Leaderboard

No wonder I have trouble reading assembly instructions which are always written by someone younger than I am.

That may be so, but I have found that often the client will make a correction either on the organizer or verbally. It seems that nobody wants to be a "nobody" doing "nothing".; even if the answer is retired. Home Maker, Student, Self-Employed and others work well when in doubt. After all, we are working for the client, not the IRS. Often clients DO care.

Each of my children made that mistake once. Somehow, they figured out that the fun was not worth the certain cost.

I also had one I took over who liked to describe themselves as an "Administrative Assistant", but their prior tax preparer's software apparently only allowed a certain number of characters, and it did a very poor job of abbreviating the term.

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/News/201410547.htm AICPA sues IRS to stop return preparer program By Alistair M. Nevius, J.D. July 15, 2014 The AICPA filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday, asking the court to halt the IRS’s recently introduced Annual Filing Season Program. The AICPA’s three-count complaint asks the court to declare the rule implementing the program unlawful and stop its operation. The Annual Filing Season Program, introduced June 30 in Rev. Proc. 2014-42, allows unenrolled tax return preparers and others to receive an annual Record of Completion from the IRS if they complete continuing education courses from IRS-approved providers. Participants must have a valid preparer tax identification number (PTIN) and agree to abide by the rules in subpart B and Section 10.51 of Circular 230, Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service (31 C.F.R. Part 10). Program participants will be listed in an IRS directory of federal tax return preparers. The AICPA’s complaint is brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§551–706, and it alleges that the IRS violated the APA’s notice and comment requirements when it implemented the rule through a revenue procedure. The APA requires federal government agencies to provide for notice and comment, except when issuing “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (5 U.S.C. §553(b ). The complaint states that the revenue procedure implementing the program fits under none of these exceptions. The AICPA also alleges that the rule is “an illegitimate exercise of government power” because it violates the APA and is “an impermissible end run” around the decision in Loving, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2014), aff’g 917 F. Supp. 2d 67 (D.D.C. 2013), which held that the IRS does not have statutory authority to regulate tax return preparers. The complaint notes that the rule implements a program that is nearly identical to the mandatory return preparer registration program that was invalidated in Loving. The complaint also notes that the IRS cites no statutory authority that allows it to implement the new rule, and, under 5 U.S.C. §706(2)©, without statutory authority, the program is invalid. The AICPA argues in its complaint that while the program is purportedly voluntary, it will actually be “de facto mandatory because it creates a strong competitive incentive for unenrolled tax return preparers to comply.” In promoting the program, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has noted that participating in the program will allow return preparers to “stand out from the competition (Ohlemacher, “IRS Announces Voluntary Program to Certify Tax Preparers Who Complete Course, Pass Test,” Associated Press (June 26, 2014)). The AICPA argues that the IRS is thus aware that the program creates a situation in which unenrolled tax return preparers must participate in order not to lose business to those who do. Finally, the complaint states that the rule is “arbitrary and capricious,” that by creating new categories of tax return preparer it will confuse consumers, and that it does nothing to address the issues of unethical or fraudulent tax return preparers who understate income or file invalid refund claims for their clients. The complaint asks the court to declare the rule unlawful, vacate and set aside the revenue procedure, declare null and void any action taken by the IRS pursuant to the rule, enjoin the IRS from implementing the rule, and postpone the effective date of the rule pending the conclusion of the case.

It was the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT that made the ruling. It upheld the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruling against the IRS. The IRS chose NOT to send it to the Supreme Court. Here is reality. What the courts have ruled and what the IRS, essentially Karen Hawkins, believe are two entirely different things. I heard her speak about the new "voluntary" Annual Filing Season Program at the IRS Nationwide Forum in Chicago. She thinks she is above the law and the courts. She is pressing forward with no regard to the court rulings. Stand by for more "shots" at the un-enrolled preparers from her office.... If she/they could just implement a plan to actually stop the fraud and incompetence, I would be all for it. All that has been done is just political FLUFF.

I thought RTRP made everyone subject to Circular 230 and thus their PTIN could be revoked if IRS got after them. If I understand this program correctly, Circular 230 is now voluntary, and disconnected from the PTIN.

WATCH THIS FULL SCREEN

I think AICPA has correctly identified the problem. The next-to-the-last paragraph holds the key - this designation will effectively create an "EA-Lite". I'm not suggesting that preparers who go through the AFSP are in any way as qualified as EA's, but the average taxpayer simply won't be able to tell the difference. The program dilutes to some degree the qualifications of CPA's and especially EA's, without accomplishing anything significant.

Exactly.

Yes'm!!

Never had that problem, but then, when my boys were small, spanking was still a normal parental tool.

I used to use House Wife, but with so many things becoming politically incorrect after the dot com boom, I now use Home Maker, but there is a reason why the IRS would like to know your occupation: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09resonknowtax.pdf

I think "homemaker" is a very honorable title.

Military. Like this. Never leave the roll without a salute.

Did have one "Domestic Goddess" and one "Jack of All Trades". Not on the same return.

I ask them. Had one "Domestic Diva" once. Often it's Homemaker. Sometimes Unemployed. More and more Retired, even those younger than I am. As has been mentioned, often the most recent occupation if they're looking or on a maternity leave or temporarily ill or....