before the IRS, without enrollment and pursuant to section 10.7(a)(7) of Treasury Department Circular No. 230

As you can see unenrolled preparers are regulated just as Any other practitioner by Circular 230