barbers & nail technicians require licensing but not TAX PREPARERS, absurd!! Massage therpist, beauticians,nail technicials, barbers need licensing yet tax preparers don't need licensing, absolutely absurd. Licensing is needed to filter out all the bad tax preparers robbing tax payers and issuing credits to those not deserving tax credits. I seen way to many non english speaking people & teenagers preparing tax returns using Turbo Tax No wonder our govt is broke!! It's about time Congress woke up! Licensing need to be done ASAP!! ~ Edithe (4/6/2009)

barbers & nail technicians require licensing but not TAX PREPARERS, absurd!! Massage therpist, beauticians,nail technicials, barbers need licensing yet tax preparers don't need licensing, absolutely absurd. Licensing is needed to filter out all the bad tax preparers robbing tax payers and issuing credits to those not deserving tax credits. I seen way to many non english speaking people & teenagers preparing tax returns using Turbo Tax No wonder our govt is broke!! It's about time Congress woke up! Licensing need to be done ASAP!! ~ Edithe (4/6/2009)

This Is A Character Do You Believe Barbara Johnson Worked !ABA IABA Barbara Johnson Is Not My List For My Computer I Learned I Disaobeyed Her Right Now For The Movies Definace Barbara Johnson Worked !ABA She Drive Me Crazy Will You Please Help Me ~ Michael Matt Dunn (1/29/2009)

cpa that messes you up in payroll and your taxes I approached a cpa and let him know i am divorced two years ago , last two weeks i was all right with my check, all the sudden my boss does the payroll , i went from 107.01 deducted to now 139.00 taken out 191.00 out i dont make much money to begin with. She raised fed,state,socical sec and even my medicare all of it , how does that happen and why she changed what the CPA was doing and say it his fault. It will cost me a whole year of taxes to pay back now . ~ jackie (10/26/2006)

Yes to licensing! I believe everyone who does a tax return should be licensed. I have taken over 600 hrs of tax classes in the last 5 years and plan to take the EA exam this fall. Some firms train really well , and you must pass a 4 hour test and get 80% or better to work and others hire people off the street who don't even know what a standard deduction is. This should not be allowed. My state will not allow you to take the CPA exam without a college degree which I do not have , but I have more tax knowledge than most CPA's. Grandfather CPA's and EA's but license everyone else! It will put a better light on tax preparation. ~ Anedra Lewis (3/17/2005)

It's not about licensure, it's about those astronomical fees charged for offering RALs As a soon to be graduate majoring in Accounting and Finance, possessing an Associates degree in accounting, and currently a self-employed accountant with over 11 years accounting experience, I don't really understand the licensing issue at all! Personally, I have experienced fly-by-night tax preparers that charges huge fees for [poor] folks to receive their income tax refunds fast...Unfortunately, when the smoke clears and the fly-by-nighters have gone for the season, we trained accountants are left to clean up their messes. They overcharge these people and incorrectly processed their returns. Unfortunately, these [poor] folks go right back to them the following year for the fast [and larger] tax refunds they promise. I believe in the tax system and try to abide by the rules of the game. However, the people who seek out my services, do so AFTER the season, so that I can fix the mess these other folks caused. LICENSING preparers is currently done by the EA exam. EROs enroll to process electronic returns. Why relicense EAs when they are not the problem...JUST REQUIRE ALL CURRENT AND NEW EROs TO BECOME ENROLLED AGENTS [EAs]. Why try to fix what is not broken! ~ Christinna Neveaux (4/19/2004)

Licensing or not I think accounting profession ought to think about this. There are currently two ways to become licensed: first, you can become a CPA if you meet the requirements: second, you can become an EA if you want. I am currently neither but have been doing returns since 1996. I tell my clients that I am neither. Most people that work for H&R Block are not. Does the public need to be aware of this? YES! If I wanted to be licensed, I could take either exam. I am going to take the EA this fall, but the only requirement should be a certain number of training hours by an authorized organization such as the IRS, NATP or the state societies of CPA. This way every year the non-licensed person stays current with the code. ~ Russ Silverstein (4/16/2004)

who should be licened the person who recives the information information from the taxpayer the person who analyzes the information and documents to determine which pertain to the taxpayers liability. the person who then characterizes the information and then determines which forms are needed, and tries to clear up any matters thet are not clear to the tax-preparer if this cannot be done by talking to the taxpayee the tax-preparer must be able to consult what ever authority is needed to properly file the return the tax-preparethen fills out the forms and schedules and then presents them to the tax-payer withan expiation of the treatment of the information and answers any questions that the tax-payer may have befor signing the return. if this is the person to tested and licensed I would be in favor of it. ~ Jack Dinan (4/1/2004)

Licensing opinion I think it would establish us as professionals rather than just someone who does tax returns. I would certainly like to see licensing. It would weed out the hobby preparers that do more to hurt the customer than help. They and are not in the business of keeping up with current tax laws, simply making a quick buck. ~ C. F. HOLLAND (2/28/2004)

licensing is needed ~ Arnold Zhitlovsky (2/26/2004)

I believe that the majority of tax preparers are all ready licensed. Most tax preparers are probably allready licensed as EA, CPA or Tax Attorney. I have read many of the comments submitted and at all levels we make mistakes on returns. If tax practitioner is required to be licensed how will this affect the tax companies that hire individuals during the tax season only? Will each of these individuals need to be licensed or will the top management qualify? ~ Karen Arredondo EA (2/24/2004)

CONSUMERS DESERVE BETTER THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES LICENSES FOR SIMILAR POSITIONS SUCH AS FINANCIAL ADVISORS, REAL ESTATE SALES, INSURANCE, ETC IT JUST MAKES SENSE TO HAVE LICENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR TAX PREPARERS. ~ JEFF KENNER (2/24/2004)

NO ADVERTISING REGISTRATION WOULD BE A GOOD THING ONLY I THE REGISTRANT COULD NOT HOLD HIMSELF OUT TO THE PUBLIC AS BEING REGISTERED AS THIS WOULD INFER A LEVEL OF COMPETANCE. ~ JOSEPH J GORMLEY JR (2/24/2004)

education We already have licensing by various agencies, AICPA, NATP, IRS-EA, etc. All licensees, including non-professional "tax preparers" shoul meet a education standard and be tested as to tax and ethical knowledge. ~ Edward Schwall, CPA (2/20/2004)

yes and force Turbo Tax and Tax Cut to put a limit on the returns a preparer can print/e-file! Long overdue! But the IRS should force Turbo Tax and Tax Cut limit the amount of returns that can be printed/e-filed by that "fly-by nighter" What good would lisencing do if these 2 tax programs knowingly allow it to be exploited. Fly-by nighters prepare returns because it doesn't require a huge investment ($2400ProSeries) and little knowledge. I for one am tired of correcting hundreds of returns that were prepared by a paid preparer who didn't signt the return using Tax Cut! Intuit is directly competing against those of us using ProSeries because Turbo Tax is also made by Intuit! If Turbo Tax enforced their softaware licenses 10 years ago none of this there would be no need for licensing!!! ~ Edithe (2/20/2004)

Tax Practioners vs. CPA, EAs, etc.. This is in response of those individuals who seems to think unlicensed tax practioners are incompetent, rips people off and/or are high school dropouts. I am NOT a CPA, or EA and I am a tax practitioner for individuals. I DO support the idea of certification but exceptions should be for CPAs and EAs since they already been through high levels of training. This would bring more credibility to my business. Now, defending unlicensed tax practitioners (me)...since there are a couple of responses here that are knocking us... I have served clients who had their individual income tax done by CPAs and I had to fix their slop! Most CPA firms view tax season for individuals as a "3 month pain" since the fees they collect are not "high" enough for them to pay full attention to the clients' needs. I can't count the number of time I heard someone say, "My CPA take too long to complete my taxes, He/She did not call my yet, He/She charges too much but I guess its because they are certified." Boohoo if you pay too much for your licensing or you went through 5 years of schooling, 2 days of examination, take continuing education classes...I have a Series 6 and 63 and producers license which requires me to take continuing education classes too...and we all know that it consists of taxes, financial planning, health and life insurance, etc... I have my tax business running and growing...and quess what...its my small business...I am a software engineer pursing my Ph.D in computer engineering. I can do what you do...but can you do what I do? In short, I do agree that there are unlicensed tax preparers that are ripping people off. There are also CPAs and EAs that don't live up to standard too. Isn't this true in any profession? BRING ON THE CERTIFICATION!! ~ LFM (2/19/2004)

certification This is a good idea for practitioners to get liscensed. Exceptions should be for CPAs and EAs. It would bring more credibility to tax practitioners who are not CPAs or EAs. ~ Lucious McDonald (2/19/2004)

Licensing & Registration for Tax Practitioners Licensing may not be a bad idea,if the license is for the section of the code that the practitioner is preparing returns. For manny practitioners, the scope of their work is limited, thus, they should only be required know the returns that they prepare. In addition, they should not be allowed to prepare any returns beyound their license. ~ C E Cobb (2/18/2004)

Looks like I need to get licensed to spell "Practitioner"! (-: A Certified "Speller" indeed! Nope, just tired from doing tax returns! Looks like I need to get licensed to spell "Practitioner"! (-: A Certified "Speller" indeed! Nope, just tired from doing tax returns! ~ Keith O. Wilson, CPA (2/18/2004)

Practicioners ARE licensed! It is my understanding that "Professionals" are not necessarily licensed or accredited but "Practicioners" per se are either enrolled agents, tax attorneys or CPAs. ~ Keith O. Wilson, CPA (2/18/2004)

Too many people are getting ripped off by tax preparers who have not had any training in taxes. ~ Clara Beckwith (2/18/2004)

Accounting The accounting field is the only field not regulated by licensure. If medical and legal professionals require a license to practice, shouldn't all accounting professionals, not just CPA's, also need to be licensed in order to practice as a professional? ~ Ted Fahrendorf (2/18/2004)

National Licensing I would need more information before I would be able to give an opinion on this. What is the purpose of the licensing and registration? What will it make better for the profession? On the surface it sounds good. What limitations are there for CPA's vs. Non-cpa's? ~ Gary Evans (2/18/2004)

needed There are too many paid preparers that have no idea what they are doing. Many just buy a computer program to prepare the return and know little if anything about title 26 USC. AS they are not professionals they have little to lose if their answers are wrong. The IRS owes it to the public to protect they from shotty paid tax preparers. ~ J. David Bennett (2/17/2004)

ERO's licensed I don't think there needs to be a different license but I do believe that any paid preparer and/or ERO should be a licensed EA, CPA, or tax attorney. ~ Evelyn Green (2/17/2004)

The national licensing will protect the taxpayers against abused tax shelter practices. ~ irene salaki (2/15/2004)

Just require any one who doensn't have a professional licence or designation becone an EA ~ Sharon Peters (2/15/2004)

Enuf is enuf I was technically better while studying for the CPA,CFP,EA,CMA,CFM,PFS than when I have achieved them all. There is another motive for the IRS to want to license us as their compliance gophers. ~ Overcertified/over licensed (2/13/2004)

Enrolled Agents The Treasury Department already licenses the best kept secret in tax preparation - the practitioner who is "Enrolled to Practice Before The Internal Revenue Service". These People have had to pass a stringent 2 day examination in the field of Federal Taxation and if they pass all parts they receive the above designation. They must then maintain continuing education credits over the next three years and follow a very specific Code of Ethics. So in reality, there already exists a program of excellence for licensing tax practitioners. Why re-invent the process. Just publicize what already exists. These people are generally professionals in the accounting and finance area. They generally aree not CPA's and therefore the cost of their services is more resonable, yet the competence is as high as the CPA. Michael Mendell ~ Michael Mendell (2/13/2004)

Yes to being licensed, tested and continuing ed. required!! It is very scary that a high school drop-out with a pocket calculator can hang up a sign in this country proclaiming themselves to be an accountant and tax professional. I clean up tax messes after these people every year. The public should have assurance that anyone designating themselves as an accountant or a tax practitioner is not only educated in such through an accredited institution of higher learning, but also that that individual has passed a stringent exam over these materials and stays abreast of changes in the law through continuing education. Those professionals already adhering to this criteria through the licensing of their professions, such as CPAs, should be exempted from further licensing or testing requirements. It is about time, for the sake of the public interest, that the principle of "caveat emptor" no longer exists with regard to such potentially liable services as accounting and tax preparation. The vast majority of the general public have no understanding of the difference in qualifications between the extremes of the high school drop-out tax practitioner and a Certified Public Accountant. Many seem amazed if they query me and I tell them that I had to go to college for 5 years, pass a 2 day exam with a 12% 1st time pass rate and that I have to take off entire week of each year to continue my education. Three cheers for accountability!! Sincerely, Debra L. Mickles, CPA Albia, Iowa ~ Debra Mickles (2/12/2004)

Enough Already If the purpose is only to generate fees, then no this is a rediculous idea. If however, the purpose is to truly regulate the tax prep industry, who will be responsible for governing? The IRS already has enough on its plate. Perhaps another governmental agency or better yet, create a new position. I am of the opinion that there would be no substance behind this requirement. The only ones to benefit from this would be the government via the cost to obtain the license and or certificate. I don't think regulation is the answer. ~ Frank Nute (2/12/2004)

Yes a license sound good CPA's and other professionals are already licensed. Licensed tax preparers will cut out all the pop up corner business at tax time. The owners never attend a seminar or any other class but draw customers and cause a lot of problems and we have to help correct them later. I say go for it. ~ Rosie Johnson (2/11/2004)

Separate licensing of tax preparers may not be necessary. Just require that all tax preparers be a CPA, EA, or tax Attorney. Separate licensing of tax preparers may not be necessary. Just require that all tax preparers be a CPA, EA, or tax Attorney. ~ Joseph J. Gawalis Jr. (2/10/2004)

go after the bad guys. licensing is a waste of money for the preparer. Passing a test is no way to prevent bad preparation. Attack the problem by going after the individual to whom is providing the fraud and bad prep. ~ LARRYBRICKER (2/10/2004)

Licensing of preparers Licensing of preparers is fine provided a degree of competancy is required. If this is done, the largest tax return preparer in the world would lose at least 75% of their staff. ~ DAN DONNER (2/10/2004)

Quality Control requires more then the question of License of tax prepairers The tax laws are very complicated and the tax forms instructions are written for the tax professional not for tax payers. Tax software is a great assistant in preparing a return, however if you arn't skilled in the tax code how can you conplete a correct return? Electronic filing is here to stay,a good thing I may add, but returns not prepared by qualified individules doesn't insure a correct tax return. Cost of licensing is not an issue as far as the tax law is concerned and compatition doesn't enter into the equation. All preparers covered by circular 230 already have a responsibility to conply with the tax code and are subject to prosecution by various government agencies. preparers and software venders not governed by circular 230 are the problem and where most of the tax abuse is generated. ~ Joseph M Frezza, EA, PA (2/10/2004)

Too many fees already! The cost of my CPA license is already exorbitant! Now another layer of costs for tax preparation! I don't mind demonstrating proficiency, but I do object to further licensing costs. ~ Nancy Halvorson (2/9/2004)

TAX PRACTIONEERS I HAVE BEEN DOING TAX PREPARATION AND A BOOKKEEPER, FOR 16+ years . I AGREE THAT MOST RETURNS I ENDED UP AMENDING ARE FROM CPA'S . JUSST BECAUSE THEY HAVE THOSE THREE LETTERS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. I ATTEND ALL CLASS FOR BOTH STATE & FEDERAL TAX UUPDATES . IF YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE YOUR CLIENT THE BESY SERVICE THEN YOU MUST STAY UP ON ALL THE NEW LAWS AND UPDATES. I WOULD TAKE THE TEST TODAY. ~ ANGIE CAMPBELL (2/5/2004)

LICENSE IRS REVENUE AGENTS & OFFICE AUDITORS FOR SIMILAR COMPETENCY AS TAX PRACTITIONERS/PREPARERS ? If the purpose is to raise the bar to a certain level of competency, then the same standard should be required of IRS R/As & O/As who lack the level of knowledge apparently required of tax preparers. The IRS did not and does not require or allow the time for the hours of CPE required for CPAs to keep their licenses to practice. In every trade or profession, as in all walks in life there are those who are more competent than others. What purpose or benefit would be accomplished and at what cost in time and money? If there are serious shortcomings, target this group or class in an effective selective manner rather than subject everyone to more "hoops to jump" ~ james egan (2/5/2004)

National Licensing for Tax Preparers Honest preparers are already licensed to operate in their local/specified area(s). The National listing should only be a compilation of already licensed preparers. Anyone not on the list is not authorized to operate. ~ Marie Finnie (2/5/2004)

A good idea I am a little guy. I have just started a bookkeeping and tax preparation service. This is my first year in business and already I have attended 3 seminars, earned over 25 CPE's, and have spent over five hundred dollars in referance materials and seven hundred dollars on a tax prep. program all in preparation for tax season. I know I will not prepare many returns this first season. I look at this expense as part of my commitment to provide the best service possible to my clients. I look forward to liscensing of tax preparers. It is a necessary evil, because so many people are falling prey to incompetant, careless, uneducated and uncaring tax preparers. I don't feel that CPA's and attorney's should be exempt, but EAs have already demonstrated their knowledge in this area and liscensing for them would be redundent. I would like to see the big companies come under the same regulations that the little guy will have to meet with all preparers having to pass a liscensing exam even if they work under that company umbrella. To me, the issue is competance and ability, as well as integrity. I have seen returns that came short of claiming the cat. I do believe that the expense should be kept down, with the initial certification cost being in the ball park of one hundred dollars for a national exam, and the cost of maintaining credentials a nominal fee and annual CPE requirements. I believe in demonstrated ability and not a reliance on degrees for certification. ~ T. Dorsey (2/5/2004)

License everyone who prepares returns including the EA's and CPA's. No Exclusions!! I worked for IRS for ten years and should have gotten my EA designation before I left, but didn't. But, if I would have, would it make me any smarter? NO. I study and take updates yearly and give my clients my best. I search for ways to save them money. I have amended more returns prepared by CPA's (who usually only sign off on the return anyway) than any others. Make no exceptions if they require licensing to tax preparers. Make the EA, CPA's and Accountants take the exam. Lets be fair about this procedure. NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE LICENSING RULE!! ~ Raymond Hawke (2/5/2004)

Licensing Yes!! But Grandfather Clause Less Than 5 yrs Experience CPAs Included!!!! ~ Harry J (2/4/2004)

CPAs, EAs, and Attorneys covered by Circular 230. No additional license required The proposal to license all preparers who are not otherwise subject to federal regulation of their practice quality is a good idea. The way things are now, an unlicensed preparer can take an outrageous position on a return and not be subject to any kind of administrative discipline. If a CPA did the same thing she or he could be suspended (or worse) under the rules in Circular 230. All tax practitioners should make themselves familiar with Treasury Circular 230 before forming an opinion on the licensing of non-CPA, non-EA, non-Attorney preparers. No doubt, there are many capable preparers who are not licensed. It should be no problem for them to pass an exam and maintain a quality practice . . . as licensed tax return preparers. ~ Lynn Nichols (2/4/2004)

Licensing of Tax Preparers Let them sit for the CPA exam to get their license -- just as paralegals and others are not allowed to practice law, all preparers should be under the supervision of CPA's ~ Linda Walden (2/4/2004)

First Thoughts Many firms will be put out of business. To keep up with new standards and tax law is an overwhelming thought. There will be firms closing just because of the application with not even investigating what they will need to do. Small firms don't have the time to search for the source of information to list the steps of some kind of new tax certification. Is is looked upon as a sceem to make more money and tax the tax practioners more expense. I feel I don't know enough but when I talk to an IRS agent about a problem, I usually find out I know more than the agent. So, I believe not even an IRS agent will be able to be certifiable. This plan of yours will definatly put less practioners on the map when the USA needs more. What really is needed is IRS direction in filling out form. A CPA may know 1040 and need to include 1120 in their practice. The guidance to learn 1120 is skimpy. ~ Jeff Kinsey CPA (2/4/2004)

Do we really want another level of government regulations? I agree with many of you who said this isn't going to fix the problem. The IRS should deal with incompetence on a preparer by preparer basis. Someone else asked if this would cause an increase in prices to the consumer. Of course, all of our costs need to be covered by our revenue. Texas CPA's pay a significant sum just to maintain their licenses. I personally take about 32 hours of Tax CPE to stay current. The bottom line seems to be is this an effective, efficient way to handle a problem? I don't think so. It's another level of government that could cause a housekeeping nightmare for the IRS and tax preparers. It used to be if you asked more than one IRS employee the same question, you received the same number of different answers. That has improved greatly over the past two-three years. ~ Barbara Pederson, CPA (2/4/2004)

Licensing for all not needed People who require the special skills of a CPA or an EA are able to find them. Many people do not have situations that need preparers with that level of training. Licensing would be another cost in government that would be passed on to the public one way or another. Professionals in all fields continue to show us that a license is sometimes just a piece of paper -- and no guarantee of skill, honesty, or ethics. ~ S. Bahnsen (2/3/2004)

Licensing of Tax Preparers I think there should be a certain amount of restrictions on these tax preparers. Anyone can input information into a computer and come up with a tax return but when it comes to tax advice, that should be done by the professionals not someone who went to a weekend class on how to prepare tax returns on a computer. Daily I hear people say well the person at (a large corporation that prepares tax returns) said I can deduct it. ~ KarenSchumann (2/2/2004)

Licensing of tax preparers licensing is a good thing, if the CPA organizations try not to block it. There should be some national exposure to it. Although the EA program is excellent, it is still considered an IRS thing and not well known. There should be some educational (college and CEU) requirements. This will eliminate the "anybody can prepare a return theory", by taking a training class and working tax season for a major public tax return prep firm. ~ jeff (2/2/2004)

All non-EA's should be licensed. EA's are the only tax specialists. ~ jerrold yaffee (2/1/2004)

Only require Licencing for Non- CPA'S Most amended returns we prepare are from non cpa firms. ~ RICHARD BEEFERMAN (2/1/2004)

It alters the perception of existing licenses. Especially after the latest round of scandals (Enron, etc) this would only further give the perception that the existing licenses (CPA in particular) are not trustworthy enough and therefore the Gov't had to require further licensing. This is classic "few bad apples spoiling the whole basket" syndrome. ~ David (1/30/2004)

WHAT NEXT, LICENCE THE ADMIN STAFF THAT COALATE THE RETURNS? WHAT NEXT, LICENCE THE ADMIN STAFF THAT COALATE THE RETURNS? ~ eri@yahoo.com (1/30/2004)

License do not represents quality It meake sense that you need a license to perform the duties, the questions is what does the degree stands for. ~ Juan Hernandez Ortiz (1/30/2004)

