I feel strongly that all tax preparers, whether professionals or amateurs, ought to be subject to annual testing at least as rigorous as that required of me as a VITA volunteer. If a CPA or lawyer wants to volunteer at my VITA site, I will welcome him or her with open arms, but IRS rules still dictate that he or she must take the certification test each and every year.

“Main Entry: pro·fes·sion
Etymology: Middle English professioun, from Anglo-French profession, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin profession-, professio, from Latin, public declaration, from profitēri
Date: 13th century
1 : the act of taking the vows of a religious community
2 : an act of openly declaring or publicly claiming a belief, faith, or opinion : protestation
3 : an avowed religious faith
4 a : a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation b : a principal calling, vocation, or employment c : the whole body of persons engaged in a calling”

There is absolutely nothing in the definition which requires validation by an independent, recognized regulatory regime. Some professions have such validation; others do not.

I consider myself to be in the economics profession. I have a PhD in economics, am paid for using my professional expertise in economics, and belong to professional societies in economics. I believe my professional credentials would stand up to scrutiny in a court proceeding, even though I am not subject to any “independent, regulatory regime.” It is also worthy of note that I have taught aspiring lawyers and accountants courses that counted toward obtaining THEIR professional credentials, despite not having any government license myself.

I think you’re confusing the words profession and professionalism.

I agree anyone can conduct themselves in a professional manner, but only those who meet certain predefined standards can belong to a profession.

And yes, I am saying that in order to be a member of a profession you must be subject to some independent, recognized regulatory regime.

The mere fact that you have done something for a certain length of time does not make you a member of a profession.

You are confusing the word “professional” with the word profession.

I have already said that many unlicensed preparers conduct themselves more professionally than many licensed ones.

But that’s not the point.

The phrase “member of a profession” assumes the existence of some exclusive fraternity of individuals who have met predetermined admission standards.

And of course it’s my opinion. Who else’s opinion would it be?

It sounds like you are trying to make the case that in order to be a “professional,” you must be subject to regulation in the performance of your occupation by an exclusive license granting authority.

I disagree.

I’m not trying to chance your opinion, just challenging the notion that your conclusion is more than just an opinion.

Not all professions require government regulation. The ministry is a profession, and I would strenuously object to any notion that the government should regulate that. The word profession derives from the word “to profess,” which means to declare or to take a vow, and it does not necessarily denote doing so in a way that is acceptable to an external objective government body.

Many professions should be regulated, as should be many amateurs, as I have said, but a person who happens to work in an occupation which is not regulated at a particular point in time is not, ispo facto, a non-professional.

The same is also true in reverse. I might, just for the heck of it, decide to sit for the Enrolled Agent exam some day, but passing it won’t make me a professional tax preparer, because I have no plans to charge anyone for my services.

I suppose you could say that Yo Yo Ma is a professional musician in that he gets paid for playing the Cello, but he isn’t a member of a profession in the sense that we are talking about here because he’s an artist and art is subjective.

The better analogy is someone who practices medicine for a fee without a license. We would never call him a professional.

The only conclusion I draw is that some folks are members of professions and others are not and that is wrong to say you are a member of a profession if you are not required to meet any objective, third-party determined and enforced, conditions of entry and standards of conduct.

Right now anyone over the age of 18, regardless of his educational background, IQ, or criminal record can prepare tax returns for a fee.

There simply are no standards and no barriers to entry for unlicensed preparers.

I am a licensed tax preparer because the IRS accepts my CPA and law license as sufficent evidence of my basic competency.

First, you “have drawn the line,” yet state, “it is nevertheless a fact.”

Second, your definition says, “has been required.” Required by who? And “held to a set of objectively determined technical and ethical standards.” Held by who? You seem to conclude that when it comes to preparing a tax return, only a state bar or board of accountancy is able to make a determination.

Aren’t tax preparers (the ones that “act in a professional manner”) required to obtain a certain level of education, enough to perform their duties?
held to a set of objectively determined technical and ethical standards, at least buy those paying them to prepare their taxes?

Ones that cant add 2+2 are not going to be professionals along with ones that don’t have the required knowledge and skills. Those people are clearly excluded.

CPA’s at least have had to demonstrate that they are good with numbers and know basic accounting rules.

Lawyers have had to demonstrate that they have a basic understanding of settled principles of law and that they are capable of doing basic legal research.

Unlicensed preparers have not even been required to demonstrate that they can add the numbers 2 and 2 together.

For the word “profession” to have any meaning at all, it must operate to include some folks and exclude others.

I think I have drawn the line fairly as follows:

A professional is a person who has been required to obtain a certain level of education and is held to a set of objectively determined technical and ethical standards.

What part of this definition offends you?

I agree that one may act in a professional manner without being a member of a profession.

But what makes someone a member of a profession is that they are required to demonstrate at least some level of initial competency and are bound to certain, objectively determined standards.

Based on the definitions you cite, a tax preparer that conforms to the technical or ethical standards of tax preparation is a professional, especially (but a requirement) if they have advanced education.

You’re entitled to your opinion about who is a professional and who is not. But as a professional attorney, do you really think you embody higher learning and objectivity by labeling your personal belief that is not founded on proof or certainty as fact?

And for the record, I am not a tax preparer, attorney or CPA.

The definition of “profession” that you cite above is “an occupation, especially one requiring advanced education.” They are pursuing an occupation, and they have an advanced education required by their employer, but it is not required by any government regulatory body.

There is nothing inherent in the definition of the word professional which requires a government certifying body. Most people would say that Yoyo Ma is a professional musician, despite the fact that he has no government certification.

Athletes and actors are considered “professional” if they can make enough money at their occupation to support themselves, but they are not licensed by any government body.

The word amateur is not necessarily something to sneeze at either. Historically, there were some superb amateur athletes. An amateur is someone who does something for the love of it, rather than for pay. Paid preparers do not qualify as “amateurs.”

There were “professions” long before there were government bodies regulating them. Personally, I’m very glad that the government regulates some professionals, including doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and CPAs. I also think it’s important that public school teachers should be regulated, since school districts are spending taxpayer money. All those regulations can certainly stand improvement, but I have no argument that they are needed.

But I don’t think private school teachers need government regulation to earn the right to call themselves “professionals.”

Some professions need regulation, in my view. Others do not. For that matter, some amateurs need regulation.

I believe that all paid preparers should be regulated with annual testing at least as rigorous as what we “amateur” volunteer preparers undergo. Our work, whether paid or amateur, is directing billions of dollars of Treasury funds into the bank accounts of the taxpayers we assist.

For example, I would hire a random 14 year old to handle my stock investments before I would hire the highly credentialled Bernard Madoff.

The term professional merely means you are required to meet some objectively determined, impartially enforced set of standards.

Public school teachers are all licensed by the state. Some of the private school teachers are not licensed by the state, but they have advanced degrees and many years of experience.

The public school teachers say that there was very little value in many of the methods courses required for their certification. I do not see that acquiring such certification would make the private school teachers I know any more “professional” than they already are.

In some states, certified teachers are legally allowed to teach high school subjects other than those in which they have been trained and certified.

So much for state certification and regulation as a guarantee of professionalism.