Registration should be a State function. I agree that all Tax Preparers should be registered or licensed, but that it should be a function of State government. The IRS is already overburdened with licensing and verification of the continuing professional education for Enrolled Agents. In California, Attorneys and CPAs are licensed by the State already. All Tax Preparers other than EAs, CPAs and Attorneys must register and maintain CPE credits through CTEC. I would recommend that the IRS and the States require that the Preparers enrollment number, license number or registration number be included with their signature on all returns that they prepare. This would make it easier to identify Preparers that lack competency. The states could provide the IRS with a data base containing the license or registration numbers for Attorneys, CPAs and registered Tax Preparers to merge with the federal data base containing enrollment numbers of EAs. It would be the states, responsibility to confirm the validity of its own Tax Preparers. ~ Charles Hays, EA (1/29/2004)

The new license should recognize already significant skills of EA' and CPA's. ~ Paul Whitmire (1/29/2004)

I think it is a good idea, but there has to be exceptions for EAs, CPAs with tax experience (perhaps proof of a Masters in Taxation), and attorneys (w I think it is a good idea, but there has to be exceptions for EAs, CPAs with tax experience (perhaps proof of a Masters in Taxation), and attorneys (with a specialization or concentration in Tax). I agree with other member comments there are CPAs who have audit and no tax so I don't think you can have an outright exception of all CPAs: although, note even this outright would eliminate those with no education or training. ~ Peggy Niles (1/29/2004)

Being licensed will not guarantee being capable Being licensed will not guarantee being capable ~ Cynthia McCue (1/29/2004)

Particularly for CPAs. Most of the amended returns I file were originally prepared by CPAs. ~ Claude Poole (1/29/2004)

INCLUDE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE I THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA BUT SHOULD INCLUDE A GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT MEET EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS BUT WHO HAVE BEEN PRACTICING FOR YEARS. ~ CHARLES F PICKERING (1/29/2004)

~ CHARLES F PICKERING (1/29/2004)

CPA's, Attorneys & EA's are already licensed to practice their professions. Other individuals who prepare income tax returns should be licensed to control the tax preparation industry and to maintain professionalism within this profession! ~ RUSSELL HOLLIER (1/29/2004)

CPA's are licensed already! Would probably be a good move to control certain non-cpa's. EA's and Attorneys should be excluded along with CPA's. ~ RUSSELL HOLLIER (1/29/2004)

Not necessary for CPAs. Good if could eliminate wanna be professionals from doing half baked job. ~ Stephanie Rogers (1/29/2004)

Not necessary for CPAs What is the purpose of such a registration? ANother source of revenues for a govt. agency? Another number for a CPA to remember. ~ VICTORIA MWANGI (1/28/2004)

Yes to license preparers. Tax preparers should be responsible for representing clients in disputes with the IRS. EAs, CPAs, and lawyers are covered. Tax preparers should be from this group or another qualified group. ~ Thomas Kennedy (1/28/2004)

It's a great idea, this will reduce unlicensed tax preparers. ~ Vicky Pham (1/28/2004)

All Tax agents should possess license to act on behalf of taxpayers. No exemption to anyone. Tax is a very techincal subject required extensive knownledge on accounting, taxation, Revenue law & practice & professional ethical conducts in dealing with the interest of taxpayers on one hand and responsiblitiy towards IRS on the other. ~ Vincent Wong (1/27/2004)

Unnecessary for CPAs As a CPA, my credential imposes an obligation to uphold certain ethical standards. Let natural selection determine which CPAs get business, and which of us lose it. Non-CPAs should have to register. ~ DUSTIN NEAL, CPA (1/27/2004)

Selfish? I've been going back and forth with this one, and sometimes I wonder if I'm being selfish. I'm an EA, so I'm already licensed. I keep wondering am I using the ol' 'I got mine...' mentality or am I really looking out for the taxpayer and/or the reputation of the tax professional community. I'm still thinking on it. ~ TEDDY PRIOLEAU (1/27/2004)

Ethical behavior Liscensing will not stop any of the abuses in todays market. However liscensing along with ethics training and accountibility will go a long way to clean up the tax preparers immage. All tax preparers should be required to compltet the teasting and yearly continuning education in sessions held in the major cities of every state. Mandatory attendencem should help to start weeding out the incompetent preparers who are able to prepare returns because of liscenses in other fields granting them these rights despite the fact it may of been years since they last prepared a return. the other issue that mandatory liscensing would address unintencially would be that the liscensed preparer would need to actually be present to renewal their liscense thus reducing the number of ill prepared preparers who used another preparers work to meet their continuing education requirements. ~ djpaulus (1/27/2004)

Tired of Big Brother and their licensing fees! I am so sick of licensing and license fees. For instance Maryland just raised it's filing fee to triple what it was last year for filing of personal property tax forms. And this form is basically where the business owner tells the state what to charge us for personal property taxes. Sick. Sick Sick of all these licenses and their fees. ~ Jacqueline Potter (1/27/2004)

The question is too broad. Why license? IRS already knows who I am!!! ~ S. COPE (1/27/2004)

great idea licensing has been needed for many years! preparers licensed in other ways (cpa's,enrolled agents) could be exempt. there are many preparers that don't know an itemized deduction from a business deduction. there is regulation everywhere but the government doesn't regulate income sources? ~ GREG REVELS (1/27/2004)

Licensing of Tax Preparers I think everyone that signs their name as a paid preparer on a tax return should be licensed. I agree that their are CPAs out there that can not prepare a return, but hopefully they won't prepare any returns. I do feel, however, that there are a number of "tax preparers" that setup shop that really are not qualified. Those people give the other preparers that are capable of doing the work a bad reputation. ~ Sean O'Hare (1/27/2004)

Yes, for non CPAs. We need to protect the public from tax preparers that are simply loan officers. ~ LISA HULING (1/27/2004)

This will not solve the problem! How many CPAs still cannot prepare returns correctly? I am a CPA. Just because someone has a license does not necessarily mean that they are good at what they do. If a client does not take the time to find out that I am competent at my job and that there is a reason they are paying for my rates, then "caveat emptor". There are good doctors and bad doctors. Believe me, this will not solve the problem. ~ Victoria Martin (1/27/2004)

no more government!!!! and no more special interests!!! Let competition reign. This is just another way to push the little guy out. Those business accountants who do the work on the side for retirement income, etc. will not be able to take off time for the testing. The cost to the consumer goes up because the supply of preparers is reduced. When regulations for auto dealers went into effect in Ohio many years ago, the little guy selling a few cars a year was put out of business and the consumer pays higher prices. Let's have economic freedom and not a guild system. ~ Mark Ballard (1/27/2004)

Enrolled Agents currently are licensed by the U.S. Treasury in all 50 states I would think that CPAs would also want a national license - since theirs is currently only state specific. ~ Kevin Huston, EA (1/27/2004)

licensing tax preparers Absolutely license all tax preparers. Exempt (or provide grandfathered licenses only to those practitioners currently covered by IRS Circular 230 - Enrolled Agents, CPAs and Attorneys - who meet some level of annual CPE in taxation. Not all CPAs practice tax, and certainly not all attorneys do either. ~ Kevin Huston (1/27/2004)

license only non-CPAs!!! ~ James R Fisher (1/27/2004)

Non accountant tax prepares who do not check their work. I am a CPA. I prepare tax returns with due diligence and care. I am competing with non-accounting tax preparers who go into people's home and prepare a 1040 with a Schedule C in 20 minutes, print it out, collect their money and are gone. They do not check their work or search for additional deductions or income not reported to them. This is not very professional. How am I, a CPA to compete with that? ~ Andrew Baxter (1/27/2004)

I agree with licensing (ACT 451, CSU) going through national licensing government can keep track of people who are doing taxes and other financial works. At the same time people can rely on their accountants recommendations or tax preparation knowing that they are licensed by the government. Of course all these depend on laws and regulations that government will impose in licensing procedure as well how accountants can maintain and renew their license on a yearly or every two years basis. ~ MH (ACT451, Maryam) (1/26/2004)

I agree with licensing By going through national licensing government can keep track of people who are doing taxes and other financial works. At the same time people can rely on their accountants recommendations or tax preparation knowing that they are licensed by the government. Of course all these depend on laws and regulations that government will impose in licensing procedure as well how accountants can maintain and renew their license on a yearly or every two years basis. ~ MH (ACT451 ,Maryam) (1/26/2004)

Some type of licensing should be required! I believe that some type of licencing should be required. This may help reduce errors that occur in tax prepreation. ~ Joanna ACT 451 (1/26/2004)

Not a really good idea(Act 451 by Ge Xu) It will cost too much money to operate this project. If there is a national licensing, most of the people who work as tax practitioners will try to get the license. It is quite redundant work for people who already have other licenses such as CPA and EA. Tax rules are different among states. therefore, operating such project will be too complicated. ~ ge xu (1/26/2004)

Liscensing tax preparers This is indeed a good idea. I feel it would solve alot of problems with incorrectly filed tax returns. It should reduce the amount of inexperience within the huge corporate tax preparation firms. Take a 6 week inhouse course and you're an instant tax preparer? I don't think so ~ Terry Drummond (1/26/2004)

National licensing is long overdue. Taxpayers have enough to contend with in merely being subject to the IRS code. Becoming inadvertent victims to untrained and unqualified tax preparers adds insult to injury. I agree with an earlier comment that only individuals who are permitted to represent their clients before the IRS should be paid to fill out the return. ~ BobACT451 (1/26/2004)

National License Tax-CPA's should be excluded, since an active license must complete 80 CPE's. Please see above! ~ Stephen W. Cuchara, CPA (1/26/2004)

ACT I think enforcing tax practitioners to have a license is a fine idea. If such a license is introduced there must be minimum requirements in order to maintain the license and to protect its value. Also, the license itself will not be an absolute that the practitioner is good at his/her job. The public must still make it their responsibility to search for and locate competent tax practitioners--something that may get lost sight of if their is a licensing program. One good thing is the addition of a license may deter those who are not comitted to providing sound tax information and who are just looking for another way to make some extra cash. If there are minimum requirements to uphold the license that alone will help tax practitioners to keep updated with changes in the tax law. I think in the long run it would be beneficial change to the profession. ~ Chris MacLaren (1/26/2004)

The Question is Too Broad It's very hard to decide whether it's a good idea or not since the issue is too ambiguous at this point. I think clarification is needed on the particular requirements like cost, time, method of testing, maintenance of the certification. Another imprortant issue is the cost to the public-will it increase? Also, how will it affect the industry? A positive aspect will be that a license will ensure proper quality and reliability of the returns because the certification process will eliminate non professionals. A negative side is that getting the certification will be another challenge accountants must face in order to become tax practitioners. One more question arises: will the tax certification lessen the importance of a CPA certification, since being a CPA will not be enough to deal in the tax area. ~ TK ACT 451 (1/26/2004)

Licensing tax practitioners is a good idea. This hopefully should eliminate the majority of problems caused when filing taxes. Brian J. ACT 451 (CSU Licensing tax practitioners is a good idea. This hopefully should eliminate the majority of problems caused when filing taxes. Brian J. ACT 451 (CSU) ~ Brian Justice (1/26/2004)

Acc451 Brianna Fleps I think this is a great idea. It will limit the amatures practicing tax issues, will eliminate huge amounts of errors and mistakes, not to mention the job market increase for proffesionals in accounting field. In my personal opinion, competence in tax preparation is very crutial and allowing only proffetionals practice it will insure a pretty high degree of not only the accuracy and proficency but also will emprove on ethical standards of tax preparation. However,there is always another side to every story. In this case, the problems can arise from finance stand point. The exact question is: Who is going to control all this? and Where all the funding comming from for this specific project? And what about low income individuals who simply can't aford such services provided by proffesionals? ~ Brianna Fleps (1/26/2004)

ACCT 622 Although there is tax return software, many people still rely on tax preparers. The reason behind it is because many poeple think that tax preparers are more dependable or people just don't want the hassle. It is very important that every tax preparers have CPA license to prepare the tax. In addition, there is like an "insurance package" (the customer probably should pay more for this program), for example, if there is a mistake on the tax report, the tax preparer is the one who is realiable for the mistake, not the customers. So, I think it is very important for the preparer to have that quality (License), so that they don't get charged. ~ Inggrid U (1/26/2004)

~ Chris MacLaren (1/26/2004)

I am agree with proposed licensing(Act 451). I believe that every tax preparers should have license because they have responsibility to fill out tax return right for other. Every year, government make little change about tax law, the tax preparers with license know about them and fallow them. Because of this, tax preparers fill out right tax return and get right amount of refund for their customers. The customers do not have any problem from IRS in the future. The tax preparers without license do not have that much knowledge about tax laws. Reason of this, they always make some mistake or skip something thier not sure of. ~ Haseena Khan (1/26/2004)

ACT - 622 I understand the need and want for more qualifications of preparers in order to safegaurd from forms being in properly prepared but who is going to enforce this? Where is the money going to come from to pay for the regulation? It is a great idea but when it really comes down to it, it is high impractical that it would have any great effect on the problem. ~ Cassandra Moore (1/26/2004)

Seriously! Reading through these submissions is actually funny! Those that are worried about the license issue are the ones who possibly need it the most. Why would a CPA or an EA be opposed unless they are incompetent! Everyone occasionally makes a mistake, including CPA's. But the overall quality of returns prepared by a CPA or EA is much greater, due to an increased understanding and continual studing of the tax law. Licensing is way over due. Let's use it as a way to get the kitchen-table turbo-tax preparers out of the system. There would certainly be no harm in that! But any license requirement must include a reasonable CPE requirement, such as 20 hours per year, in taxation! I am a CPA and would welcome testing with open arms, my business could only grow by getting rid of the junk return filers that are not there year after year and do not offer a quality product to the public. Why try to protect people with licensed beauticians, real estate agents, insurance agents, medical providors, pharmasists, etc, but let any idiot charge for tax preperation? ~ Douglas Dutton (1/26/2004)

License For Tax Preparation (ACT622) Definitely needed, and don't think it would hurt anything. While I can see the side of people that state that their is a known risk when having taxes prepared by a third party provider, why not 'tighten up the controls' as much as possible? I went to a CPA years ago with particular questions regarding my tax return and did not get a comfy/cozy feeling that he knew what he was talking about after doing more research on my own. Degrees and/or certification does not necessarily equate to proficiency. Consistent training across the board may help the cause. ~ Bridget Bennett (1/26/2004)

Act 451 (TL) I believe that some form of testing or licensing should be required. There are also issues that need to be adressed like what will the requirements be? How much will it cost? And in the end will the average American pay more to get their taxes done as a result of this? If there is a solution which can balance benifits against costs to the consumers then I would support it. ~ bill gates (1/26/2004)

Sitting for the CPA is enough! (ACT 622) State certification is plenty. The taxpayer acts at his/her own risk when paying a non-CPA to prepare his/her tax return. Perhaps the respective state Society of CPAs should do a PR campaign to educate the public of the risks involved when contracting a third-party to prepare tax returns. ~ Ann C. (1/26/2004)

Prathap - ACT 451 Requiring a certification for tax preparation is a legitimate issue. It would help eliminate/minimize less credible sources (i.e. Tax Prep firms) from preparing taxes when they have no more than a training course to their name. The certification should be required to those individuals preparing taxes that do not have have another license, such as a CPA. This would help keep everyone honest and more dependable with their tax preparation activities. ~ Prathap Kodali (1/26/2004)

Some people should be required to be licensed. I believe that licensing tax preparers that are not already licensed should be. For CPAs, EAs and Attorneys who are already licensed they run the risk of having their licnese suspended or revoked if found to be incompetent so I think this would be self regulating. I know I'm not going to do something to risk my license so I make sure that I know what I'm doing. This is what due diligence is all about. As far as others just getting a copy of Turbo Tax and proclaiming themselves tax preparers I think this should be stopped. Expecially for people preparing returns for companies like H&R Block. I had one client that applied for a job as a receptionist at H&R Block and was asked if she wanted to prepare returns. When she told them that she knew nothing about tax laws she got this response "that's OK we can teach you everything you need to know in 30 minutes"!! I fix a lot of returns done at H&R block. This is where the regulation needs to be addressed. ~ Kathy Lauwagie (1/26/2004)

It is About Time!!!! This is LONG over due. Regulation and enforcement of this will be a process. Standardized rules must be developed, with current good standing CPA's, Lawyers and EA's being automatically included in national licensing. Just like the international accounting standards are OVER DUE. ~ Ron Stoffel (1/26/2004)

tax preparer licensing We already have this-it's called an EA. CPAs take note-this includes you. ~ Greg Vack (1/26/2004)

Yes, I think that this is a good idea. This should limit amateurs. Theresa F./ACT 451 ~ Theresa (1/26/2004)

I believe that some kind of licensing would be fit for those who are paid to prepare taxes. With the license, they should also have some kind of insu I believe that some kind of licensing would be fit for those who are paid to prepare taxes. With the license, they should also have some kind of insurance in case they file the taxes wrong. It might be good in a way, so that we can be sure that proficient individuals are preparing our taxes and not cheating us. ~ ACT 451-Elena (1/26/2004)

This is good for both parties (CSU-ACT622) This is good for both the government and individuals. With the licencing, tax practitioners will take more responsibilities in preparing tax payable: and the government will not have to worry about tax invasion or omission. ~ Yanbin Lin (1/26/2004)

National licensing is necessary for tax preparers I agree with all of the posts that are for licensing. We all have known many instances where a person had messed up another's return. At least with licensing, we are assured that the chances of getting "ripped off" will lessen. How can we just let people getting cheated go on? Would you want a salesman to cheat you out of hundreds to thousands of dollars? Based on some comments I have read, it would seem as if people wouldn't care if this were to occur to them. But hey, it's your money not mine. Also, some firms (I don't want to offend anyone, therfore, they shall remain nameless) have been known make mistakes on people's returns. Licensing will help put this to an end. ~ Paul Zachopoulos (1/26/2004)

ACT 451 - A good idea but with limitations It’s a great idea to have competent people prepare taxes. Individuals or individuals who prepare less then a set number of returns (5 or so) should be exempt from licensing. Tax preparers who do so publicly, should be required to show some form of competence in their work and that they are current with the tax laws, and not just what they know from a tax software program. People currently ‘certified’ in some way (CPAs, EAs, Attorneys) should also be able to demonstrate competence in tax law but be allowed to take a different exam because not all certified people deal with taxes directly. Being licensed might have to mean something like being able to pass an online exam that is inexpensive to administer and take. Additionally, a charge might be considered for every person that the public tax preparer prepares a return. This could serve as another check point for the preparer of not just being held liable for the information but also accountable for each return that he or she prepares. ~ Tim H (1/26/2004)

Another licensing is not a logical solution. I believe that a person who passed the CPA exams does not mean he would certainly maintain the professional standards. He might be working under unethical behavior. I think that another licensing is not a logical solution for tax practitioners to fullfill the standard of requirements when they prepare the tax returns. ~ Innge Handojo (1/25/2004)

The tax practitionor license can't solve problems. Many supporters of tax practitioner license believe the certification can help people choose qualified accountants, but I don't think so. First, if tax payers need free advices, they will not go to CPA firms but friends. So the certification is nothing to them. Secondly, people need tax services always have their own accountants. It is more convenient for tax payers to choose same accountants for tax returns. In the end, the cost including fees and expenses to get and keep the license will increase the price of tax service. It will force some people to prepare tax by themselves. ~ csuyi (1/25/2004)

No more license please There are too many licenses for accountants now. Accountants have CPA, CIA, CMA, and CFE four professional titles. I think these are enough. Tax pratitionors don't need certified papers but experience. The information about tax changes year by year. Continuing professional education is more meaningful. More licenses means more exams, not practical experience. ~ csuyi (1/25/2004)

Can be provided but should not be compulsory To my opinion, I think a license for tax practitioners is necessary. As we can see, many people ask the tax practioners to do their tax returns because they think they are professional. But many firms cannot provide the clients the satisfactory service. The customers rights cannot be guaranteed and they incur many losses each year. Many tax practioners do not have enough knowlege about the rax regulation even though they are experienced CPAs.So a license specified in this particular field can help us to minimize the losses due to the mistakes in numerous tax return forms done by the so called "tax professionals". A license will help the clients to know which practioners they can really rely on. But at the same time, I do not think the license should be forced for all the tax practioners.There have been a lot of governmental regulations in accounting and tax field. The practioners should not be forced to be added more burden. For those who want to get the licence, they may be more competitive in this market.For those who do not want to get the license they can still practise as they did before.In this case, customers can decide what they want and to what extent their rights are guatanteed.I do not have enough information about the cost for the tax practioners if they want get the license.If the cost is not much, I bet a lot people in this field will get the license voluntarily.If the cost is relatively high, I bet the people who get the license will pass some of the cost to the clients. In this case it is up to the clients to decide what kind of service they want.For those people who want the most guaranteed service, they may want to spend a lit bit more.For those who do not want to spend more than they did before also have other choices. So I think if the license can be provided but not forced, every party's rights can be protected in the largest extent. ~ Feng Wu (1/25/2004)

ACT 451 Don N. Obviously, there are some benefits to gain from requiring a national license for tax preparation. It would ensure some degree of proficiency and accuracy from tax preparers. It would provide some assurance to the public regarding the competence of tax preparers. Also, it would drive customers toward the more professional practitioners and away from the less professional. On the other hand, it would cost practitioners more in time and money to stay in business. This cost would have to be passed on to consumers in one way or another. It probably would add confusion to the already-confused business of tax preparation, in the public's perception. The biggest problem would be coming up with a test - many tax issues are already in dispute and open to multiple interpretations. The negative effects, especially the one just mentioned, signifcantly outweigh the positive. Let's stick with the licensing requirements we already have and not add another. ~ Don Nakles (1/25/2004)

I agree with proposed licensing. ~ WILLIAM JORDAN (1/25/2004)

Great, so i can get out of this profession I used to be a licensed CPA until the Continuing Education requirements came along. I tossed the CPA certificate. Please get this passed so I have an excuse to get out of this tax prepapartion business. Can't wait to tell my clients. So much for the free market working. Let the state decide who is competent and who is screwing up their clients' tax returns. Word of mouth and quality work used to be the way you got new clients. Now you need a state stamp of approval. Why don't you all vote for your socialist democrats while you're at it. ~ gary w (1/25/2004)

Some CPAs are experienced in audit not tax Our firm is a bookkeeping and tax firm. We have 33 years of tax prep experience between the two of us. The thought of getting licensed doesn't turn us off. In fact, it would eliminate our poor competition or "kitchen table" preparers. It would differentiate us. The public should also be educated on tax preparation service providers. Many CPAs have only worked in audit in practice, so they should not be exempt. Many attorneys have very little if any tax prep experience. Why would they be exempt? ~ Jamie Nicely (1/25/2004)

Agree but not to all... I do believe people needs to be responsible while preparing tax returns for others. The license should be required for the ones who are paid to prepare returns for others. However, people should also have the right to authorize whoever (or software)s/he trusts to prepare the return for him/her as long as it is not a commerical activity. ~ Rachel Yin ACT451 2004 (1/25/2004)

Sounds good idea but... It sounds a good idea to enact legislation, but I'm afraid that would make consumers get confused. Who should we ask for consultation first? CPAs? EAs? Or Tax practitioners? How much would the additional fees be to a licensed tax practitioner? Isn't it possible to simplify the tax code itself to understand easily for consumers? Also, placing tax practitioners seems to get rid of the chance to learn about tax: how our taxes amount (refund) are determined and how they are spend by locals/states/governments. We should be more conscious of our taxes. Being delighted by tax cuts is not enough as a taxpayer, because the source of taxes is from our income, not from CPAs/EAs and practitioners' wallets. ~ Nami Saito (ACT698/451) (1/25/2004)

ACT 622 The problem at hand is whether the state government should impose a National licensing for tax practitioners. In the one hand, I think it is a good alternative to avoid the mistakes and other forms of imperfections that occur when individuals try to fill tax forms themself either online or on the paper forms with the aid of software since there is a lot of software now to help people prepare their tax return. In the other hand, I think that it should be unfair to ask people with a background in accounting to get a license to practice because Business schools offer a Master degrees in Taxation and Federal income taxation is a requirement for those willing to take the CPA examination. Besides, even some Law schools offer Master's degree in Taxation to Lawyer , many of whom are also CPA.So, my point of view is that those with such a background should be exempt in case any law should be passed demanding all tax return practitioner to have a license. ~ KOKOU KEKE (1/25/2004)

A minimum protection The sad thing is that in almost all cases the deal someone received by getting their tax return prepared by a friend or an inexperienced person costs them more than they ever imagined. Consumers need help in choosing the right tax preparer. Unfortunately there is no legal license required for preparation of tax returns. “It is strictly buyer beware.” Of course, license cannot provide a hundred percent assurance, but it gives a minimum protection to consumers: * Education requirements (e.g. bachelor’s degree or xx in-class hours of approved instruction in tax): * Working experience (e.g. minimum: two tax seasons): * Updated knowledge (e.g. license must be renewed annually and the renewal requires the completion of xx hours of continuing education). Therefore, for consumers, licensing for tax return preparers is a sound idea. Although some cost will be transferred to them, it’s worthy. ~ Fang Xia (1/25/2004)

Comment on trivial comments Somebody posted: "it should be a grandfather clause for practitioners with 30-40 year practice". Disagree as explained in my prior. Other posting: "there are good & bad practioners with or withouth licenses". That's true but a licensed one is less probable for evident reasons. Another posting: "any idiot can open a tax practice". Smart comment. Of course, it should not be. Somebody made a direct relationship between no licensing and tax simplification and individual autonomy. How can anybody make such inferences? Simplification relates to IRC, nothing else. Lack of licensing means libertinage, not individual autonomy. Apparently, these and other non-educated assertions are the product of people that are NOT licensed and incapable of doing it, because their brains do not allow them to get it. What's wrong with requiring academic completion, CPE, ethics and the like? Please, it is evident that anybody can under present circumstances, open a tax practice. That is deadly wrong. THANK YOU. ~ Eduardo J. CanoE (1/24/2004)

Doctors and Lawyers too? Does this licensing apply to all professionals, or just to CPA's? Who is doing the licensing? The IRS already has a national list of tax preparers. Or, does the licensing apply only to CPA's auditing publicly traded companies? What is the real purpose of this proposal? ~ Gary M. Barnbaum, CPA, CMC (1/24/2004)

Acct 451 another license i believe that people who prepare tax returns and who are not CPA's should be required to have some type of licensing through the state where they prepare tax returns. ~ Allen F. Pabst (1/24/2004)

another license i believe that people who prepare tax returns and who are not CPA's should be required to have some type of licensing through the state where they prepare tax returns. ~ Allen F. Pabst (1/24/2004)

licence for everyone including the people giving the formation for others to act upon this will add cost and limit people that are better than the ones that have a licence [such as cpa attoneys-they need to be retested] what kind of licence does a surgeon have that he is retested in that he can do sugural procedures each year each month ect.[we have to start using common sence.When i see on tv teachers of english picking for more money that's can not express themselfs - they should be re tested and it gos on and on.-This is not a perfect World and we can not licence it so. ~ ron (1/24/2004)

Another License? What for? I am an I.R.S. approved E-File provider. I already have local and state licenses. If I am not qualified to prepare returns by now-I never will be. Another license is not the answer. However, maybe a test should be given on the state level to determine if a person is qualified to prepare tax returns, before a state license is issued. There are many preparers that "just do" taxes, but keying a W-2 is not knowing how to prepare a tax return. There are too many variables. The income tax laws are not one size fits all! I depend on the local, state and federal governments to advise me of changing laws-which is a never ending process. I must always keep up to-date on these changes and how they affect my clients. This takes commitment on my part, as I don't want my clients to overpay any taxes. ~ Beverly Pendleton (1/24/2004)

ACT 622(Shuoshi Sun) It's my comments which has the title "Who is really responsible for your tax returns?" ~ Shuoshi Sun (1/24/2004)

Who is really responsible for your tax returns? According to a statistics,for the 2001 tax year, the IRS found there were 6 million mistakes on returns signed by paid preparers versus 8.5 million on returns prepared by taxpayers themselves.No matter who you use, just remember you're liable for the information on your return. The piont is if the tax payer is an important role in tax return preparing, national licensing and registration of tax practitioners is not a good idea. ~ Shuoshi Sun (1/24/2004)

Is this what it's all cracked up to be? Wait a minute. Isn't more regulation going to complicate the process? Who will bear the cost of this liciencing? It will only be passed onto the consumer. Also would this mean that I can't do my own taxes if I choose? This may be an overlap of checks and balances that are already put in to place. Seems like the government just wants to insure they are getting their fare share of the taxes plus additional income on top of it through liciencing fees. I feel backdoor auditing is a better way to catch a thieft or correct an honest error. There too may forms that vary from State to State and too many different types of taxes to file to keep track of and to be an expert about. ~ Lois Hite (1/24/2004)

Evaluation of employer CPAs I worked for CPAs in my area for five years. Believe me, just because someone passes the CPA exam, it doesn't mean they remain knowledgeable or ever had knowledge about tax preparation and tax issues. The mentality is usually that we're playing a betting man's game. The mentality is what are the chances my client will get audited. The mentality is to please the client over abiding by tax regulations. ~ Maria Aguilar (1/24/2004)

very debatable position When I first saw the question, I very quickly check the YES block. But wait a minute, who will be responsible for the process? What will be gained in the process? The security and Exchange Commission can not get the bad sales people out of business. Why should another government department be able to get rid of bad tax preparers. They won't. Face it, regardless of the business, there are extremely intelligent and ethical people doing the work, and extremely UN ethical people doing the work. The federal license will NOT get ride of the unethical. Bottom line benefit will be: 1. Increase the cost of doing business: 2. Increase the cost of federal government: and 3. Not give the consumer any benefit. Jack Schrenker 01/23/2004 ~ Jack Schrenker (1/23/2004)

What will they do? If they will require some sort of national licencing, what will ttheir criteria be? I would love to see background checks much as they do for e-file particpants, as well as some sort of testing to get the "fly by night" ers out of the system. They are often hard to compate with and often do a poor job anyway. ~ Bret Espey (1/23/2004)

No more regulation The record with regard to government regulation is extremely poor. It tends to increase costs to consumers and initially limit competition to those who can pass the necessary exams or jump through other hoops. I say initially, because eventually the market will find a way around the regulations and offer competition anyway. I also think its an insult to the intelligence of most people to find good tax preparation service. Another license does not make that any easier. As for the misfits that do bad work, they fail to earn repeat business and eventually leave the field. There are plenty of CPA's and EA's that do good work, and they are already regulated. There are probably also many unlicensed preparers that do good work. If a consumer wishes to hire them, that is there choice. Who are we as CPA's, EA's, etc. to play God and determine who is qualified and who isn't. As far as the government deciding who is qualified, they can't even deliver the mail without losing money!! Let's not entrust government with any more power than they have already. ~ Dale Schwartzenhauer, CPA, CMA, CFM (1/23/2004)

Tax Preparer Registration It is a sound idea, BUT needs to be well thought out and designed. Could just be another way for the IRS to use the tax preparer as a collection agent. ~ Pat Ward (1/23/2004)

It maybe a good idea but depends on cost to practitioners and requirements. ~ GARY KONKEL (1/23/2004)

licensing of tax preparers Tax preperation is the only area dealing with an individual's finances that does not require a license. Insurance, mortgages, investments, etc. all require licenses. Mandatory continuing education should be part of teh process. It is a diservice to the public that people could advertise themselves as tax prepares and not have to meet some standard. I am the only one that thinks it is strange for the national tax preperation chains to sell insurance to their customers to guarantee their accuracy, when their is no superviosn or review of the tax prepareres work. ~ a. donald cooper (1/23/2004)

YES FOR LICENSING, BUT NO TO EXEMPTING ANY GROUP FROM COMPETENCY There is nothing in the education or licensing of Attourney's, or CPA's that qualifies them to do income taxes. They should have to meet the same standards applied to any other tax preparer. I have had to amend many tax returns that were done by Attourney's & CPA's. Many of these people did not have a clue when it came to filing income taxes. They did not even know where the the expenses or income belonged on a return. I can see why they would be reluctant to be tested. Larry Dennis ~ LARRY DENNIS (1/23/2004)

Yes to Licensure I do believe licensing/registration for paid practitioners preparing 5 or more returns would be a good idea. Such legislation should include requirements for CPE (as many have mentioned our tax laws are complicated and ever-changing). I would hope that the enactment of such legislation would set a national standard of competency, which would lead to increased consumer confidence. I would also hope that the process of licensure/registration would provide a consumer with some recourse in case of fraudulent service being provided. If, however, a major aim of this proposed legislation is to reduce fraudulent activity then I think a public education campaign would be required as well. I'm not sure that all who pay a practictioner know what qualifications they should be seeking before paying for the service. ~ Theresa S. ACT451 (1/23/2004)

EA's CPA's Attorneys OKAY! License all the unenrolled practitioners. It would be a great service for the public. EA's, CPA's and Attorneys are already licensed thru Director of Practice under Circular 230. ~ Marcia K Davis EA (1/23/2004)

CPA's and Attorney's should be included (not excluded). I do NOT agree with national licensing. However, I feel that CPA's & Atty's should be INCLUDED (not excluded) from testing or licensing IF it does happen. FOR EXAMPLE: A respected "professional" (who does not actually prepare tax returns) provided incorrect tax deduction information that was subsquently PRINTED in organization publications. ~ DeAnn Wessing (1/23/2004)

Hear we go again. I have been in the business for 30 years and spend about 80 to 100 hours each year in continual education. I am license in California and must have min. of 20 hours each year to maintain the license. The system needs to require continual education and it should be check each year before tax season opens. This includes all preparers. I have been going before the IRS for year with NO problems. If a problems come around that is over my head I pass it on to a associate who handles that type of problem. ~ Robert A Jones (1/23/2004)

READING BETWEEN THE LEGISLATION It is a given that the majority of professional tax practitioners will gravitate at first glance to legislation that will require registration and licensing of tax practitioners. They desire to protect their profit base and guarantee growth at the same time. It is knee jerk protectionism at its worst. They as usual fail to ask the governments motivation for wanting to have such reqistration and licensing. It is consistently the case that after the pioneer finds gold he wants to build a fence to prevent anyone getting some. Worse he is no longer a pioneer he becomes a lawyer to figure out ways to prevent others from prospecting. The industry can police itself. Professional assoications and contuing education raise the bar in terms of service delivery. Further, customers are usually very good at weeding out the bad apples. Professional standards and continuing education is great. Government regulation should be fought rigorously. ~ Dr. Ray Blanchette (1/23/2004)

Bad, bad idea. Provide other designations besides EA to measure tax proficiency (CPA doesn't necessarily mean you know much about taxation. Nor does being an attorney). What happens to all H&R Block's non EA preparer's? Or the outsourcing of returns to India etc. LOL Promotion to the public of a non-mandatory professional tax preparer designation at a level lower than an EA would push out many unqualified people. But what is all the worry. If the IRS is successful in having everyone file directly, you don't need too much experience to run a computer. ~ James Lavorgna, J.D., LL.M, CFP (1/23/2004)

But not necessary for CPA, EA, JD ~ Stephen M. Beaudry, CPA (1/23/2004)

I agree, but, not for CPA's I agree, but, not for CPA's ~ Jerome P. Frett (1/23/2004)

ACT 622 Yes, I agree that national licensing is a good idea. Licensed professionals would be better prepared to answer client's tax questions. They would also be familiar with the most current tax laws and be able to apply those laws to the best advantage for their client. ~ N Steffen (1/23/2004)

REQUIRE REASONABLE COMPETENCE MOST TAXPAYERS DO NOT NEED THE KNOWLEDGE OF A CPA OR EA, BUT A TEST REQUIRING IDENTIFYING TAXABLE AND NON TAXABLE TRANSACTIONS IS NEEDED. ~ HWARD JOSEPH (1/23/2004)

IRS will use this to further collections efforts. I am not necessarily against licensing or testing. I believe the IRS will use this to further its collections efforts as it did with the applications to efile. Most preparers are competent. Some may be poor or in financial situations that have caused them to miss a tax payment themselves. ~ Wendy Hines (1/23/2004)

MIxed feelings More gov't regulations we do not need, but competent preparers are a must. I am not free from sin, but I have seen reurns prepared by CPAs that is questionable. ~ DAVID CHRISTIE (1/23/2004)

Test Unlicenced tax preparers A person with a computer and no understanding of tax regualtions can hire out their services as a professional taxpreparer. CPAs, Attorneys, and Enrolled Agents must have a license and take yearly continuing education courses to be able to continue to practice. Fly-by-night taxpreparers should be required to pass a test or fulfill standard licensing requirements before they can present themselves as a professional taxpreparer. I have seen many of these fly-by-night preparers just stay one step ahead of the law. They move to a different neighborhood of have another relative be the "front" for the service. ~ Roddey Hogan (1/23/2004)

No body needs to know it all As a voluntarily inactive CPA and EA, I have a small selective practice developed over 20 years. The IRS could provide current Rev Procs, tax legislation, form changes, etc. and annual specialization tests to ensure competency. No body needs to know it all. ~ John Scogin (1/23/2004)

Some change is needed. If you are not a lic CPA, then should have to be an EA. People should have to prove some proficiency in taxes to be paid to prepare tax returns for others. ~ Barry Weiner (1/23/2004)

Yes indeed, I think there should licensing for tax practioners. There should also be a requirement for the continuous updating of tax law skills. Th Yes indeed, I think there should licensing for tax practioners. There should also be a requirement for the continuous updating of tax law skills. This would allow the many college graduates who come out of school with an accounting degree to find jobs. This would also cut down on the likes of HR Block companies to hire less educated tax preparers at less than a minimum wage. ~ Rashida Muhammad (1/22/2004)

~ Rashida Muhammad (1/22/2004)

Licensing is not a solution If it is solely the intention to regulate by setting professional standards then nothing will be gained. Just look at the entire financial services industry and see how poorly licensing is useful as a tool to weed out incompetence, unethical behavior and downright crookedness. What is amazing to me is the number of so called tax preparers that think they can offer expert services when the only resources they have is a master tax guide. Perhaps the IRS should require that preparers provide his or her background and education before they will accept their returns or send out CAF numbers or PTINS. The IRS could also perform background checks, like those done when you apply for an EFIN, to weed out undisirables and impose stiff penalties for making false statements or representations. ~ Peter Kraus, CPA, CFP (1/22/2004)

Tax practitioners should have a license to practise.(act451) Tax practitioners should have a license to practise. They should have some form of educational knowledge and training within that area before they are allowed to practise. Enforcing a law such as this will limit the number of people who have access to practising as an income tax preparer. ~ Christine Anderson (Act 451) (1/22/2004)

Tax practitioners should have a license to practise.(act451) Tax practitioners should have a license to practise. They should have some form of educational knowledge and training within that area before they are allowed to practise. Enforcing a law such as this will limit the number of people who have access to practising as an income tax preparer. ~ Christine Anderson (Act 451) (1/22/2004)

Tax practitioners should have a license to practise.(act451) Tax practitioners should have license to practise. By doing so, will limit the number of people who have access to practising as an income tax preparer. ~ Christine Anderson (Act 451) (1/22/2004)

Tax practitioners should have a license to practise Tax practitioners should have license to practise. By doing so, will limit the number of people who have access to practising as an income tax preparer. ~ Christine Anderson (Act 451) (1/22/2004)

Registration is Good Idea Over the past 10 years, I have proably filed 400-500 different types of tax returns for clients. They range from Indivdual-Parntership to Corp. returns. In addition, I submit Quarterly Payroll tax returns to Federal and State agencies. I have contact with IRS only if I have power of attorney or if my name is listed on the particular return as a a person designated "to speak for the taxpayer". I have never tried to pick up an enrolled agent status. My major point is this. I think that I do a competent job of preparing these returns in accordance with sets of complicated rules and regulations. It would be nice to know that the Federal Government knows this when I call up or if I write to them on some related manner. Most of the preparers who I have had contact with are trying to do a good job. I think that the registration might be the first of a six or seven step process to help out the federal government and the preparer. ~ Edward J. Quirk (1/22/2004)

ACT 622 Yes, I agree with a national license. This would ensure that each individual have the proper training or education required to be a Tax Preparer. ~ L Golden (1/22/2004)

ACCT 451 - Licensure Tax preparers should have license. A license means you have been trained for the job. Most of the time, you will do better job than a person who is not trained. For example, I would never let an untrained person cuts my hair. ~ Khanh Le (1/22/2004)

ACCT 451 - Licensure If the goal is to vastly reduce the number of inept tax preparers, reduce the number of erroneous tax returns, and recover legitimate funds from taxpayers and licensure would facilitate this goal then why not license. It’s a very legitimate area in which to require some form of competence be exhibited in order to practice. "Buyer Beware" is a thought that comes to mind. If you want your tax return prepared by a professional due to the difficulties and frustrations involved in understanding our complicated tax system, then a person should be able to go, with some confidence and a sense of shared responsibility for the outcome of that return, to a "professional". The "here in January - gone in April" tax preparer or the neighbor with a copy of Turbo Tax should not be considered a professional. If the individual taxpayer is comfortable taking full responsibility, legally and financially, for the submission of their return, regardless of who prepared it then they should let anyone they want prepare it, including themselves. But if they seek a professional and pay a professional and expect that professional to be knowledgeable about the tax code and also to have a stake in the legal and financial liability for any defects in the prepared return, they should be able to distinguish the knowledgeable "professional" from the "un-knowledgeable" professional through some means. Wouldn't licensing those individuals accomplish that? Although holding a CPA, LPA, or EA at one time exhibited some knowledge of the tax system, what assurances are there that they have maintained that knowledge base given the ever expanding volumes of code, interpretation, and opinion that exist. I don't agree that exempting CPAs, LPAs, & EAs initially is a good idea. If they truly know their stuff, a licensing qualification exam should be a piece of cake! In response to some of the concerns about the IRS controlling that licensure, why couldn't a controlling board consisting of members of both professional accounting organizations and the IRS be assigned to developing policies and procedures for implementation, exams and continuing education requirements. ~ Sharon M (1/22/2004)

I definitely agree! I definitely would agree with national licensing for tax preparers. It is important to maintain integrity and reliability. Tax prepares should be recognized as an independent profession and therefore regulating this would give a good image. ~ Marcel Sabio (1/22/2004)

It's already regulated. I'm not opposed to a national license. I just think it won't accomplish anything. All paid tax preparers are supposed to comply with Circular 230 requirements. Enforce them. PHG ~ Paul H. Glotzer, CPA (1/22/2004)

National Accountants License CPA's, EA's, Attorney's should receive automatically & be allowed to practice nationally. It may help regulate the chains or anyone who can afford to buy a tax program. But the thought of another layer of Govt regulations or Regulatory Agency is enough to dampen my support. ~ Bruce Donohue (1/22/2004)

Incompetent "form filler' Incompetent "form fillers' not practitioners are responsible for the most egregious tax filings causing problems for the rest of us. Tax preparers or 'form fillers' working out chech cashing agencies or store fronts that close down after April 15 are mostly responsible for all these problems. Additionally improperly trained preparers working for national tax filers are also to blame. ~ Randy (1/22/2004)

Licensing of tax practitioners Should work about like anti-spam legislation. ~ Robert C Gent (1/22/2004)

LICENSING TAX PRACTITIONERS IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE ALL TAX PRACTITIONERS LICENSED. TAX PRACTITIONERS SHOULD EITHER BE ENROLLED AGENTS, CPAS OR LICENSED TAX ATTORNEYS. THERE NEEDS TO BE AN END TO THE CORNER TAX STORE THAT CLOSES AFTER TAX SEASON AND LEAVES THEIR CLIENTS WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. I HAVE ENOUGH WORK TO DO WITHOUT HAVING TO REPRESENT A TAXPAYER WHOSE RETURN WAS PREPARED BY A FLY-BY-NIGHT TAX PREPARER AND I HAVE TO TELL THEM THEY WILL LOSE IN AN AUDIT BECAUSE THERE TAX RETURN WAS PREPARED USING A DIFFERENT, UNACCEPTED TAX CODE. I HAVE READ SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS FROM OTHER "LICENSED PRACTITIONERS" AND MUST SAY, I AM CERTAINLY AMUSED BY THE COMMENTS FROM CPAs ACTING AS IF EAs ARE FLY-BY-NIGHT PREPARERS. IN THE LIGHT OF ENRON, TYCO, WORLDCOM, ETC, IT SEEMS TO ME CPAs MADE SOME SERIOUS ETHICAL MISJUDGEMENTS. SHOULD WE HOLD THE ENTIRE PROFESSION ACCOUNTABLE? GET OFF YOUR ARROGANT HIGH HORSE!! YOU CANNOT JUDGE AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR SOME BAD APPLES. WE AS ENROLLED AGENTS SERVE OUR PURPOSE, WE ALSO ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE CONTINUING EDUCATION AND WE ALSO HAVE AN ETHICS CODE TO FOLLOW. I COULD PASS THE ENROLLED AGENTS EXAM TOMORROW, BUT I KNOW A LOT OF TAX PRACTITIONER CPAS WHO COULDN'T. THERE ARE BAD APPLES IN EVERY PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION, THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT EAS, CPAS AND ATTORNEYS CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THE CORNER FLY-BY-NIGHT PRACTITIONERS ARE NOT! ~ Jeannie Prohny, EA (1/22/2004)

Yes To Licensing There should be one standard for all the tax practitioners. Even though there are some CPAs and Attorneys that are familiar with the tax law and are tax practitioners, there are many professionals who are not up to date with the current tax laws and regulations. Also, tax practitioners who do not have a formal education in accounting need to become certify. However, if a citizen wants to prepare his/her own taxes and take the responsibility for it, this right should not be taken away from them. ~ Silvia ACT451 (1/22/2004)

The Best idea I have heard so far. This is the best idea ever. I agree that tax prepares should be licensed and pass a competency exam before setting up shop to prepare people's income taxes, I have seen and heard horror stories. Sometimes the person claiming to know how to prepare income taxes, does not know a thing about it much less the law. The tax code changes constantly therefore preparing income taxes for a fee should be regulated or at least the individual licensed to show that s/he knows what they are doing. ~ Dee Grohowski (1/22/2004)

Great idea! If not a CPA or an attorney then to prepare taxes you should have to be an EA. ~ steve (1/22/2004)

LICENSING A GOOD IDEA ONLY WHEN PREPARER IS GETTING PAID Just because somebody has a CPA or law degree doesn't mean they know enough about tax to offer their services in this area. There should be some sort of regulation to allow the public to KNOW that the CPA, attorney, etc that they hired is aware and up-to-date on tax issues. However, the regulation should not be so stringent that the average citizen cannot do his or her own tax forms. ~ Velvet, ACT 451 (1/22/2004)

already the most complicated taxing system in the world We do not need to further complicate the most burdensom tax system in the world. What will licensing do that the free market, the three existing levels of licensing (EA, CPA, and JD) and tax preparation software don't already do? Instead we should simplify our tax codes by first removing the politics. Taxes should be an easily estimated cost of being part of the US economy, affecting very few business or personal decisions. Let the politics explode in deciding how taxes are spent, not how they are raised. ~ Michael E. Kimmey (1/21/2004)

Ask MDs what they think of the government "regulation" Do those of you that support the licensing also support a standard fee schedule for tax preparation? Don't laugh, the forms already have the hours on them. Determine the conversion factor (fair hourly rate, let's say like Medicare--approximately $37 per unit/hour)and voila, your fee. By the way, ask an MD how much Medicare pays for a phone call. Since we're all licensed now, we are a commodity, pass the test, no differentiation. Block will advertise you guys to death and will take most of your individual tax returns, then go after the 1120Ss and 1065s (although they have become so pricey, you might be able to compete with them on price). Hey, they have the same certification you do. Slippery slope, momentum builds, then you can go back to doing the service that we are granted a government monopoly--audits. Oh wait, that has pretty much been reduced to commodity status and is far too risky for the majority of CPAs. I'm probably just overreacting. But I am glad my income is not dependent on accounting or tax services. I R a Consultant and more importantly, I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night (I really did). ~ Renick Perry, CPA (1/21/2004)

Bad Public Policy to add more Government regulation. The IRS, and indeed no government agency, should ever be allowed to regulate the businesses that practice before it, or those who represent people who must deal with the agency. Such power over the citizenry always results in major and petty tyrannies and very bad service. The self interest of the agency in surpressing dissent is too powerful to ignore. Remember the PRIMARY purpose of government is to protect the RIGHTS of the Individual. Actions which are contrary to individual rights defeat the purpose of government, and as such, are bad public policy. If such regulation is actually required, a separate department must govern it, whihc department is meant to be independent and objective. Most of the abuses driving this current demand for registration come from the government's drive to pass out tax credits and the IRS willing and eager compliance with this. This has lead to the IRS encouraging essentially incompatible businesses to go into the business of submitting these child credit claims. It does not involve the rest of the tax practitioner community. The regulation of EA's, CPA's and Atty's by the Treasury is just and proper because the persons are dealing with the IRS in the manner of attorneys before a court. With respect to the significant misconduct with by these practitioners, such as the national accounting firms and the tax scams, the double regulation of the state CPA boards and the Treasury did not prevent these crimes, but they do provide a way to punish such criminal acts. (No government action can prevent all crime.) Th epreparing of tax returns is a commercial service, and is not practice before the IRS in the manner of EA's, CPA's and Atty's. Therefore the IRS has no right or power in a ust society with a government of laws for inhibiting the rights of individuals to pursue the work they choose. The right of free trade is vey near to absolute, and violation and denial of this right ersults in many serious wrongs in societies which engage in this practice. Credentially of businesses and professionals is the job of ACAT, AICPA, NATP and NAEA and other private sector agencies. IT is NEVER the job of government - EVER! If you are in a business or professional and want to distinguish yourself in the marketplace your proper course is to seek and achieve in a free and uncoerced marketplace additional credentials showing your competence. Colleges, universities, trade schools, profssional socieites, the bar associations, ACAT, AICPA, the BBB, Dunn & Bradstreet, the chambers of commerce and other private sector groups provide ways for you to do this. It is never the government's business to do this. Goverment regualtion of business is an assault on the integrity of the good businesses who do maintain high standards because it implies that all the firms are of equal quality and that the cusotmer need loo no further than a government license. It also underminies intregrity because it encourages customers to not take the responsibilty to look further. If a customer or client should want to use the least expensive practitioner they have that right. If the least expensive practitioner lacks the knowledge to lawfully reduce the client's tax to the extent possible, that is a result the is appropriate in a free market place. Differecnes in the quality of business firms and practitoners is a fact of reality. If the taxpayer needs more sophisticated assistance, the taxpayer is free to seek it, or not, as they choose. This is a just society. Take the idea of regulation and dump it in the trash can, where such ideas belong. John Giovannoni EA CMA ATA ABA ATP ~ John M S Giovannoni EA CMA ABA (1/21/2004)

Unlicensed tax preparers should be required to pass a competency test, excluding CPAs, EAs & Attys. If tax preparers are being paid to prepare taxes, they should be required to pass a competency test and required to take continuing education for the new tax changes each year. CPAs, EAs and Attys should only be required to take continuing professional education for the new tax changes each year in order to qualify. ~ Judy Hobdy, CPA (1/21/2004)

~ Judy Hobdy, CPA (1/21/2004)

Less Government, More Capitalistic Nature, Please! I write this based upon the understanding that only tax returns prepared by licensed officials will be accepted by the IRS and that everyone still must submit a return. This country thrives on a capitalistic nature. This may be evidenced by the strong economic resurgence due to the Bush tax cuts. To limit the opportunities to only those that have a license would be cutting into many individuals source of supplementary income. People have a choice in this country. They may choose to force licensure and limit the competitiveness (which, in basic economic theory, will increase service prices), or disregard this nuisance and use unlicensed individuals. There will be risks involved when someone chooses a friend, a neighbor, a postman, or a professor to do their taxes, but there would also be risks if a licensed official did their taxes. Risks cannot be avoided, only reduced. The cost to reduce this risk is too great. The only outcome to this legislation would be to further the goal to make Accounting an elite profession, one which only wealthy persons can afford. (This may be supported by the example of the 150 hour rule. These additionally required education credits may be in Physical Education. This does nothing for the profession save increasing our charges for our billable hours.) Which licensed Accountant will do the return of a poor person when they could earn a greater return on wealthier clients? Will this profession have to create “free clinics” for poor people, like the medical profession? How will you regulate this? Each licensed official will have an ID #, right? What’s stopping people from using someone else’s ID #, especially within accounting firms, where staffers may prepare the return? I feel that the consequences of this measure have not been thoroughly considered and that it should not even be an issue. ~ Michael Miller (1/21/2004)

If you do not qualify to go to an IRS meeting without the client you should not be preparing them. There alreeady are rules about who qualifies to practice before the IRS, CPA's, EA's or lawyers. We are all required to perform CPE every year and already pay fees. Why do we need new rules, just make these uniform to preparing taxes. That is the problem with the IRS too many new rules, nothing can be simple. ~ Cheryl Raboin (1/21/2004)

It will only help the credibility of competent preparers. There are many irresponsible tax preparers in the industry today that ultimately give tax preparers a bad reputation. There should be minimum requirements that tax preparers should have to meet in order to represent themselves to the public as a qualified tax preparer. I do believe, however, that EA's, CPA's, and possibly qualified attorneys should be exempt from any additional testing, or continuing education requirements. ~ Katie Deliberato (1/21/2004)

We need to do something to get rid of unqualified preparers. ~ Linda Cox (1/21/2004)

Good idea in theory Remains to be seen how it would play out. There should be no further requirements for those that are already licensed. I think the public is smart enough to realize that the license is no indication of quality. But it offers the same protection as any contractor's license, alebit after the fact. If a contractor screws up your home improvement, you can report him to the license board. He may ultimately lose his license, which may not help you, but it prevents him from doing incompetent work for the next guy. I have seen far too many accountants whose work is so poor that they deserve to be disciplined. Without a license, that's not possible. Those of us who are licensed already know full well the consequences that may arise from poor work product. I'm not suggesting I do good work because my State Board may take my license away if I don't, but the constant reminder that State license represents isn't a bad thing. So I think the public interest is served by virture of the fact that recourse is provided to clients who suffer a loss as a result of poor service or tax preparation that is so wrong as to constitute gross negligence. The government could prevent that accountant from harming the next person by taking his license (after some sort of due process). It is true that all of us would have to pay a price in dollars and more paperwork to have a national license program, but without such an arrangement, there can be no real discipline. And without discipline, we all continue to suffer in the public eye for the sins of a few. ~ Brian Sherwin, CPA (1/21/2004)

That's why there are EA'S EA's are basiclly licensed and registered with the IRS already. I don't prepare a lot of returns. My clients need help with their taxes, but cannot afford a CPA. And unlike H&R Block, I am still around after tax season. ~ Gregory Compher (1/21/2004)

I don't have a problem with requiring everyone to be license, but I don't believe having a license make you a better preparer. I believe we have two I don't have a problem with requiring everyone to be license, but I don't believe having a license make you a better preparer. I believe we have two level of tax preparers. The CPA'S and EA'S who handle must of the difficult tax issues and the average tax preparer who handles the average person tax issues. We have great people and we have bad people in each group. I was raised on the belief that it is may choose on what kind of service I need and can afford. I'm afraid if we license everyone we will not inprove our skills as preparer, but will punish the poeple we are trained to help the average person. the cost of tax preparation will go up with no better service. ~ andy wimer (1/21/2004)

Change is needed. Licensing not the solution. Solution: Independent professionals do IRS's job not sure how licensing will be effective without being unneccessarily cumbersome. mimimum licensing standards would not completely prevent incompetent or unethical persons from preparing returns, only give a false stamp of approval. The high qualifications needed to gain reasonable assurance of competence would drive the cost and affordability of professional tax preparation beyond what is realistic in the average taxpayers eyes. Better solution: IRS hires independent and qualified tax professionals to analyse for areas of non-compliance and abuse to determine what areas need attention. It would seem that they would make better cost/benefit decisions than the IRS seems capable of making. It is pitiful how the IRS manages our taxpayer resources. for instance: Don't send EIC claims without verifying the situations. This is Stupid! and costs us multi millions! Don't focus on potentially low yield audits. go for where the biggest tax is owed. It is stupid to spend resources on audits with little to be recovered. In a voluntary system, give benefit of the doubt in relatively insignificant areas. This is plain old common sense. Unfortunately there is no way to eliminate unethical and incompetent preparers/taxpayers. Just eliminating "automatic" refunds would solve a lot. I think other changes to the way IRS operates and the law would be much more effective than licensing. We need to make our tax system less prone to abuse. As it stands, It is extremely easy to abuse. As a profession, let us do all we can do to move toward a more sensible solution. Remember, this is America. The Citizen's are supposed to have the right and responsibility for their own government. It is clearly out of control. We need to bring it around or bring it down! Are you fed up with the stupidity? I know you are. Let's make it better! ~ Wayne E. Ferree (1/21/2004)

Response to Krista Johnson In response to Krista's comment about the gov't not taxing us for doing our job: Tennessee does. We have to pay an annual Professional Privelege Tax of $400 for the "Privelege" of being a CPA. That's in addition to the bi-annual $100 license and $50 annual firm registration. ~ Ron Hickman (1/21/2004)

National Licenses I currently have 3 licenses with 3 different renewal periods and CPE qualifications, so I'm all for uniform regulations on licensing and CPE. However, I fear that given the current public scrutiny for accountants that the perception is that we will lose even more integrity. If we go to a national license and registration, it needs to be done with public awareness and understanding that we are enhancing our services rather than detracting from it. The "new" rules should use the most common criteria from existing law as a basis for the regs so that people understand we aren't giving up quality, we're just making all CPA licenses equivalent. The common citizen doesn't know the difference, they hear CPA and expect the same from their CPA in Florida as they do from their CPA in Maryland. We have all taken the same exam and for the most part all have to take 80 hours of cpe every 2 years. I've taken QAS and NonQAS courses and have difficulty making a distinction from a quality or educational standpoint. I feel that the only thing the QAS restriction did was raise our CPE cost. I have seen people with 5 year educations face off with people with 4 year degrees and there is little difference between the two. The different rules don't make you a better accountant...your personal dedication to your profession is what puts you over the top. Although we should have uniform requirements throughout the country, I feel the licensing should be "regulated" by the states. The states are better equiped to monitor accountants than a national system would be. Too many things fall through the cracks when you depend on a national regulatory body. I think the states are doing a fine job and as they say...if its not broke don't fix it. ~ Lisa Gorge (1/21/2004)

No, don't see the point. ~ Ronald de Ramon (1/21/2004)

No to additional licensing for current CPAs and attorneys. There should be standard licensure for those NOT currently licensed under CPA or attorney guidelines. We are already subject to state licensure, peer review, CPE, IRS e-file applications, CAF# registration. Just another piece of red tape to comply with and assuming some cost will apply to our already high costs for CPE and peer review. ENOUGH already! There will always be proficient preparers and those that shouldn't practice! ~ SN (1/21/2004)

And all requirements across the states should be uniform as to experience, examination and education! And all requirements across the states should be uniform as to experience, examination and education! ~ Lawrence Gramling (1/21/2004)

i HAVE BEEN IN PRACTIVE FOR OVER 15 YEARS, IM NOT AFRAID TO TAKE A TEST. i AM A PROFESSIONAL ~ GERALD EISENBERG (1/21/2004)

National Licensing Against, especially not for CPAs, attorneys and EAs! A great many tax preparers (except H&R Block and the franchises) do not have nation-wide offices: it would be igniting an H-bomb to sink the canoes: no need for another national agency to send dues to and receive no benefits from. ~ Eleanor Grim (1/21/2004)

I agree with the theory. However, those who are already have licenses, (CPAs, attorneys, etc) should not be included in the process. I agree with the theory. However, those who are already have licenses, (CPAs, attorneys, etc) should not be included in the process. ~ Rick Freeman (1/21/2004)

National License not needed I am already licensed in two states. Why do I have to have a national license to prepare tax returns? I think anyone who is not a licensed CPA should have to obtain a license. That way there is some level of compliance that must be met and will serve the public interest. Right now, anybody can become a tax preparer and it is up to the client to make sure they ask questions about the preparer's qualificatios ~ Gerard A. Tarabokia, CPA (1/21/2004)

Why not CPA's/EA's/Atty's? As I see it there is only one valid reason for exempting CPA's, EA's, and Atty's from any such licensing: cost to the CPA/EA/Atty. In other words, exempt such individuals from paying any federal licensing fee, but otherwise enforce the same requirements for CPE/CEU related to tax. That said, I think Attorney's should still be required to pass a competency test. However, CPA's and EA's have already taken such a test (although the questions are different, I believe that they both test general competency). Also on the CPE question -- I am quite disgusted that I can go to a CPE seminar, sleep through the whole thing, and still earn my CPE certificate! ~ Kevin R. Buza, CPA (1/21/2004)

Licensing of Tax Practitioners License and regulate the un-regulated. As an EA I alread am ~ Joe White (1/21/2004)

Not for CPA's or Attorneys ~ Chad Engbrecht, Esq., CPA (1/21/2004)

Agree with licensing Since not all state have some kind of licensing program in place, it seems like a good idea to have a national standard for preparers complete with CE requirements. However, I think that EAs, CPAs, and attorneys, who already meet the requirements for maintaining their licenses, should be exempt from this requirement. It is in the public's interest to insure that an individual preparer has met certain minimum requirements. ~ Gloria Walsh (1/21/2004)

I don't have a problem with licensing as long as those that already have a type of licensing in that area, i.e. CPA, tax attorney, etc. are allowed to I don't have a problem with licensing as long as those that already have a type of licensing in that area, i.e. CPA, tax attorney, etc. are allowed to practice as is. Between our state boards, national and state member organizations we really don't need another layer. ~ Richard Tamer (1/21/2004)

I agree with licensing, but add continuing educational requirements as part of licensing. I currently am not licensed, but I am in favor of it. If we have it on a federal level, then it should not be required on a state level. We need to keep this business professional. As professionals, we need to require annual or minimum of bi-annual education credits in order to retain your licensing. ~ Roger Lindgren (1/21/2004)

Re: National Licensing Professionals are already licensed at the state level. National licensing only opens the door to another "fee" that can be assesed against professionals. When we are paid to prepare federal income tax returns, we are already required to provide an EIN, SS or PTIN. Is'nt this already a form of resgitration. ~ D. Kordish, CPA (1/21/2004)

I agee with scott dunley's comment on 1/21 ~ herbert m. kuschner (1/21/2004)

Yes, for those already not licensed in another fashion. We shouldn't duplicate licensing. However, all taxpreparers should have some sort of monitoring process. CPA's, attorneys, and EA's already have a monitoring process. Licensing should cover those who don't have a license through a different organization or state. ~ Scott Dunkley (1/21/2004)

IRS Licensing Has a Bigger Plan I have read many of the comments posted here and I think a lot of good points have been made both pro and against licensing. However, I think many people who see this as a competence issue may be missing the bigger picture. I don't think the IRS intends to make or assure that licensed tax preparers are tax geniuses, let alone competent. We all know that none of the mainstream credentials: EA, CPA, Attorney, etc. , guarantees competence, although, to the general public, these credentials are important indicators of that. As one person pointed out, dedication, diligence and integrity is what produces competence. Without it, the credentials are mere window dressing. And I think the IRS is smart enough to know this. That being said, what purpose would a tax preparer licensing program serve?. I think the answer lies - as silly as this may seem - in the Big Brother theory. Let's face it, we are coming into the mature years of the information age. IRS is one of the largest, if not THE largest information reporting organizations in our country. Electronic data plays a key role to helping the IRS identify who is naughty and who is nice. To my knowledge, IRS does not have a universal database of all tax practitioners. They have pieces of one via POA, PTIN, EA and other records. Even the Paid Preparer information required on tax returns does not necessarily identify all tax practitioners within a firm. A universal database via licensing makes sense for several reasons. It would serve to identify ALL tax practitioners and, more importantly, the particulars about a specific practitioner, much like running the registration on a vehicle. It would allow for easier database sharing whereby IRS could receive and track information from state licensing agencies to better coordinate their own compliance and discipline efforts. It would, I would hope, allow easier access by practitioners to conduct their business with the IRS. For example, a licensed practitioner may not have to go through a separate approval process to file returns electronically or could request and receive TP information online, given the proper POA. In short, it allows for a myriad of options to the IRS that it doesn't have given it's current fragmented database structure. This is not to say I am totally comfortable with the idea of a universal database. I think we are all reluctant to lose yet another layer of privacy about our lives, not to mention the concern we should have about how the government will use the information. For example, the sharing of databases in Maryland has led to a program whereby people are denied the right to renew their drivers license if they owe state income taxes. A little heavy handed, I think. Be that as it may, I think the creation and use of various "societal" databases will only increase in the years to come. Information is power, leading governments to conclude that they, naturally, should be the ones to wield the sword. Humorously, I think the day is not far off that we can start expecting to receive birthday and anniversary cards from our government entities. Or, to receive a cheer-up card when we’ve had a bad day. Who knows where the future will take us? ~ Michael Shelby, CPA, EA, MST (1/21/2004)

We have a State CPE program and State licensing. Do not need another !!! ~ Wesley H Brown SR. (1/21/2004)

Yes, but PLEASE keep it simple and to the point--we want UP TO DATE AND QUALIFIED tax preparers ~ Becky CPA (1/21/2004)

Professionals who are already licensed (CPAs, EAs & Attorneys) should be exempt. ~ Steven Morris (1/21/2004)

Tax prep is NOT a data entry position, you answer the question, you have a correct return. Wrong! I think that there should be a basic certification/or license for any tax preparer before they take the responsibility of preparing tax returns for the public. Not everyone wants to do audit work, financial analyst work or bookkeeping. They want to just speacialize in tax prep work for individuals. There could be certification by entity Individuals, corporations, parterships, trust, non-profit, government, etc. At least with some statandard testing, people that rely tax prep programs without knowledge behind tham, might not do a dis-servce to preparers that know what they are doing and can really help a client's tax situation with proper guidance, not just the role of a data entry person. Certification can be by Form, 1040EZ, 1040A, 1040NR, Full 1040, 1065, 1041, 1120, 1120s, 990, 760, etc. ~ Carol Humphreys (1/21/2004)

Yes, but let's not duplicate EAs, tax attorneys and CPAs should not be required to go through a lot of administrivia or re-examination: licensing for them should be automatic and a simple application like the one for e-file providers. Tax Practitioners not otherwise already licensed should have to pass an exam. ~ Margaret Stallworthy (1/21/2004)

LICENSING LICENSING FOR TAX PRACTITIIONERS IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA. ANYBODY NOT ALREADY LICENSED (CPA's, EA's, ATTY's), SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE ABILITY TO BE A TAX PRACTITIONER. THE LICENSING PROCESS WOULD ACCOMPLISH THIS. ~ HOWARD D ROSEN, CPA (1/21/2004)

Yes but not for CPA's ~ Donald Onimus (1/21/2004)

But I would advocate licensing of those not already otherwise licensed (CPA's, attorneys, EA's) ~ Anne Rule (1/21/2004)

Yes, to licensing for tax practitioners or some firm source of regulation. If Tax practitioners assume the responsibility to prepare tax returns, they should be held accountable on a level appropriate for that degree of responsibility. I am a tax practitioner with an MBA in accounting. I have been preparing tax returns for 15 years and have not been licensed, other than with my EFIN. I have taken the CPA exam and am awaiting the results. I believe I should follow any guidelines set in my field. If you are performing with the standards expected within the profession, you would not have a problem with the appropriate licensure. Unfortunately, there are those who do not, mainly ones representing one of the largest national tax return preparation companies, H&R Block. I have corrected many many "innocent" taxpayers' returns that had been originally prepared by H&R Block interviewers. The taxpayers relies on the expertise of the preparer. They do not have the knowledge of someone in the business. Therefore, if there is a problem with the return, the preparer should have a certain degree of responsibility rather than feed the taxpayer to the wolves alone. Also, I believe a CPA or Attorney should not be required to obtain an additional license for this, because their certification and board requirements satisfy the appropriate knowledge and expertise in this field. ~ Vickie Bebout (1/21/2004)

No for several reasons Licensing sounds like a good idea on paper, but what would it really accomplish? It will not get rid of bad tax preparers, there are plenty of those around, some of them licensed CPAs and EAs. It may improve public perception of the industry, but the people who already pay to have their taxes prepared have already placed their trust in the abilities of the preparer they chose. It won't matter a bit to those who prepare their own taxes. It seems just a ploy to add another layer of governmental control over what we do because some senator or representative who wants to get re-elected has agian pointed the finger at a non-issue in an attempt to misdirect the focus from the real issues. It also seems like a way to extract funds from us because aside from our personal and company income taxes, the government has not yet found a way to force us to pay a fee to be able to do our jobs. We are already licensed as CPAs by our states, we have passed an exam, we have paid for our insurance, how will licensing us on a federal level help? ~ Krista Johnston (1/21/2004)

Not for licensed CPAs and attorneys currently in tax practice and EAs. ~ RICARDO CINCO (1/21/2004)

Licensing should be required if they are not an EA, CPA or Attorney. Licensing should be required if they are not an EA, CPA or Attorney. ~ George Valentine (1/21/2004)

LICENSING PRACTITIONERS IS THAT FOR A GUN LICENSE ? SHOOT THOSE EASY-TO-READ PUBLICATIONS !! ~ VICTOR SERRANO (1/21/2004)

Licensing will get rid of non-professionals By licensing tax professionals, it will eliminate the "hacks" that are around. ~ Bob (1/21/2004)

LARGE "TAX PREPERATION" COMPANIES WOULD MISLEAD CONSUMERS ABOUT QUALIFICATIONS LICENCING WITH LITTLE OR NO TESTING OF PROFICIENCY IS USELESS. I CAN ALREADY SEE THE NEXT HR OR JH AD. WE HAVE MORE LICENCED PREPARERS THAN ANY CPA FIRM, MAKING PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY HAVE EQUAL QUALIFICATIONS OF CPA'S EA'S OR ATTORNEYS. REGISTRATION WOULD BE FINE AS LONG AS THE PERSONS REGISTERED HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT REGISTRATION IS NOT A LICENCE AND BY NO MEANS IMPLIES KNOWLEDGE OF TAX LAW. IF SOMEONE WISHES A DESIGNATION THAT SHOWS PROOF OF TAX LAW KNOWLEDGE AND APPLICATION TAKE THE EA EXAM. ~ KIM T SCHOOLEY CPA CES (1/21/2004)

Licensing a must for non-EA's Licensing would eliminate the kitchen table tax preparers who think that tax preparation is simply writing the figures on forms and getting paid to do it. ~ Ginger (1/21/2004)

EXCEPT CPA AND ATTORNEYS EVERYBOYD SHOULD BE LICENSED ~ Raskin Shah (1/21/2004)

Pros and Con To who what this benefit anf I am sure that it will increase cost to someone. The Taxpayer. Well a tax preparer for over 15 years the pros of it will be that it will protect the integrity, but does that mean know no more self tax preparation by the taxpayer. What does it all mean to the IRS. Will they continue to audit clients that have had there return prepared by a licensed tax preparer vs. a EA or CPA. Is the IRS willing to support this new form of registering with training, assistance and support or are they just in it for the fees that I am sure that they are going to impose. Tax preparation itself is not getting more complex, but regulations are. Sure we need to maintain guidelines, rules and whatever is necessary to prevent fraud, but will this ensure that it won't happen. T. Crump ~ 10 Key Accounting & Financial (1/21/2004)

regulate un-licensed It is rediculous that the IRS invests one penny into overseeing CPAs, Tax Attorneys and EAs while ANYBODY can prepare a tax return for a fee. Their should national licensing, and the IRS should be regulating them all! The tax savings to the country will easily pay for this> ~ Charles markham (1/21/2004)

NO ... Tax preparation has become a joke The answer is not licensing, it is to educate people that not everyone is knowledgeable enough to prepare tax returns, specially complex ones. The tax code (IRC) is one of the most complex set of rules and loopholes, that unless your are a tax specialist, who dream, eat, sleep and breath taxes for a living, one can not in good conscience say they are an expert. Licensing is not the answer, we are already licensed CPAs, attorneys, EAs, etc... We don't lack licensing, we need to educate people that H&R block is a joke and others like it as well. My opinion. ~ Philippe Masbanji (1/20/2004)

National licensing is a good idea for non-ea's, but not for attorneys and CPA's. If there was a concern on attorneys and CPA's additional CPE could be National licensing is a good idea for non-ea's, but not for attorneys and CPA's. If there was a concern on attorneys and CPA's additional CPE could be required and watched by the State licensing agencies. ~ William H. Estes (1/20/2004)

Licensing All individuals that prepare tax returns should be licensed. All individuals that prepare tax returns should be required a minimum amount of CPE in taxation each year to remain qualified. As to qualifications I have a degree in accounting, have passed the CPA exam, but not licensed, am not an EA, have been preparing taxes for 21 years, have been e-filing since it started and get at least 40 hrs of cpe in tax related subjects per year. Am I qualified? ~ William Van Stockum (1/20/2004)

I have no opinion because this is the first time I have been asked. What is the motive or reason? ~ David Ferguson Jr (1/20/2004)

Passing EA Exam should be enough. Passing the EA or CPA exam should be enough. Or at least be licensed in the fields of Individual or Small Business or Corporate Tax or all. Experience with progressive knowledge is the best qualifier, however. ~ Richard Tackett (1/20/2004)

Yes, tax practicioners who are not CPA or Tax Attornes ~ Arnold Zhitlovsky (1/20/2004)

ELIMINATE TAX INTERVIEWER OR LICENSE WITH INCREASED CE-BAD H&R BLOCK INTERVIEWER'S W/NO KNOWLEDGE!@# The public is unaware that housewives, students and ill-prepared people are doing their tax returns and are then GONE after Apr15th leaving poorly prepared returns, some caught and others not and overcharged for negligent prepared returns. ~ DENNIS MAHANEY (1/20/2004)

Yes, but not for EA's, CPA's and Attorneys There is no reason to license EAs CPAs and Attorneys as they are already regulated by the OPR. However, the licensing of other preparers that are not currently regulated by the IRS should help in mandating continuing education and standards to all preparers nationally. ~ Warren Leibowitz, EA (1/20/2004)

NO ??? on CPA's and Attorney's?? People, I am an Accountant, NOT a CPA and NOT an Attorney, though I possess a law degree. I have been in accounting for 40 years now and have been self employed for 33 of those 40 years. I know 2 Tax Attorney's who are worth the job they do. I know multitudes of CPA's and on one hand can count those who actually get into the pencil pushing of bookkeeping and accounting for their clients. Over 93% of them have trouble applying the education they received and many of that 93% CANNOT do a set of books. One fourth of the business I do with the taxpayers and businesses are repair jobs, or redo's that mostly CPA's have messed up. Sadly, 19 of my clients have been severly damaged to the point that a CPA (who is supposed to know what he and she is doing) caused because of their inability to do the job their profession demands. YES, LICENSE CPS'S AND ATTORNEY'S regarding Tax Preparation, and then followup on the work they perform. CPA's, start doing the work you are supposed to know how to do and stop hiring $1.00/2.98 people who only dream of being a bookkeeper. You can not argue with experience. Too many CPA's have absolutely NO experience!!!! ~ Lyle Braae (1/20/2004)

We believe the licensing issue for tax preparers would help protect the industry from further negative comments regarding integrity etc. Licensing wou We believe the licensing issue for tax preparers would help protect the industry from further negative comments regarding integrity etc. Licensing would eliminate those that should not be preparing returns due to a lack of understanding of the tax code. CPA's, EA's and Tax Attorneys should be exempt as they have proven their level of expertise in the tax field. We all know the CPA exam is not a tax code exam, however for those of us in the accounting industry, we have acquired the tax expertise through our training in the field. Licensing is a good start to increasing the Accounting profession's perceived value, as well as building upon the public's trust in the CPA, EA Designation. ~ BrianSkelton CPA (1/20/2004)

Good Idea, But Let's Set The Record Straight. I think the licensing of tax preparers is a good thing, if properly administered. I also agree that EAs should be exempt from national licensing. Attorneys and CPAs should, too, be licensed as preparers because they are legal and accounting specialists, respectively. Attorneys are licensed by their respective state BAR to practice in the area of legal representation, sans an emphasis in tax. CPAs are licensed by their state boards of accountancy to primarily provide financial statement audit and attest services. I, too, hold a degree in accounting and took the same courses everyone did. However, I don't count an exam review course, comprehensiveness notwithstanding, as authoritative in suggesting to me a tax professional. Only experience and a willingness to be a dedicated professional can do that. I earned the Accredited Business Accountant (ABA) designation, a national accreditation, and can provide the same services licensed accountants (CPAs, LPAs, PAs, etc.) provide, except for services where licensure is required by law (i.e., audit and attest). As far as returns are concerned prepare tax returns and take the position that we all are human and upon figuring that out have since corrected returns done by CPAs and provided correct information to remedy incorrect advice given by other tax professionals. It all depended on a willingness to be ethical and hold oneself to a true professional standard. My comments are not to minimize the work and accomplishments that bar licensure and state accountancy licensure bring, but I do want to shine light on the truth in the industry. There are "wiz-bang" practitioners who hold other designations and are just as proficient as what tradition has held as standard. Before deciding who will service tax prep needs, check out the Accreditation Council for Accountancy and Taxation (ACAT) designations - the Accredited Business Accountant (ABA), International Accredited Business Accountant (IABA), Accredited Tax Preparer (ATP), Accredited Tax Advisor (ATA), and Elder Care Specialist (ECS) designations. Also, check out the Certified Tax Accountant (CTA) designation. These designations compliment those who are otherwise regulated by licensure. Also, CPE is a necessary requirement for each designation mentioned above. Finally, I would caution the public to chose a tax practitioner who is dedicated to upholding an exemplary professional standard. My hat's off to CPAs, LPAs, PAs, EAs, ABAs, ATPs, ATAs, CTAs and others who join accounting societies like the National Society of Accountants (NSA) to show their dedication to professionalism. ~ Carlton Johnson, ABA (1/20/2004)

I say NO, but I said no, but I realize it is just a matter of time before it comes. All other professions dealing with others money require licensing. I said 'no' because a license does not prevent misuse or unprofessionalism and just adds red tape. Rules come because of people being hurt by a few and that is largely the case with tax practioners. ~ Ronald Layman (1/20/2004)

CPA and Attorneys CPA'a and Attorney's already have a streneous licensing process and should automatically be registered and licensed by the IRS. If there is a tax practitioner that is not a CPA or Attorney, they should have to go thru a licensing process and registration process with the IRS. That is the only way that there CPE can be monitored. ~ Kraig Hall (1/20/2004)

ATTORNEYS, CPAs & ENROLLED AGENTS SHOULD NOT BE LICENSED AGAIN FOR SUCH PURPOSE. ESPECIALLY CPAs. TAX PREPARERS LIKE MOONLIGHTERS WITH H&R BLOCKS, WHO ARE LICENSED MAY NOT DO A BETTER JOB THAN ATTORNEYS, CPAs OR ENROLLED AGENTS BECAUSE TAX PREPARERS ARE FAR LESS QUALIFED. ISSUING SUCH A LICENSE WOULD ONLY CONFUSE THE PUBLIC AS TO WHO IS THE RIGHT PROFESSIONAL TO CHOOSE IN TAX MATTERS. TRADITION DIES HARD. THE GENERAL PUBLIC WILL ALWAYS CONSIDER CPAs ARE THE TAX PERSONS TO CONSULT WITH WHEN IT COMES TO TAXES. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN IT COMES TO CORPORATE TAX, MOST TAX ATTORNEYS & ENROLLED AGENTS LACK THE EXPERTISE IN FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING. IN PARTICULAR, THEY OFTEN ARE DEFICIENT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF BALANCE SHEETS AND THE UNDERLYING WORKING DETAILS IN THE GENERAL LEDGER. IN GENERAL, WHO IS MORE CAPABLE THAN CPAs WHEN IT COMES TO REPRESENTING BEFORE THE IRS IN AUDITS OF CORPORATION INCOME TAX RETURNS?? BEFORE BECOMING AN ENROLLED AGENT, ONE INDEED HAS TO PASS SOME DIFFICULT TAX EXAMS. HOWEVER, MOST OF THEM ARE NOT TRAINED LIKE CPAs TO BE COMPREHENSIVE IN ALMOST EVERYTHING FROM ACCOUNTING TO TAX. CREATING MORE LICENSES WOULD INDEED DO MORE THAN HARM THAN GOOD TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. WHEN THE PUBLIC IS CONFUSED, SOME MAY ALWAYS USE THIS NEWLY CREATED LICENSE IN THE NAME OF "NATIONAL" TO ENGAGE IN POSSIBLE FRAUDS. DO WE HAVE ENOUGH OF FRAUDS AREADY ?? LET'S PRAY ACCOUNTANTSWORLD WOULD STAND ON OUR SIDE AND SO WILL THE IRS. THANK YOU. ~ TERENCE LEUNG (1/20/2004)

Licensing tax preparers There are too many "tax preparers" who know nothing but hang out a sign in tax season, do returns wrong or right, and dissappear. Let the IRS put the unqualified out of business! ~ George G. Scott (1/20/2004)

Required Licensing of Practitioners In California, a non CPA or EA practitioner is required to be registered with CTEC (California Tax Education Council) and to maintain 24 hours per annum of CE in Federal and Calif tax law and practice. This is not a burden for those of us who want to be recognized as qualified tax preparers. If this proposal to be nationaly licensed or registered is passed, then it is one more opportunity to fine tune the skills which we maintain. ~ John Durden (1/20/2004)

Should Tax Practioners be Licensed? Anyone who wants to practice tax law (including return preparation) should be required to be either EA and/or CPA. ~ Zack (1/20/2004)

We Already Have Too Much Govt By Incremental Encroaching. We Already Have Too Much Govt By Incremental Encroaching. Everything the Government gets involved in becomes a big expensive beauocracy. The Free Market should be enough to weed out the bad apples. Customers will avoid them. You can't avoid the Govt interference once it gets a foot in the door. ~ James Kelly (1/20/2004)

We Already Have Too Much Govt By Incremental Encroaching. We Already Have Too Much Govt By Incremental Encroaching. Everything the Government gets involved in becomes a big expensive beauocracy. The Free Market should be enough to weed out the bad apples. Customers will avoid them. You can't avoid the Govt interference once it gets a foot in the door. ~ James Kelly (1/20/2004)

Definitely license any tax preparer who is not a CPA, tax attorney, or enrolled agent. I have had to compete against a bartender who did tax returns while his customers drank. This would put alot of the fly-by-night preparers out of business. My barber needs a license to cut my hair, but he could do a tax return with no regulation or proven skill in tax knowledge. ~ Robert L. Stickel (1/20/2004)

Licensing Do not license professional i.e. atty and CPA's but yes fly by night rapid refund places ~ Carlos (1/20/2004)

Union This is another way of restricting access to advancement. Unions and trade guilds have been doing this for years. This country was built on the mobility of its citizens to advance to any level they were capable of. This is just another way of restricting that opportunity. ~ David Watson (1/20/2004)

Licensing tax preparers Just about any trade requires one to be licensed. All professions require an examination/registration. Tax preparers are looked up to as professionals. Therefore, they should pass an examination, registered and required to take CPE on an annual basis. ~ Art Atway (1/20/2004)

Kitchen table tax preparers Anyone that prepares taxes should be licensed. Of course it is another detail for those that are professional tax preparers that attend classes and stay abreast of new tax laws. The license is not because of those of you that do that it is for the person that decides to do taxes with a turbo tax program and does not have the taxpayer's best interest or cares, just quick easy money with no worry about what happens if they misrepresent the taxpayer. Let us license the good to protect from the bad. ~ Alberta Wasden (1/20/2004)

Tax preparers who are not CPA's, Tax Attorneys, or enrolled agents should be required to be licensed, registered and reguired to take and exam. This w Tax preparers who are not CPA's, Tax Attorneys, or enrolled agents should be required to be licensed, registered and reguired to take and exam. This wioul eliminate those preparers wjo hang up signs during tax season and those who do not sign tax returns for which they have been paid. It wolud also make tax preparers more accountable to their clients and the entire profession. ~ Heskeith Myler, CPA (1/20/2004)

Another Mandatory License? If legitimate testing and licensing were required for all paid preparers, maybe I'd be for it, but this seems to be aimed at those of us who are already responsible and licensed. I am a CPA. I hold an MS in Taxation. I passed the EA exam and practiced as an EA before completing my CPA. In those days the CPA invalidated the EA and I wasn't allowed both credentials. Now I am supposed to go backwards? ~ Coralie Cross (1/20/2004)

Licensing? The IRS employees can't even give correct answers to tax questions. How do they propose to regulate paid preparers? ~ Charles E Underwood (1/20/2004)

IT SHOULD BE A FORM OF REGISTRATION, EXCEPT FOR ENROLL AGENT AND CPA'S THAT ARE ALREADY LICENSE. FOR THOSE NOT REGULATE IN ANY WAY, THAT EVEN DO NOT S IT SHOULD BE A FORM OF REGISTRATION, EXCEPT FOR ENROLL AGENT AND CPA'S THAT ARE ALREADY LICENSE. FOR THOSE NOT REGULATE IN ANY WAY, THAT EVEN DO NOT SIGN THE RETURNS THAT THEY ARE PREPARING, SHOULD BE A LAW THAT REQUIRE THEM TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE, IT COULD BE A REGISTRATRION NUMBER PROVIDED BY THE IRS, THAT WITHOUT IT, NO ONE CAN PROVIDE THE SERVICE. IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ORIENTATE THE PUBLIC THAT THEY SHOULDN'T PATRONIZED THIS ENTITIES THAT ARE NOT REGISTERED WITH THE IRS. ~ ELIA ANDINO, CPA (1/20/2004)

ANOTHER DOUBLE LAYER OF USELESS AND REDUNDANT PAPERWORK THE GOVERMENT HAS ENOUGH INFORMATION ON EVERYON SINCE THEY ALREADY REQUIRE A SSN, Emp IDN, TIN, ETC., ON EVERY PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS FILED WITH GOVERMENT AGENCIES. IN ADDITION EVERYONE IN THIS FIELD IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES. ~ RUBEN HERNANDEZ (1/20/2004)

Tax preparer licensing. Ever notice how many CPA's are afraid to go after legitimiate tax deductions for fear of losing their license? NO to licensing: just another way to keep the sheep cowed in the corner. ~ Mark (1/20/2004)

Not another federal bureaucracy Why not just enforce the current laws rather than adding another layer of federal control over the tax preparer. It will not provide any benefit to the taxpayer or the IRS. ~ Robert (1/20/2004)

If there is a license. Everyone is equal an d all licenses are the same. ~ Steven Alessi (1/20/2004)

We do not need another costly program. ~ G. Dudley (1/20/2004)

I have an MBA plus a CMA Certificate who prepares returns for CPA's and Attorney's who have no or little experience with income tax regs nor desire to I have an MBA plus a CMA Certificate who prepares returns for CPA's and Attorney's who have no or little experience with income tax regs nor desire to prepare their own returns. Why anyone would grandfather or exempt the above designations defies logic. Would you want a pediatrician to perform a heart by-pass or removal of a brain aneurism because he/she has an MD? I can accept exempting EA's who have been practicing for at least the last 5 years, etc. Then again, I get corporate work from an EA who specializes only in individual returns. ~ Jack A. Schlautman, CMA/MBA (1/20/2004)

What's their purpose. Bounce this back to IRS to get an understanding of what their purpose for the licensing is and what they ultimately hope to accomplish? Licensing for licensing sake with no benefit to IRS or the practitioner is a waste of time, money and effort. ~ James Fleming (1/20/2004)

Yes. Some standard of Competency Should be Made. But not neccesarily a national licensing system. I think tax law is complicated and as such there should be a standard to determine competency. I also think those who re enrolled agents and CPA's as well as those attorney's with LLM's should be grandfathered in automatically. This is the case currently when you file for a power of attorney. Anyone who does not meet the minimum requirements probably should not be tax practitioners. ~ Rene Velez (1/20/2004)

Natl Licensing- Grandfather or automatically license in perpetuity any practitioner over 30 or 40 who can prove exp. based on their CAF #, EFIN #, SS# Natl Licensing- Grandfather or automatically license in perpetuity any practitioner over 30 or 40 who can prove exp. based on their CAF #, EFIN #, SS#, etc. New entants would need a license based on IRS requisites. ~ Jack A. Schlautman, CMA/MBA (1/20/2004)

LICENCE ALL TAX PRACTITIIONERS. GRANDFATHER E.A.'S WHO HAVE BEEN IN PRACTICE AT LEAST 3 YEARS. ~ C. THOMAS MANIACI, E.A. (1/20/2004)

NATIONAL LICENSING FOR PRACTITIONERS National Licensing is needed to help eliminate the fraudulent preparers, or at the least, be able to track them. The Enrolled Agents & CPA's today are at a disadvantage because they are already regulated, and the unlicensed preparer is not. Let's have some way of track- ing every preparer in the U.S. ~ BOB RACHEL (1/20/2004)

NATIONAL LICENSING NATIONAL LICENSING WOULD HELP WEED OUT PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY CAN DO TAXES WITH A COMPUTER AND A CHEAP TAX SOTWARE. ~ FRANK MILLETT (1/20/2004)

Licensing of Tax practitioners I feel that non-professional tax preparers should have to get a licence. Due to the continuing education requirements and educational requirements for CPAs, I feel that CPAs do not need additional licensing. ~ Lyle Mortensen (1/20/2004)

EAs already federally licensed. License the rest. ~ Nancy Cecil (1/20/2004)

Registration is already in place, PTIN's The Dept of Treasury, IRS Division, already requires preparers that receive paid compensation to register. This is what the PTIN number was to be used for. The issue should be raised for ALL those that claim to be preparers (and do returns for others) but do not have registration or even claim the income on their return. They only hang their shingle during tax season. The IRS should require all returns to have a preparers signature (written or electronic) and record IP addresses with Efile returns. This would indicate when a none registered person is doing more returns than their own. WE DON'T NEED MORE LEGISLATION, JUST ENFORCE WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE. ~ J.W. Berry (1/20/2004)

Licensing I am not in favor of more complication in my life nor government control. I am in favor of licensing IF IT CAN BE KEPT SIMPLE! ~ Linda (1/20/2004)

Licensing...No Tax practice is not science or a group of absolutes, its and art form with variations uncounted. When congress quits playing games with the tax laws then maybe. Now the tax laws are codified social corrections based on individual cases. ~ Dennis Hilligoss CPA (1/20/2004)

IS A GOOD IDEA ONLY IF THE LAW ALSO STIPULATES STIFF PENALTIES FOR THOSE WHO PREPARE TAX RETURNS AND PLAY I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. TYPE OF ATTIT IS A GOOD IDEA ONLY IF THE LAW ALSO STIPULATES STIFF PENALTIES FOR THOSE WHO PREPARE TAX RETURNS AND PLAY I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. TYPE OF ATTITUDE. ~ MICHAEL KOTIS (1/20/2004)

IS A GOOD IDEA ONLY IF THE LAW ALSO STIPULATES STIFF PENALTIES FOR THOSE WHO PREPARE TAX RETURNS AND PLAY I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. TYPE OF ATTITUDE. IS A GOOD IDEA ONLY IF THE LAW ALSO STIPULATES STIFF PENALTIES FOR THOSE WHO PREPARE TAX RETURNS AND PLAY I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. TYPE OF ATTITUDE. ~ MICHAEL KOTIS (1/20/2004)

National Licensing Not required for those already licensed by the several states. Simply serves to reastrict entry to the field and is a violation of Anti-trust acts. ~ Richard Robinson (1/20/2004)

Tax licensing for all Anyone charging a fee to prepare taxes should be licensed, including CPA's. Being designated a CPA does not mean you know about taxes. The field of accounting is specialized as much as medicine and computers. Being a licensed CPA does not mean you know taxes. Furthermore, requiring licensing to perform tax prep would remove the scarry practitioners that are out there now. ~ Denis Stankowski (1/20/2004)

California already does this. California seems to be the butt of jokes with our new Govenor, but they did get this right. The registration requirements aren't onerous, but ensure a certain level of knowledge and responsibility on the part of the preparers. A similar federal requirement should be welcomed by all competent preparers. ~ Bob Buchanan (1/20/2004)

Notice the CPA's Notice that many post indicate that CPA's shouldn't have to fall under any new rules. For years there have been those trying to get back the business they've lost to Tax Preparers. This is just another move in that direction. EA's shouldn't feel safe either. They are after you also. So if there is a license, does that mean that the IRS won't have to look at your returns? If they don't, how will they know the license program is working? Most tax preparers sign every return and have a PTIN plus an e-File number that you only get after an investigation. What else does the IRS want? I agree that there are scammers out there but there always will be. The most mistakes are made by individuals doing there own taxes. Should we make a law saying they must hire a CPA? It ain't gonna happen. ~ James (1/20/2004)

Criteria for Licensing We all try to do our best when preparing tax returns. CPA's make mistakes. EA's make mistakes. Tax software makes mistakes. We learn from our mistakes. Criteria for licensing should not expect perfection on the part of the preparer nor assume it in view of the fact that individuals who already licensed CPA's, attorney's, and EA's not only make mistakes but have been known to commit illegalities as well. The focus should be on intention. Additionally, all of us try to stay on top of our own financial affairs but due to turns in the economy and other reasons we sometimes fall behind. Licensing should not depend on the practitioner's own credit worthiness. This would be blatently unfair and would reduce the practitioner's abilty to put his own house in order or run him out of the business altogether. After all, it's how we prepare our client's tax returns that matters the most. Education and training is a must. ~ Bob Solebello (1/20/2004)

Licensing tax practioners is an excellent long overdue plan. Establishing CPA standards for tax practice similar to those developed for audit practice Licensing tax practioners is an excellent long overdue plan. Establishing CPA standards for tax practice similar to those developed for audit practice would enhance the credibility of the profession. Requiring specific tax experience similar to audit experience requirements for auditors and establishing specific continuing education requirements for tax practice consistent with standards for CPA's with an audit practice would further the public's perception of the CPA profession. Maintaining consistent standards for the respective disciplines and types of practice would continue the tradition of ethical professional service to the public by the CPA community. ~ CARL CASSIDY (1/20/2004)

it's a constitutional issue. If you can't control the message, control the messenger. I'm amazed at how many of you can't see the real issue here. Who interprets the law to create the exams on which the license is based??? The fox is watching the henhouse. Have any of you wondered about the people who go to the IRS to have their taxes prepared??? For a feew this may not be a problem but for most doesn't this sound a bit goofy. Well imagine if EVERYONE was, in effect, an IRS agent. ~ Gregory Noe (1/20/2004)

Professionalism lies with the individual not licensing and red tape. The additional red tape and requirements would eventually increase the cost of having returns completed by forcing licensed preparers to charge more. In addition it would not ensure accuracy of returns as unscrupulous preparers will continue to be a problem. ~ Brett Bascom (1/20/2004)

Yes, except for CPA's. ~ SOLOMON EISNER (1/20/2004)

For all not already admitted to practice + CPE Many practitioners have already hit the key points: (1) The licensing would automatically exempt or recognize attorneys, CPAs and EAs already qualified and admitted to practice before the IRS. (2)Some base level of qualfification should be required. Passing the enrolled agents exam would be a good choice. (3) CPE should be a requirement for continuing licensing. There are some decent people working in the tax prep field who are not among the three recognized groups. They should have a vested interest in differentiating themselves from the season not-so-qualified practitioners. We really do not need another guild to limit competition, but there should be some basic level of competence required. ~ Michael A. Grozdanoff (1/20/2004)

Penalized Preparers Not Paying According to January 2003 "Practical Accountant" (Page 15): "The IRS has ordered $2.4 million in penalties against tax preparers in the past two years but has collected only $291,000, raising questions about toleration of poor performance, according to the Associated Press. They say that investigators from the General Accounting Office claim that less than half the penalized preparers paid any fine, and the total collected was just 12 percent of the amount due." My point is that while most practitioners are very competent and are staying abreast of changes in the tax rules, there will always be a few bad apples. No amount of registration will change that: it will only create more wasteful government programs for taxpayers to fund.Enforce the rules on the books now and collect the amounts owed under the current program before you begin thinking about new programs. ~ aea (1/20/2004)

except for CPA's & enrolled agents. ~ Frederick Quenzer (1/20/2004)

First of all, let's keep the ethics and licensing separate, they are TWO DIFFERENT issues. With all the recent scandals surrounding the Big Four and First of all, let's keep the ethics and licensing separate, they are TWO DIFFERENT issues. With all the recent scandals surrounding the Big Four and the other so called "Ethical Licensed" individuals, a test or license means nothing as far as being an honest professional. Only IRS auditing of tax firms and the firm's own development of quality control will level that playing field. Secondly, I've been in the business for over ten years, seven of those working for CPA's. Now I'm in business for myself. In addition, to my earning my four year accounting degree, I've proven my competency and skills to my clients many times over. If you want me to prove it to you, then bring on the testing and licensing. It just means now I have incurred an extra cost. If my paying for getting licensed makes other CPA's happy about "leveling the playing field" then more power to them. For me it doesn't change a damn thing. I too, in my experience, have seen and cleaned up my share of other preparers' incompetence and gross negligence. Not all were Mom & Pop's Tax Service, some were CPA's. I think the heart of this matter is a step in the right direction. I just don't think that a test is the solution to all the problems with such a wide variety of issues: let's get all the facts first. ~ Albert Silguero (1/20/2004)

Good idea - same requirements for all - no grandfathering ~ Don Campfield (1/20/2004)

Long needed. Must put teeth in enforcement. As an Enrolled Agent and and ERO, I receive returns regularly that have been prepared by unsigned individuals that are incorrect. Some simply cost the taxpayer money as prepared, and others actually could force the taxpayer into a fraud status if filed as given to me. Since many more are being mailed than being filed electronically, I wonder how much it is costing the government, both federal and state? The licensing issue would have to have some form of action on the taxpayer who files a return prepared by someone for pay and not signed by that preparer. The end result is often a client who is doubtful of the law, when I tell him/her the return should not be filed. Carefully worded and enforced licensing could help everyone who is trying to be honest. ~ Frank Whidden EA (1/20/2004)

Yes for those not already licensed such as CPA,s and enrolled agents. ~ Susan Franks (1/20/2004)

Forget State Licencing, make it one federal database Why do we have to be certified in each state? Make it one registration, national, and get it over with. I'm sick of having to go through hoops in each individual state to be able to practice there. ~ Roberta Eaves (1/20/2004)

Licensing with standards is good for all of us. Licensing with standards comparable to that required of Enrolled Agents (already nationally licensed) is a must. It will give notice to the public of a better choice and establishes a bar of acheivement and competence that will weed out the unqualified. It will be better for the public and it will be better for all of us who truly desire to grow professionally in a community of professionals. ~ Leon (1/20/2004)

please no more red tape. the will always be good and bad preparers with or withour license ~ linda stinson (1/20/2004)

Unlicensed preparers hurt us all In spite of statewide (CA) efforts to stop unlicensed tax preparers, we still hear "my neighbor has Turbo Tax and she's doing my return for me". There are no teeth in the state's requirements and no enforcement. Maybe national will clamp down some more. ~ Cindy I. Szerlip (1/20/2004)

Should be required for Purchase of Multi-Return Software also...slice out all non-licensed prep's. Great idea that will help us to level the playing field between those that are required to obtain CPE's and are licensed as CPA's, EA's, CFP's, and Atty's. Those of the above that practice in the tax area should then be required to have the same number of hours in tax cpe. All non-licensed parties would then be required to join a professional org that likewise requires the same number of tax cpe's. Make all preparers maintain this level of tax cpe's. No tax software that allows multi-preps would then be allowed to be sold to non-licensed preparers---this will level the ridiculous playing field that we now encounter in which any shmo being able to charge for preparing taxes without the professional knowledge and overhead costs that the rest of us have....and we can help protect the public from harm... ~ Eric P, CPA (1/20/2004)

Being professional has certain obligations. Registration and recognition are key identifiers. Integrity, ethics and tax knowledge are important ingredients for a tax professional. Testing is one way to qualify. Learning from those qualified is another. However, the individual tax preparer must acknowledge his or her participation in the process and accept responsibilty for their work. Those that do the work and do not own up to it are not professional and do not deserve the right to circumvent the system. Penalties should be sever for doing so. Circular 230 has given guidance to those so engaged and can be used to enforce existing licensees. Expanding, formally including all preparers, Circular 230 to anyone preparing a tax return for a third party will enable the IRS to provide the necessary oversight of the process. ERO's are the new breed to come under a separate set of rules and the IRS can oversee for proper tax preparation, filing, and compliance. Keeping the tax preparation and filing work within specific guidelines is necessary and fiscally responsible. To ensure the public of fair and competent preparers is to every preparers benefit and definitely for the public good. ~ Dan Setters (1/20/2004)

For those not covered by Cirular 230 and there shold not be any grandfathering. people who are practicing need the regulations under circular 230 ands then they would be punished and guided by strong principles. They should also have to undergo CPE requirements and pass a test like the EA's. ~ Howard Bookbinder (1/20/2004)

No to Licensing I'm an Enrolled Agent I took the time to prepare for and pass the EA exam. I do not support licensing after a quickie, half-ass "workshop" or minimal requirement. The client will have an even more difficult time of recognizing Te Quality from The Crap ~ laura (1/20/2004)

Oregon Licenses Preparers/Consultants Oregon has licensed tax preparers and consultants for years. It improved the professionalism of the H&R Block prepares tremondously. In order to prepare taxes in Oregon you must be an attorney, CPA, or a licensed prepare or consultant. A preparer must work for a consultant for a period of 2 years before and take an additional exam in order to work without supervision. It has also had the unintended side effect of placing some controls on tax scams in the state. Oregon has one more method to go after scam promoters if they are not licensed in that state. There is also a continuing education requirement component as well. ~ Richard Lukens (1/20/2004)

National Licensing and Registration for Practitoners Practitioner should be registered with qualification requirement, e.g. CPA, PA, Registered Examiner ~ DIKESH (1/20/2004)

Redondency in CA In CA we are already required to be licensed and bonded renewable every single year. ~ Chad DeWitt (1/20/2004)

Re: Licencing Tax Practitioners I could really give an answer to this question, if I had more detail on the reason. If you have any information which could help in my honest opinon, please email me. Until then, I opinion sticks. ~ Shante' A Hill Ali (1/20/2004)

It is about time - people that cut hair & paint nails have been licensed for years but any idiot can open a tax practice. Require professional certif It is about time - people that cut hair & paint nails have been licensed for years but any idiot can open a tax practice. Require professional certification such as Attorney, CPA, or EA, no one else has any business doing income taxes! Can't expect the equivelent of a CPA exam, but the EA exam is not that hard and the CPE should be manditory! ~ Douglas Dutton CPA (1/20/2004)

Need to add tax related CPE requirement for all who practice in "tax" as well. As it is today, many CPA's meet their annual CPE requirements with other than tax related education. This is fine if they do not have a tax component to their practice. However most do have "tax" as a major element and yet they do little to maintain their tax competency. If you sign/review a return you should be required to have current tax CPE. ~ Stephen Wehner (1/20/2004)

LICENSING IS NOT A TOTALLY BAD THING I've been reading comments written. And I have to agree, why should CPA's and Attorneys be exempt, you run across several that don't have a clue what they are doing. I'm a true believer that experience is valuable. I'm not a CPA or EA and have been preparing taxes for 33 years. 28 of those under the employment of a CPA. I do think that CPE should be required before licensing. I'm not good at testing but I read and keep up and have never had a problem. I find myself cleaning up CPA's messes more and more. So let's just continue with CPE and forget licensing. Anyone can obtain a license but knowledge, well that's another thing! ~ CATHY E. PARKER (1/20/2004)

CPE Requirement Licensing should be required but like the 2848 form - enrolled agents, attorneys and CPAs should be licensed automatically. THe right to practice (prepare returns) would be theirs to lose. To have teeth - the IRS would have to pursue unlicensed preparers with passion. ~ Johnny Curran (1/20/2004)

LICENSE ALL TAX PRACTITIONERS. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF INCOMPETENTS GIVING THE ACCOUNTING PROFESSION A BAD NAME. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET RID OF THESE IDIOTS AND LICENSE TAX PREPARERS. I DO THINK CPAS, ATTORNEYS AND ENROLLED AGENTS SHOULD BE EXEMPT. CPE SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ALL TAX PRACTITIONS. ~ JOHN GOODMAN (1/20/2004)

All conform to EA requirements. Attorneys have WAY less CPE requirements than others. None in tax. I too have tried to clean up after people who have been practicing for 20 years or more. Many do not keep up, or are too old to focus and remember or can't read the "fine print". Clients do not know the difference or understand why the rates charged by some practitioners need to be higher (classes, testing and licensing). This will even the playing field - sort of like not working "under the table". ~ Margaret Matthews CPA (1/20/2004)

Grandfather experienced. No fee but CEU required. ~ ROBERT J JOSEPH (1/20/2004)

No to licensing! What about individuals that do their own return? Do they need a license? Before long, everyone will have to be licensed and given a number before they can work! ~ S Rowley (1/20/2004)

This is a hard question! I do not care for the idea of an additional level of licensing (whether for EA's, CPA's, PA's or other already licensed professionals). However, the powers granted to the Office of Professional Responsibility are restricted to "practice" before the IRS, which does not include income tax preparation. A simple change of definition of "practice" as defined in Circular 230 may be sufficient to grant enough power to the OPR to provide the necessary oversight of paid preparers without requiring licensing per se. I do believe that anyone signing as a paid preparer should be held responsible for intentional or negligent fraudulently prepared returns. Errors and omissions will occur (at least for those of us who are human) and should be corrected for the client free of charge by the preparer. I agree with others who have said that, if licensing were required, it should NOT exclude CPA's, EA's, etc. How would such licensing be administered? What penalties would be associated with preparing returns without a license. Again, I have to agree with others that (if required by law) licensing and enforcement should be administered by the states whenever possible. ~ Kevin R. Buza, CPA (1/20/2004)

IRS agrents should also be required to prove a competency in the regulations. I think regulation of the field is a good idea. But I also think that the IRS agents that provide "advice" to practitioners should also have to demonstrate a competency to the general public. ~ Beverly Tiller (1/20/2004)

Licenseing Thats not going to do any good. People who sign returns are not the trouble. It's the "friends" who don't sign, that don't know the laws and/or are shady. No body should be exempted. Just make everyone that prepare a return, whether or not they are paid, sign it. and make it a fine or penalty for not sign and for filing such return. ~ Cliff Ketchum (1/20/2004)

Exempt CPA's, but require all others to take CPE and difficult tests prior to licensing There are too many incompetent people preparing tax returns, and its time that they be put out of business, and face stiff penalties. ~ David Lapp, CPA (1/20/2004)

Following California and ORegon's Lead As both California and Oregon have done, non-CPA, non-EA, non-Attorney tax practitioners are either registered (CA) or licensed (OR). Why practitioners are afraid of a registration beats me. These two systems have worked successfully for a number of years. California is now putting teeth in their law for violators. I strongly support such a registration. ~ Steve Desdier (1/20/2004)

THIS WILL BE A WAY THE FEDS CAN CHARGE US A FEE? ~ Otto Vernacchio (1/20/2004)

Register the Tax Preparer regardless of their designation but enforce Tax Updates in their CPE cours A lot of CPA's and EA's do not keep uptodate with tax changes because they are too saving minded and they will not take more courses than they have too, so if a CPA take hisCPE in FASB subjects he neglect the Tax and an EA can take his CPE in Learnning how to run his new tax software,So my opinion is that the access should not be a Hard one but (you do not need much for 1040EZ)but if you stay in the profession your clients deserve that you will be up to date with the tax law regardless of what test you pass in the past, So if the IRS like to control they should control better the CPE Courses and make sure that every preparer really take Tax Subjects other wise limit them to 1040EZ and 1040A for example. Thank You for reading. ~ Yaron Yehudai (1/20/2004)

Licensing is a bad idea in the face of Tax Simplification & individual autonomy The various tax simplification legislations should have made tax preparation easier. The avearage person is suppose to be able to do this. If one cannot handle one's own tax preparation, one should be free to decide what assistance to seek (Mom, Dad, Uncle Bob, Tax Factory, Professional Practitioner vs. Educated Tax Practitioner, etc.). I agree that license does not generally equal competence. Every tax return requires a different level of sophistication. If you would prefer to get your mergers and acquisition advice from the Tax Factory, LLC then help yourself. Less regulation and more competition is better in this area. Leave things as they are. However, if you are going to alter things, make sure it is based on tax education and tax competence and not some general license to practice law, accounting or some other "tax related" profession. ~ MAXWELL DUNCAN, EA, MST, JD, LLM TAX (1/20/2004)

Licensing Think about it. Every time the government has added to our reporting requirements we complain. Now we want more goverment. Practicing in California, as I do, will mean that Calififornia will want to have their own method of licensing. I would rather have a root canal. Educate the public and forgat the licensing. ~ James McGowan (1/20/2004)

Licensing is a bad idea in the face of Tax Simplification & individual autonomy The various tax simplification legislations should have made tax preparation easier. The avearage person is suppose to be able to do this. If one cannot handle one's own tax preparation, one should be free to decide what assistance to seek (Mom, Dad, Uncle Bob, Tax Factory, Professional Practitioner vs. Educated Tax Practitioner, etc.). I agree that license does not generally equal competence. Every tax return requires a different level of sophistication. If you would prefer to get your mergers and acquisition advice from the Tax Factory, LLC then help yourself. Less regulation and more competition is better in this area. Leave things as they are. However, if you are going to alter things, make sure it is based on tax education and tax competence and not some general license to practice law, accounting or some other "tax related" profession. ~ MAXWELL DUNCAN, MST,JD,LLM TAX (1/20/2004)

TRUE 100% This is true 100%. The most small and lessris professions has a license systment. We need one! ~ Luis Parra (1/20/2004)

UNIFORM STANDARDS I'm tired of having to compete with "professionals" who are not held to any ethical standards or professional conduct. In most states a dog groomer needs to be licensed, why not a tax professional? ~ Peter Azzarello CPA (1/20/2004)

Licensing is overdue A program similar to Enrolled Agency should be established for professionals that work only with individual returns. In a sense a 2-tiered Enrolled Agent program. Only those professionals who are properly credentialed thru the 2-tiered program should be allowed to use electronic filing services. Market conditions would then drive most practitioners into the program. The very small tax practice could continue unregulated if they chose not to be involved with electronic tax filing. ~ Kenneth Shirk (1/20/2004)

Licensing Tax Preparers-would those with over 25 years preparing returns need to be licensed? How much would many years of experience & education count in a licensing procedure? ~ GORDON AMGOTT (1/20/2004)

Waiver for experience and education should be considered. I think that licensing and registration is great. All professionals should be license for protection of the consumer. Special consideration should be given to tax professionals that have been in practice for over five years and who maintained professional education requirements or has obtain a professional designation. Examinations if required, should be waived for these individuals.. ~ Richard De Jesus (1/20/2004)

licensing is absolutely necessary i believe that licensing tax preparers is necessary to curb the abuse and to give the individual assurance that the preparer knows what they are doing. i am not so sure that even cpas, attorneys, other professionals should be exempt. while we are required by only accept work for which we are qualified, i cannot even begin to say how many times i have met a cpa or attorney that has just enough knowledge to be dangerous and they don't know that they do not have the knowledge required to prepar more complicated returns. if the cpa exam and the law bar required testing of tax law then they could be exempt. ~ kathy scott (1/20/2004)

Please, no more regulation! While the intent of registering all tax preparers might sound like a good idea, I wonder if the benefit will be justified by the results and the cost. How do you regulate an industry with so many self-preparers. Who would do the regulating and how much would it cost us in taxpayer dollars? Are'nt many preparers who are not competent weeded out naturally as their clients seek more qualified help? ~ Farrell Steiner (1/20/2004)

To License or Not to License Somewhat SHAKESPERING. I am already registered with the IRS with my prationeers ID as well as with my CAF number for those clients that I hold thier POA. I believe ALL practioners should be "REGISTERED/LICENSED" that includes the CPA'S the ATTY'S as well as the EA'S none of these designations have an exemplerary record. More importantley what are the consequences that you invision from this action? Are they punitive? Monetary? Who judges the clients information as to it being factual, the IRS? They can't even give simple instruction consistantly. Although I voted to license/register practioners I feel that its mandatory that before you promote this that you have ALL of the issues addressed with areas of appeal. ~ Leonard Moniz (1/20/2004)

Let's even the playing field CPA's have to provide for CPE and are held to a higher plane. Let's license and get the uninformed out of the industry. By licensing the tax collections should go up, substantially, and everyone else's tax burden will have a chance of being reduced. I personally am tired of being taxed while others play the underground game, in part, because their preparers help prepare bogus returns. Make em play by the same rules as the ethical ones. ~ Jeff Graham (1/20/2004)

Professionals are presentaly licensed. All other prepairers should be licensed ~ Robert Mizer CPA (1/20/2004)

Tax Preparers must be licensed! I have seen some very inaccurate and fraudelent tax returns prepared by some tax preparers. If they were licensed and required to take continuing education maybe they would be more careful with the public's information and accuracy in filing the tax return. What profession that deals with the public does not have guidelines and regulations? If they are legitimate, I'm sure they'll agree. ~ LINDA NICOLOSI (1/20/2004)

Licensing, as always, restricts entry into the field. We can charge more. Yes, anything for a buck. Take a look around the community at people who are licensed-plumbers, doctors, attorneys-to name a few. Do all doctors, lawyers, and plumbers know what they are doing? Of course not, it only means that they can charge more money because the competition is restricted. Licensing tax practitioners would benefit my bank account but not the profession. My conscience says no. ~ Larry Crawford (1/20/2004)

Just what we need: More government control! I've been a CPA for 9 years and have never actually done a paid tax return, but as a government auditor, my humble but accurate opinion is that regulating tax preparers will only add to the cost of legitimate preparers. If a client pays someone to do a return and they do it wrong, then we have a civil matter between them. It doesn't matter if you are a CPA or EA (which I know very little about), or a high school dropout, let the free market determine how many returns you get paid for. Also, what about people that just help prepare 1040A or even EZ for $25? Are we going to make them take 20 hrs. of CPE each year and pay $100/yr in fees? ~ Ron Hickman, CFE, CPA (1/20/2004)

I believe that all non licensed professionals other than CPA's, EA's and Lawyers should be licensed in order to protect the public. I believe that all non licensed professionals other than CPA's, EA's and Lawyers should be licensed in order to protect the public. ~ MICHAEL BEKAS (1/20/2004)

NO MORE GOV'T REGULATIONS THE LESS GOV'T INTERVENTION THE BETTER - IF WE DO ANY LICENSES IT SHOULD NOT BE REGULATED BY THE GOV'T ~ RYAN WILLOUGHBY (1/20/2004)

Yes to Liscensing Testing, liscensing and periodic training an renewal are all reasonable requirements as long as the governments continue to unnecessarily complicate the tax codes. Not all preparers need this, but all returns prepared commercially need at least to be reviewed by a liscensee. ~ John Bridgers (1/20/2004)

No I'm already registered because I do e-file. the people that don't sign the 1040 are still not going to sign. All that it will do is add some more p No I'm already registered because I do e-file. the people that don't sign the 1040 are still not going to sign. All that it will do is add some more paperwork and fees to an already burdened process. ~ John F. Brancato Sr. (1/20/2004)

exempt cpa's atty's and enrolled agents from the licensing. all others should be licensed. ~ lloyd levidow (1/20/2004)

Yes to Licensing. EAs & CPAs are already licensed. Any others should be required to pass an exam. ~ David W. Quadrozzi (1/20/2004)

All should be licensed. Unlicensed preparers should be tested. ~ Mitchell Beckerman (1/20/2004)

Meaningful License should be required of all preparers. A license structure that is classified by level of education/experience/state liscensure should be utilized. These qualifications should be published to the public if for nothing more than consumer disclosure. All paid preparers should be licensed in this fashion without exception. Failure to register and disclose should be enforced by the IRS as well as habitual faiure to exercise due professional care. ~ Leonard M. Cusano (1/20/2004)

Some licensing needed Either a state or federal license should be required since taxpayers assume that there is such a requirement. ~ Suzanne M. Crews (1/20/2004)

Exempt already licensed professionals. Part of the reason for licensing is ethics and accountability. Previously licensed professionals already have accountability and are registered with the IRS. ~ Susan (1/20/2004)

Licensing Tax Preparers Yes, license. Maybe it might eliminate just anyone trying to complete tax returns. ~ Cathy B Gauthier, CPA (1/20/2004)

Will do little. Licensing will do little to prevent mistakes and errors. Unfortunately, the IRS cannot monitor every person that prepares tax returns. This is especially true if the preparer does not sign the return, e.g. one that does returns for family members at no charge. The responsibility falls upon the preparer, professional or otherwise. ~ Robert Dunbar (1/20/2004)

Lets have another PCAOB to restrict the field. Then the government will be doing audits and taxes. ~ James Marshall (1/20/2004)

No Additional Licensing Requirement We don't need any additional licensing requirements! Licensing usually involves additional costs. When our clients are already actively courted by income tax self-preparation solutions, would our competitive pricing efforts prove profitable? Any additional licensing requirements should apply to ALL tax preparers (No Exceptions). Our firm spends a great deal of time cleaning up after predecessor tax preparers (CPA's, EA's, Atty's equally). ~ Jon (1/20/2004)

Exempt CPA,EA and Atty Exempt CPA,EA and Atty ~ Marlissa Phillips (1/20/2004)

Good Idea... Personally I feel its a good idea to have tax practitioners and anybody else preparing tax returns licenced and registered. I personally feel they should be covered under the sane rules as provided by Circular 230 that the CPA's and EA's must follow. I also feel they should be required to take some type of examination or be degreeded to provide some assurance of competancy. Also, they MUST also complete CPE courses (25 Hours Min.) to continue to be registered. As for who should control this function, I feel it should be the IRS. This is their function and not that of the states and their accountancy boards. For one thing the state accountancy boards are controlled by the AICPA and they have their own agenda, that only CPA's should be duing this work period. There are some really bad CPA's and EA's out there who should be tared and feathered for some of their screw ups. ~ Robert Park (1/20/2004)

requirement for those not already registered or licensed with their current state ~ Carolyn Richtsmeier (1/20/2004)

No, Licensing will not prevent "free lance" preparers that are not qualified. . ~ Don (1/20/2004)

CPA's , Attorney's and tax preparers should be licensed I have dealt with CPA,Tax Attorneys and Franchised Tax Preparers in my 32 years of involvement with Tax Preparation who's work said they had not opened a tax manual in years!! YES, they and all tax preparers should be licensed. EA's get tested and have to prove their knowledge on a regular basis. They also have to take at least 72 credit hours of study in three year increments.My opinion is that everyone should have to meet this criteria to stay in the tax prep business. ~ Beverly Boggs-Marshall (1/20/2004)

Another way to collect tax from the law abiding professionals When I passed the EA exam on the first sitting, this was all you had to do to be enrolled for life. Then the powers that be decided that we should pay a fee every three years to remain enrolled. We were required to take so many continuing education hours in addition to the fee. Any Tax Professional worth his salt took the CE hours anyway before the requirement. Having been in active practice for 40 years and seeing the regulations put in place by the state and federal governments, nothing has prevented the ill-trained and unprofessional tax preparers from filing taxes. All of the regulations have been motivated by jealous CPA's and government officials desiring additional tax revenue. Why the CPA's feel threatened by the educated and professional public accountant is hard to comprehend. They have a tarnished image since Enron that was not caused by the competion of the public accountant but by their own greed. Not every individual needs a CPA to file their tax returns. Many of them can not afford the high fees of the CPA. Many of the ones that seek professional help just do not understand all the many unintelligible forms needed to file simple wage earner taxes. ~ Doris Deaver-Williams (1/20/2004)

Yes! It's about time. I just cleaned up a return filed by Jackson-Halfwit. Yes! It's about time. I just cleaned up a return filed by Jackson-Halfwit. ~ Van Auld (1/20/2004)

Agree with earlier comments about excluding CPA's I have come across plenty who are less talented in many respects than experienced Accountants. Agree with earlier comments about excluding CPA's I have come across plenty who are less talented in many respects than experienced Accountants. ~ Robert Fremder (1/20/2004)

something else for the government to enact and be enept at. I am for somthing like this to stop the weekend warrior types who screw up more than they do not. However, this is likely to become one more regulation that the small firms will be required to comply with while the large firms (H&R, Jackson, India firm, etc) will bypass and/or be exempt from. The intent is good but misleading. There are already enough laws on the books to deal with the issue. Why not enforce compliance? That might be the best place to start. ~ Andrew Archer (1/20/2004)

another license... another license fee? If this will require another license fee, it is a questionable idea. If it requires another level of CPE reporting hours, it is a questionable idea. After paying licensing fees to the state, AICPA, and state CPA society, the fees add up to a considerable amount. After attending over 60 hours of CPE per year (and having to report it), the expense and the time required to stay licensed is considerable. ~ Bobby W. Brown, CPA, ATTY (1/20/2004)

Response to Alice The Licensing would apply to paid preparers, not family members helping out. That would be the equivalent of someone doing it themselves. License, yes. It would be a step towards eliminating the fly-by-night operations. ~ James M. Sosinski, CPA (1/20/2004)

License Tax Preparers I think there should be a better way to track who is preparing tax returns for pay! If licensing, make continuing education a requirement for renewal ~ Tammie Westcott (1/20/2004)

Why exempt CPA's?? I've ran across plenty of CPA's that didn't know what they were talking about! ~ Jack Van Hooser (1/20/2004)

All preparers including CPA's and attorneys should pass EA test. I totally agree that not all CPA's and attorneys are qualified to prepare tax returns. I too have corrected many errors made by these assumed experts. If all preparers were required to pass the EA test and follow the continuing education requirements of EA's there would be a little more accountability. This would not involve additional fees for those of us already meeting those requirements. There should absolutely be some standards, especially to raise the standard at the "franchise outlets". Many of those preparers have no accounting training and don't understand the complex tax laws. I'm amazes at how many people flock to those places and pay outrageous prices for substandard work. Let's raise the bar!! ~ Linda Beers, EA, ATP (1/20/2004)

Licensing will not oslve problem. Licensing will not eliminate the bad preparers and also now so many small preparers do their own electronically. Licensing will probably have a loophole while adding to the confusion and will just add to more government layers and control of our lives. We nned more simplicity whether it is simpflying the tax code or what. We need to remember--KISS (keep it simple, stupid)! ~ Joan Whitley (1/20/2004)

no license Absolutely not! Filing tax is the citizen's obligation: he/she should have anyone they want fill it out -cousin, aunt, neighbor - of their choice may not be a CPA but can certainly accurately complete a 1040 w/Schedule A. Another license for me means higher cost to the taxpayer and still does not ensure competence or accuracy. ~ Alice Freeland (1/20/2004)

Licensing is good for all! I agree that licensing should be done. Especially for the "Come work for us and we will train you". I do not think that anyone should be exempt from the requirement except for EA's. There are masses of attorneys and CPA's who really don't know how to do taxes. Just depends on what area you are working in at your firm. If you are going to prepare taxes, then you should demonstrate that you know what you are doing. The CPA exam was not overly laden with emphasis on personal taxation as I am sure the BAR exam isn't. The only exemption should be given to EA's. They are the only group who have taken a test to prove knowledge in TAXATION. Attorneys and CPA's have demonstrated knowledge in law and accounting. The real question: Would you as a client, want an attorney whose primary practice is handling divorce cases or a CPA whose primary responsibility is conducting audits, to receive an exemption just because they are licensed as a CPA or a member of the BAR. I have never been convinced that a CPA license or BAR membership automatically makes a person a competent tax preparer. Disclaimer: I am not an EA. ~ Tom Petri (1/20/2004)

A great idea if it is NOT run by the IRS. I think most competent tax professionals would have no problem with the IDEA of a national license. The devil is in the details. I have people working for me who have been doing taxes for 25 to 35 years and who could easily pass the EA exam (some have) but they have chosen NOT to become Enrolled Agents because they do NOT want to be licensed and controlled by the IRS. California, where I practice, already has a licensing program which exempts EAs, CPAs, and Attorneys. It forces preparers to re-hone their skills each year and to study the changes in the law. Should attorneys be exempt? Should CPAs be exempt? Unless they have a tax specialty, I am not convinced that either should be. I have seen excellent returns prepared by CPAs and I have seen crappy ones. After all, taxation is only one part of the CPA exam. And an attorney who does criminal work has no more business preparing taxes for hire than does my dog. Finally, how do you deal with the sub-contracting of preparation work. Many CPAs bring in temporary workers to do the actual return preparation in the back room. Should they be allowed to use unlicensed people? I think not. As has been pointed out on other posts, there are already laws on the books to deal with fraudulent preparers, but incompetency can be a more difficult thing to guage. Preparers who "make up" deductions to get big refunds for their clients should be in jail, but everyone makes an occasional mistake or has a bad day. The intrusion of the IRS into preparation businesses via the "licensing" of electronic filing already gives them the power of life and death over a business. Try being in the this business in the future without being able to submit electronically. Licensing should be separated from the IRS and would be best done by an independent industry group as it is in California - NOT by a bureaucracy that can impose its narrow standards of what is proper and improper ways to treat laws which have yet to be interpreted by the courts. ~ Brooks Griffin (1/20/2004)

National Licensing is good as long as it is done right. If National licensing comes to pass, all tax practitioners including CPA's, EA's, attorney's, and general practitioners should have to be licensed. Such a plan would also need to consider whether licensing in certain areas is required. To this point, some practitioners don't focus on business entities while others may not be well-versed in personal income taxes. This needs to be contemplated in any such licensing plan. ~ Kirk Mecum (1/20/2004)

Register the unlicensed and enforce the rules of those already licensed ~ Sharon McClellan (1/20/2004)

Any practitioner that efiles is already registered with the IRS, and evaluated. ~ Ronald Van Ausdal (1/20/2004)

National Licensing How many times does "Money" mag put out an article showing 50 different preparers (incl CPA's/EA & others) getting 50 different answers to 1 tax return. Do they all got marked with an A or 100 ??? for testing purposes. All returns are not equal, nor are preparers. This is has gotten way out of hand (Tax code). But no one wants to address it, like many other issues the gov't has their hand in. Except when it hits them. ~ clark (1/20/2004)

CPTx to EA to CPA Yes, licensing is a good idea. I suggest using existing programs as part of the licensing process. The CPTx program would be a good starting point. Maintaining the CPTx, EA, and CPA designations require continuing education. Those organizations could continue to offer training and monitor credits earned. This would mean less direct government oversight/involvement. ~ Charles Stack (1/20/2004)

Licensing to, what end? Without adding onerous levels of government control it seems pointless. Government licensing has done such a good job of improving driver safety, HAH! ~ L Blair (1/20/2004)

Would be a good idea but,as everything else they would stomp on the little guy... I have been preparing taxes for 21 years and have never been required to have a license.If this does come into effect,why exempt CPA's? I have personally amended many returns that CPA's have filed erronousely.In turn they caused tax payers a lot of money they didn't owe.If you ask me, they should be more careful of who they give CPA license to, and follow up on them to make sure that they are updated on the tax laws instead of doing things they have for 30 years or more. ~ JD Blackwell (1/20/2004)

Exempt cpas & eas! But just how challenging would the licensing requirements be? someone commented that there are plenty of inept cpas and eas out there, shoud require licensing of these folks if ever had a preparer penalty. ~ Monica Norton (1/20/2004)

exempt CPA's & Atty's? Just because a person is a CPA or an attorney, it does not mean they automatically know anything about taxation. A CPA is trained in accounting and an Attorney in law. Unless, they have taken additional education, they don't know anymore about taxation than the man on the street. We should all have to be licensed. ~ barbara (1/20/2004)

License ALL NON-professionls!!!Especially, the "FAST TAX" places. Licensing all NON-professionls WILL weed out SOME incompetents. Individuals who prepare their own will NOT be affected,just as if they choose to act as their own attorney. ~ Carol Berry (1/20/2004)

exempt thoses already licensed if they actually prepare tax returns on a regular active basis. exempt thoses already licensed if they actually prepare tax returns on a regular active basis. ~ scott crawford (1/20/2004)

License License for non CPA, EA. ~ Ephrain Harris (1/20/2004)

exempt active cpa's and ea's and atty. ~ donald bond (1/20/2004)

Not more government layers, please. The IRS already has sanctions in place to help identify and weed out the incompetent tax preparers. Most of my clients care only that I stand behind my work,if I make an error I pay the penalty/interest (not the tax),and they like the fact that I'm a CPA. I always do part of my CPE in tax forums/seminars.I have worked with a woman for five years who is a fantastic tax preparer, but has no credentials. ~ Barbara J. Pederson, CPA (1/20/2004)

Do not exempt CPAs or EAs Require all applicants to complete a minimum number of hours in taxation. Many CPAs do not keep current on taxation and taxpayers are being misled into believing a CPA creditial automatically means compentence in taxation. George Caesar Enrolled Agent ~ George Caesar (1/20/2004)

Why would IRS want to do this? You can bet that IRS's motivation is for some self serving reason. They are not trying to make things better for the taxpayer or the tax preparer. ~ Ronald C Abler (1/19/2004)

An individual can prepare his own tax return himself. what will happen after licensing? At present individuals can prepare and file their own tax returns. After licensing, everybody will have to go through a licensed professional. The basic right to file your own tax return can not exist with licensing. after licensing if an individual is still allowed to file his or her return, then professionals with or without licensing will prepare the return and will not sign. I guess all the problems will be solved. ~ Mohammad Khan (1/19/2004)

must be more tax simplification? 30 years too late. Now the idea is absurd-more fees, complexity, bureaucacy, etc. ~ George Tibbetts (1/19/2004)

Good idea, but why not just inforce the laws now on the books. It is a good idea, but without enforcement, nothing is going to work, no matter how much testing is done. Most preparers can study to pass a test, but for some reason can't apply whats learned in practice. The answer may be to have all unlicenced preparers, the ones not EA's, CPA's or Tax Attorney's, and anyone not a licenced CPA or Tax Attroney, must retake the EA or similar exam every two years. ~ J. Slough (1/19/2004)

Too much regulation already. And why exempt CPA's? As a CPA, I've seen plenty of inept CPA tax preparers. Too much regulation already. And why exempt CPA's? As a CPA, I've seen plenty of inept CPA tax preparers. ~ Charles Davis (1/19/2004)

Enough red tape already. If a license is required no exclusions. Unless grandfather rights. Taxes is difficult enough and paperwork intensive enough to not need a license. The work keeps people away from it. Besides many do not sign returns so licensing would add more non signers. I would not mind if it was a one shot deal with no yearly fees. I gave up real estate license. years ago. More importantly I just let my Insurance license go to not be bothered with more continuing ed. More paperwork ~ Joe Ligeri (1/19/2004)

Can't pass CPA exam, than try EA, if you can't do that, you are incompetent to practice tax ~ S. Basilyan, CPA (1/19/2004)

Yes, but exempt EA's and CPA's with active licenses in public accounting. ~ Peter Lavdas (1/19/2004)

Licensing tax preparers Yes, exempt EA's and CPA's with active licenses in public accounting. ~ Peter Lavdas (1/19/2004)

If only this solved all of the paid preparer problems. I like the idea of licensing. I recognize that until every taxpayer who pays for return preparation understands that the preparer must sign the return, we will still have a problem. Those "preparers" who look at tax season as an opportunity to make some "extra money" without any consideration for the responsibilty will continue to crank out $50 returns that they do not sign. ~ Jan Dillaha (1/19/2004)

Exempt EA's I am an EA, and I do believe that some sort of national licensing should be enacted. Since most state's CPA exams only cover a small part for taxation, I feel that at least newly licensed CPAs should take an exam similiar to the EA exam. I am not sure, what should be done with seasoned CPA's as far as an additional exam. There is good and bad in all walks of life and a national licensing of some sort will reduce the number of incompetent people preparing returns. I feel that newly licensed CPA's and unlicensed tax preparer show be tested on their knowledge of taxation in order to prepare returns. ~ Lee Aasen (1/19/2004)

Exempt EA, CPA, ATTY EA's CPA's & Attorney's should be exempted. Unlicensed pactitioners should be allowed only to prepare 1040 EZ and 1040 with schedule A only. ~ Ted Floyd, CPA (1/19/2004)

No National Licensing This is a function that should be retained by the states. There is no reason to have an additional Federal beaurocratic overlay in addition to the state boards of accountancy. ~ Thomas T. Reid, CPA (1/19/2004)

Yes. Exempt EA's and CPA's. ~ Ted Hallows (1/19/2004)

A License Sounds Great As a practicing enrolled agent, I believe that a NATIONAL licensing program of some sort could eliminate some but not all of the bad eggs. Ideally, the IRS should spend some money advocating CPAs and EAs over amateurs who prepare returns as a part-time job. If the IRS would begin advocating professionals with credentials, the public would be better informed and would be able to make a more cautious choice, as far as a tax preparer is concerned. Theoretically, this could eliminate some of the bad preparers by helping customers choose to go to a professional. ~ Michael Jackson (1/19/2004)

EA's & CPA's I feel that after countless attempts to pass an eleven hour IRS / Treasury test that the passage of the test as enacted by Congress, as a practicing EA, a Federal License is not needed. CPA's are tested by states and currently only gain access to the IRS in presentation cases by the virture of them being licensed by the state. Some form of test should be taken by all CPA's to attest their knowledge of tax law. ~ James B. Carrroll Sr (1/19/2004)

licensing will not get rid of the incompetents. ~ WILLIAM F. RETALLICK, CFE, CPA (1/19/2004)

Simplify the Tax Code and you won't need professional tax preparers. I propose a simple 2-step tax form to end the problem of tax and licensing complexity once and for all. New Form 1040 Ultimate EZ: Line 1: Enter your entire income for the year on this line. Line 2: Issue a check payable to the US Treasury for the amount shown in line 1! Laurence K. Zuckerman, CPA, MS in Taxation ~ Laurence K. Zuckerman (1/19/2004)

Exempt CPA's & Ea Enrolled agents already possess a license issued by the Treasury so our license should be valid. CPAs' on the other should only be exempted if they have demonstrated tax expertise in their exam. Most states only have a minimum amount of tax related material on the cpa exam. Attorneys on the other should never be exempted without taking the required tax exams. I think if an attorney wants to be in the tax field he or she should take the enrolled Agent exam or qualify by getting LLM designation. Many lawyers' complain when someone takes away their admin work but they want to do tax work when they are not qualified. By having a federal licensure program we could prevent many of the fly by nighters that think they know the laws. Anyone can put a tax return together but being knowledgeable about tax law and appying this knowledge to the taxpayers' benefit is totally another story. Last but not, yes federal icensure should be required for all tax practioners. ~ Michael D. Rego, EA,ATA,ATP (1/19/2004)

tax preparers registration I feel tax preparers who are not CPAs or EAs should pass a test to demonstrate ability to prepare returns. They should also be required to acquire a certain number of training hours per year. California is already doing this. There are too many people who are not qualified operating a tax preparation business and giving out erroneous tax advice. I amend many of those returns each year. Client has to pay me for the preparer's incompetence. ~ Sheila Clausen (1/19/2004)

yes for non cpa's cpas are already licensed by the state or states they practice in and are required to complete a specified amount of continuing education each year. i dont think another level of licensing would be necessary. For those tax preparers that are not required to complete any continuing education, i believe licensing would be appropriate. ~ fred (1/19/2004)

Licencing for tax preparers Licensing for this profession should be a must! Far too many returns are prepared by incompetent, poorly trained employees of tax preparation companies in a street corner office 3 months out of the year. Conversely, many preparers are already licensed in some fashion and should be exempted: CPA's & EA's. ~ Maurice L. Deprey, CPA (1/19/2004)

GOOD Idea This is a good idea however, CPA's and EA's should be exempt and by all means attorneys and "fly by niters" should be required to be tested and take continuing professional education. As it stands now virtually anyone can call themselves "Tax Preparer" and be totally abusive to the system and taxpayer. ~ M T O'Roark (1/19/2004)

No additional licensing Eliminate Income Tax. Substitute with Sales Tax. Drop fear of the IRS from the lives of free Americans. ~ Bill Mumford (1/19/2004)

Licensing of tax practioners It is time to license all paid tax practioners and bring about a national standard of education and accountability. The person who cuts your hair is licensed but the person who prepares your taxes is not? It is too easy for fly by niters to setup and shutdown leaving taxpayers stranded and without recourse for bad work. If they had a license to keep up and professional education requirements to maintain then many of these type preparers would seek other ways to swindle the unsuspecting public. When every used carlot and finance company in town are preparing tax returns and "quick loans" it makes you wonder what kind of system do we have and what is their motiviation other than to make a quick buck at the expense of poor working man's lack of knowledge of the system. ~ Lee Jennings (1/19/2004)

exempt CPA's & attorney's ~ Richard F. Ott (1/19/2004)

Licensing does not guarantee competency On the surface licensing appears to be a good idea. However, CPA, Attorney at Law, or EA following one's name, does not guarantee competency in tax return preparation: it means these individuals retained the necessary information long enough to pass the respective tests. If licensing is to come about, all current preparers should be exempt from testing or none should. Perhaps REGISTRATION and required continuing education related to tax matters would be better. ~ G Joy Dunham (1/19/2004)

Yes but exempt CPAs CPAs are already licensed by at the very least one state board. Those who are members of the AICPA adhere to the Statements on Responsibilities in Tax Practice. ~ I. Thomas Ison (1/19/2004)

-already regstered with state bar, US Tax Court, SEC. Too much government already!!! -already regstered with state bar, US Tax Court, SEC. Too much government already!!! ~ Seanne Mc Guinness (1/19/2004)

agree with most except for CPA and attorney's - licensed already. ~ William Alarie (1/19/2004)

Especially Attorneys Many attorneys are my clients & have no idea of the IRS Code. ~ Jack (1/19/2004)

Licensing and Registration of Tax Preparers I am relatively new to the profession, but that in no way means I am incompetent. I take every opportunity to attend tax related conferences and seminars, as well as any other eductional opportunities I can. I invest a lot of time and money into learning my trade. Anyone of you who thinks there is nothing more to learn has no business in the trade. If anyone has to get licensed and registered, then everyone who prepares returns should be required to - there should be no exemptions for ea's or cpa's or anyone else. I know of more than one enrolled agent who is as incompetent as they come and a few cpa's who don't know any more about doing taxes than someone who buys Turbotax. Living in a rural area I fill an important need as nobody wants to drive for miles and miles just to get their taxes done. From returns I've seen that the previous preparer made mistakes on, it is clear that many preparers do not keep up with changing tax laws because the mistakes are made by applying obsolete law or procedure, or they just "run the numbers" and don't spend any time digging around for additional tax savings for their clients - they just rush through the returns cranking out quantity instead of quality. I'm growing my business through word of mouth - if I am incompetent, I'll be out of business in no time. As a small businessman I have enough challenges placed before me regardless of my level of competency. Adding licensing and registration will not root out the "bad apples", what it will accomplish is putting alot of us "mom & pop" businesses out of business so that big business can increase their market share even more. ~ Michael McShane (1/19/2004)

Yes, but exempt CPAs. Yes, but exempt CPAs. ~ Sally T. Spingler (1/19/2004)

Licensing does not root out the bad apples Licensing would not root out the incompetent, the shoddy or the lazy. Licensing does not stop drunk drivers why would anyone think it would stop less than adequate tax preparers. We have a PTIN system in place. Why not use that system to review returns and root out the bad apples? ~ JUDY BROWN (1/19/2004)

National License of Tax preparers This is a good idea but don't exclude any Tax preparer, since all EA's can't do taxes they just studied the test and passed it.Or have an EA exam that just covers 1040 & small business type returns and not Corp.etc returns, these need a CPA not a general practioner. ~ W.M.TUSKE (1/19/2004)

fine for "store front" preparers, not atty's and cpa's. ~ ronald ellman (1/19/2004)

Yes, but exempt attorney's and CPA's. ~ Kay Kruger (1/19/2004)

License Means More Responsibility & Competency I support licensing of tax preparers 100%. However, attorneys, CPAs, & Enrolled Agents should be exempt. I preferred the minimum national license to be Enrolled Agent. If a new level is to be created, then maybe an Individual Tax Preparer license: this licensed preparer will have to go through some training such as education and passing a Uniform Exam similar to the Enrolled Agent Exam administered by the IRS. I have seen many cases where an unlicensed tax preparer doesn't even know the difference and requirements of different filing statuses: this seems small mistake, but the clients can get into a lot more trouble than he or she is aware of. Then, there are many instances where fraudulent deductions were taken (which were not specified or allowed under the Code) just to make the clients happy because he or she was paying too much taxes. Here are a few examples of why I believe licensing of tax preparer would be a win-win situations for everyone involved: 1. Tax Preparer: with more regulations come responsibilities. More responsibilities equals more revenues. 2. Tax Payers: they get a peace of mind that their taxes are being prepared by a competent accountant. They know they are paying the fair share of taxes and never more. 3. IRS: with more competent accountants, less errors will occur. They will save billions of dollars from fraudulent returns, fixing errors, compliance, etc. Now they can free up their resources to catch the real crooks. 4. US government & economies: some tax law changes aimed for the growth of the economies as a whole. When incompetent accountant fails to take a legal deductions or sometimes taken illegal deductions, our National Policy is in jeopardy of failing to stimulate the economy as planned. License means priveleges: and when those priveleges are abused, the IRS can revoke those priveleges. It's more likely that a licensed accountant will do the right thing. A competent accountant will not be afraid to take a legal deduction or doing the right thing for his or her client. Thanks for reading. ~ Billy Vu, EA, MST, MBA (1/19/2004)

already too regulated,too many fees, if license required, state should do it. ~ John Cooney (1/19/2004)

Yes...but for selfish reasons. Selfishly I think it would increase my business cash flow. Practically, I do not. Too many people prepare their returns themselves. ~ William Harris (1/19/2004)

Yes, Maybe use PTIN's Agree, but suggest no fee. Wouldn't want to discourage tax preparers. Maybe upon registration the practioner would be issued their PTIN. Simple way to track preparer's and the returns they prepare. Could also penalize those who prepare returns without a PTIN. DOesn't help for those few who don't sign a preparer. ~ mark Bogdan (1/19/2004)

but, somehow exempt cpa's ~ jerry haralson (1/19/2004)

but, somehow exempt cpa's ~ jerry haralson (1/19/2004)

Things are fine the way they are. Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco, etal., had their taxes prepared by CPAs. Just being a CPA, while indicating professionalism, compentency, honesty, ethical behavior, etc., does not guarantee these characteristics in a tax preparer. Currently, there are many tax preparers out their who have done their work efficiently and correctly for years. To now require a new type of registration and licensing will not help the consumer very much, but it will place a large burden on many Mom & Pop type preparers. Of course, the larger prep services would continue unabated, CPA firms would be able to generate additional business, and the licensing/educational entities would see a rise in their gross incomes. But if that is not enough, take a look at the tax preparation software on the market that is available for consumers and preparers. Frankly, I don't know anyone not using software of some kind to professionally prepared tax returns for clients. Most returns are completed without much trouble and, because of the software, are, on average, consistantly more accurate than returns completed by humans without using the software. If there is a problem with a preparer, please report that person(s) to the local BBB, State Society of CPAs, and the AICPA because we do need to be always vigilant for the bad apples. However, what we don't need is further regulation. One last thing. The majority of CPAs and tax preparers are honest, hard working, ethical people, let's all strive to maintain that type of behavior and speak up when we see wrong-doing in our profession. ~ Rick Bennett (1/19/2004)

NO ADDITIONAL FEES, PLEASE Since I'm already a licensed CPA, registered with the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, a member of the AICPA and the Texas State Society of CPAs, Dallas Chapter, I pay more than my share of registration fees. I also have a PTIN, which was issued by the IRS. Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) Application A paid tax professional may choose to use a PTIN, instead of his or her SSN, on returns that are prepared for clients. If this licensing would merely be an extension of the PTIN (a good idea to protect your SSN anyway), for which there is no additional fee, then I'm okay with it. If this licensing involves any additional reporting requirements or fees, I'm opposed. ~ Georgia Wargetz (1/19/2004)

Good Idea in Theory, But.... Over my years of tax preparation, I have run across return preparers who are inept, irresponsible, and downright dishonest. Obviously, those preparers should not be allowed to touch a tax return. But should we add more layers of bureaucracy to try to police them? Of course not, IRS cannot handle what it has on the plate now! As long as the U.S. tax structure is a quagmire of regulations and rulings, there is no effective way to police tax preparers. ~ Anthony DelVacchio, Jr. (1/19/2004)

IRS can not manage a program of national licensing While I support the concept of national registration/licensing there does not appear to be an entity who can perform that function adequately and correctly. IRS struggles to administer the tax code and finds itself redirecting assets that are better spent on compliance issues. Many practitioners are already licensed by their respective states and the IRS Diretor of Professional Responsibility who continually struggles with exempted registrants who are licensed by their states, CPAs and Attorneys. Whatever office would run the national registration program would have the same kind of problems. Until funds and methodoligy can be developed to coordinate all licenses and registrants, leveling the playing field this type of program will further confuse both the public and those administerin the registration program(s). ~ Rick Oelerich, LPA, EA (1/19/2004)

National licensing of tax preparers As an EA working for a CPA in a reputable firm, I am concerned with the ever increasing number of improperly prepared returns we received from new clients. It seems as though anyone with a CPA designation feels qualified to prepare returns. There are also many tax season only preparers that are not around after the filing season to assist taxpayers with the returns they have prepared. With the increase in available tax preparation software anyone with a computer can prepare a return. Most likely not correct, but prepared and printed nicely. It is becomming more and more difficult for us as a profession to maintain respect for our professional preparation services when any fly-by-night can prepare a return. National licensing is a tremendous undertaking, but one whose time has come. ~ Toni R. Dennis (1/19/2004)

Yes, but exempt CPA'a ???? NOT HARDLY !! I am an accountant, and a darn good one. I practice in a town in Tennessee that is full of CPA's, and MOST of the taxpayer problems have come out of these offices. Nearly ALL of the CPA's do NOT do the hands on work themselves for two main reasons. 1. They view themselves as above such tasks, and hire just the basic bookkeeper or less and 2. They are literally incapible simple bookkeeping and accounting, much less advanced work. They are however very good at giving advise, most of which will get the taxpayer in DEEP TROUBLE with IRS. The sanctity of the CPA is a myth. The infallibility of the CPA is even a bigger myth, and many I know will tell you the same. YES, LICENSE THE CPA's TOO, and let them be first. Today, most could not pass the CPA exam if their life depended on it. ~ Lyle Braae (1/19/2004)

yes and no yes, I think having a national registration is a good idea: however, I do not think a separate license is necessary. ~ meleah ayres (1/19/2004)

GOOD IDEA.. TAX PRACTIONERS ONLY AND E-FILERS.... ~ ALFRED J. FERRARO (1/19/2004)

TAX PREPARER LICENSING ATTORNEYS, CPA'S AND EA'S SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM IT ~ ANDRES W. LOPEZ (1/19/2004)

Preparer License It's not as simple as a license. It will require a law. The government has no right to tell an individual who may or may not prepare his tax return. My ability to properly prepare tax returns is determined by my clients. If I don't do a good job, sooner or later it will show. However, if license are ever required it should be required for all. There are plenty CPA's that don't know anything about tax preparation. Keep the government out of private business in every way and we'll all be better off. ~ James Adcock (1/19/2004)

National Registration for Tax Practitioners I would not object to the registration as long as there is no additional forms or fees. I am already registered and pay a fee with the state in which I have a license. ~ D. Wallo (1/19/2004)

Legitimate preparers should not fear licensing. Licensing tax preparers will help eliminate the unskilled, the temporary, & the criminal element. ~ Alan Phelps (1/19/2004)

follow up to requiring SEE/ TC exam My earlier comments may seem disjointed due to the character counter encouraging sparseness. On further reflection, there should be a minimum threshold for requiring registration, say, ten returns or $X thousand in refunds. A priori, it is impossible to tell how much will be refunded on those 9 returns, but it pre-empts the unlicensed preparer from honestly preparing many kinds of returns and provides further ammunition for the OPR to use against unethical preparers. I disagree with exemptions for current practioners in general. If anything, I favor exemptions for current specialists based on number of journal or CCH/BNA/etc. articles authored, etc. WRT attornies and the TC exam, I intend this to get rid of many, especially those who defend/are tax protesters in tax court. Outside of tax protesters/shelters, I see little to fear from adding a slight layer to the bureaucracy. Yes, the SEE is a very easy test, but I also suggest reforming it or making it multi-tiered. ~ Brian (1/19/2004)

What About Current Regs This is yet another level of regulation that is not necessary. The IRS has ample sanctions for 'bad' preparers. If the Service would ENFORCE the tools it currenty has available to it, most of the Turbo-Tax out of the box tax shops would vaporize. When is the last time you heard of a mom and pop (or other entities who do inferior jobs) tax shop receiving accuarcy related penalties? Let the Service ENFORCE the rules it NOW has avaialbe to it against bad preparers. By so doing, 99% of the bad tax shops would close up. Government wants to make more and more rules, and fails to enforce those they already have. ~ Tony Amato (1/19/2004)

Require SEE/TC Exam. Assuming enabling statutes, all return preparers/TP reps should pass the SEE. Anyone may choose the TC Exam instead of the SEE. Provisions should be made for interaction with additional state-level regulation but only going so far as to the practice of law/accountancy/tax in that state for non-federal issues. Companies should be able to operate in the federal arena irrespective of state-regulation. The SEE should give greater weight to analytic questions, e.g. determining substantial authority, etc. ~ Brian (1/19/2004)

Licensing of Tax preparers. In California, we license tax preparers at the state level. Unfortunately, there is no testing to determine whether or not the preparer is competent. They only have to fill out an application, get a bond and take a minimum of CEU. If the licensing is kept at the state level, I think it should possibly have some kind of Federal Guidelines that all states could implement locally. That would allow the qualifications and skills to be consistent. There is no way to completely weed out the crooks and incompetent preparers as they will find ways around this as well. I also agree that those of us that have passed a skills testing, such as CPA's, Attorney's and EA's should be exempt. I also think that the only way to regulate who can represent before the IRS is a federal issue and leaving this licensing at the state levelwill also limit this level of representation to those of us that have proven skills in this area. Mary F. Philippsen, EA President, Sacramento Valley Chapter of Enrolled Agents ~ Mary F. Philippsen, EA (1/19/2004)

Re: Licensing of Tax Practitioners I think licensing is a good idea, as there seems to be a number of unregulated tax preparers out there that abuse the system and often hurt the clients they are supposed to serve. Anyone can hang out a "shingle" promoting themselves as a tax preparation service, without regard to training or experience. Professionals who are already licensed and are subject to regulation, such as CPAs, attorneys and Enrolled Agents should be given automatic exemption, and there should be adequate penalties for non-professionals who practice without a license. ~ Henry Wilson (1/19/2004)

Licensing There are too many unqualified preparerers. Even though I am an EA I think any licensing system should require a proficiency test. I have seen more sloppy and incorrect returns prepared under the name of CPA's and Enrolled Agents. Certainly the EA exam is not that good. There has to be some organization that could create a clear proficiency test that would really measure ones tax knowledge and ability. Many years ago I took the CLU exam. It was thorough, comprehensive and fair. ~ George Oliphant, EA (1/19/2004)

Licensing Tax Preparers Only a good idea if it is done without creating a new costly government agency. A reasonable test of proficiency, administered at frequent intervals, preferably on the internet, reasonable licensing fees, and reasonable continuing education requirements. ~ David Gracey (1/19/2004)

Licensing of Tax Preparers I think that licensing of tax preparers, in theory, is a good idea, but it should exclude those who are already licensed. The licensing should not be done by the Federal government. The state's already have Boards of Accountancy and the licensing should be done by them. I think that one model licensing regulation should be enacted by all states to ensure standardization and CPE requirements should also be required. ~ Stephen L. Liebman, CPA (1/19/2004)

Licensing of Tax Preparers should be at the State level. As we already know, the Federal government cannot regulate anything in a simple and cost-effective manner. Licensing of tax preparers should be at the State level, as is licensing of CPAs. Enrolled Agent credentials tell the customer that the EA has a certain level of expertise and knowledge of tax law, just as a CPA has expertise in taxes and accounting skills. Licensing of tax preparers (other than attorneys, CPAs and EAs who are already "licensed") at either the State or Federal level would give the consumer some assurance that the preparer had at least the basic knowledge required to prepare a tax return. I believe State licensing would be best because the States already are in the business of licensing CPAs and have a system in place. Federal licensing would be OK if the States didn't want the job (and, no doubt, extra revenue). ~ William Fischer, EA (1/19/2004)

This licensing should expempt all now licensed such as CPA', Lawyers and EA's. I would prefer an expansion of the above, especially the EA's, so we d This licensing should expempt all now licensed such as CPA', Lawyers and EA's. I would prefer an expansion of the above, especially the EA's, so we don't have a second level of preparers who have little or no training or skills. ~ Russel Sortland (1/19/2004)

reg tax prepares yes, but exempt those already reguliated by the state. irs MUST enforce the rule if it acted on. Currently there are too many individuals with a copy of turbo tax charging for serveice they are not rendering ~ walter vice (1/19/2004)

Yes, but exempt CPAs ~ Kim Marks CPA (1/18/2004)

We already have multiple licenses. We must must be licensed in our state to practice. The IRS already licenses accountants through the enrolled agent program. No need for additional regulation. ~ Austin Maggioncalda (1/18/2004)

Sounds good, but... Licensing sounds good, but... -Would not get rid of the fly by nighters -Would not be a guarantee of competence (unfortunately the public may assume it does) -Would add yet another lay of government -Would add yet another expense (with little or no benefit to anyone) -Could create a conflict of interest, i.e. worrying more about getting your license yanked than about giving your client the best advice -Without exemptions for the "small guy" would discourage qualified individuals from preparing a few returns for friends & family on the side (due to the added expense) ~ Susan Galyen (1/17/2004)

licensing is a bad idea Those who advocate licensing for preparers haven't thought this through. Tax prep needs to be independent of the authorities otherwise we all just become agents of the state, fearful that if we put forward a view (a deduction) not popular with the government that are license will be revoked. There is also an unsurmountable conflict of interest. There would be no one willing to push the envelope of what is allowable...no need to take the matter to court...it either won't come up in the first place (because of fear) or the government will squelch it through licensing. I recall years ago when many preparers wouldn't allow (yes they have the power to allow or disallow)some business owners to take home office deductions, oftentimes for fear that it might trigger an audit. I work for my clients not the IRS and I want to keep it that way. I want to scheme as much as I can to find ways to legitimately reduce the taxes my clients must pay. I don't want to be wondering what the IRS might think about the approach. I vaguely remember hearing a teacher in college suggest that tax prep is specifically mentioned in federal regulations as a profession NOT to be licensed because of the inherent conflicts. How can there be confidence in a system where by some mechanism the preparer is beholden to the government. ~ Gregory Noe (1/17/2004)

Licencing of Tax preparers It would weed out the fly by nighters who don't know beans and undercharge the clients ~ Len Richmond (1/17/2004)

Licensing is inconsistent How can we license if individuals are still going to be allowed to prepare and file their own returns? Licensing contradicts the concept that individuals should be able to prepare and file their own returns. ~ Daniel Pillard (1/17/2004)

too costly and another govt bureaucracy. this would require more money for licensing fees. it would lead to a whole level of federal bureaucracy It would lead to more confusion over conflicting cpe requirements-we already have aicpa, statecpa society, and state regulation requirements. In addition the irs already has a large # of practitioner penalties available. this would give them more power without any benefit to the taxpayer. the only people who would register for this are preparers who are already regulated. ~ Peter Peloquin (1/17/2004)

Ideas about the libertinage of so-called tax preparers It is a great idea and just fair to regulate the many people that prepare taxes without any requirement on them. But we have many costly requirements. The people who need the most to be required to receive training, do not. Those people have no background whatsoever in most cases. I have seen incredible situations of ignorance. I remember a case where my client told me "I married last year". I asked for the wife'sdocuments. The client said that she already filed. I explained that they could file married joint or married separate. Nevertheless, I insisted in knowing what she did. When we called her home. She did not know. I asked her to look in the appropriate place and we concluded she filed single. I reasoned with the lady over the phone. "Dear, the INS is going to request the last three returns. If you do yours as single, they will consider you were not married this year. Moreover, there are problems with it". I requested to talk to her preparer and she volunteered to do herself. So, I told her:"Tell the gentlemand that for sure he is not a CPA or Accountant". After she contacted him, she came back with his answer: "He says that he is not a CPA or Accountant, but he is doing taxes for 30 years and that is correct. The reason being that I earned little this year so I can file single this year. Next year I can file married". To finish I will tell my answer: "Excuse me because you are a lady, but when you talk to him again tell him that he is doing shit for 30 years". I really could add hundred of similar experienes. Besides, there is a tremendous lack of ethics. Many are crooks who charge contingent fees for inflating the amount of EIC and other illegal schemes. While we attend school for years and go through continuos professional education, they do nothing. Just because they read a little English (case of South Florida)they moonlight or worst, they open shop and nobody cares about them. I understand that medicine is a special field. But not only medicine, also law without a license is strongly persecuted. If somebody sues your corporation for more than $5,000 you can not represent yourself in a court of law. You need to hire a lawyer. The judge will not hear you or accept a written answer from you. You need to hire a lawyer. PERIOD. Lawyers who learn about a Notary Public or else writing some kind of letters go against whoever as practicing law without a license. To them and to judges (who are lawyers themselves) anything could be considered "legal opinion" or "legal advice". And that is illegal. Why the law does not allow us the same privilege in our realm?. We need to pay our licenses. They do not. Particularly important is the fact that many of the persons preparing income taxes do not sign them. Instead, they write in the Preparer's line "SELF PREPARED". Of course, there are ways to catch them. What it lacks is the will. I have hereby extemporize, late at night, in a hurry. But I think for many other important reasons that our profession should insist in asking for licensing and requirements to whom wants to practice accounting in any of its forms. Thank you for requesting my opinion (I hope no lawyer claims it a legal opinion, so I keep out of trouble)and for considering it. Simple and disorganized it conveys a message, I believe. ~ Eduardo J. Cano (1/17/2004)

A MUST A national system is long overdue. The U.S. is based on an honor system but many tax practitioners solicit business on the grounds that with preparation by them much less tax will be paid by the tax payer. There should be no difference in tax paid whoever does the return. ~ Ciaran Brennan CPA (1/17/2004)

National Licensing I would not like to see a national licensing program for tax preparers. There are all ready enough certifications to go around. I feel that our current system is sound. I don't think licensing would stop the most egregious tax avoidance, like abusive tax shelters. I just think we need more enforcement and additional CPE on tax ethics. ~ Mark Smith (1/16/2004)

Return preparer licensing A license requirement is an excellent proposal, but it should apply only to those who prepare more than a certain number of returns. Preparing fewer than 10 rturns, for example, should be exempt. ~ Arthur Gravitz (1/16/2004)