Ed Zollars, CPA wrote:
- quote -

You're right on the button I think, Ed.

And speaking of the last possibility, a client was supposed
to come in one day to pick up his returns, but called and
said he had an emergency. okay, he came in a couple of days
later, told me about the emergency. Seems IRS had called him
at his place of work to schedule his office audit at local
headquarters for April 14th. He was getting nervous.

So after questioning him about the call, and esp about the
lack of formal written notification via mail, I could
assure him that IRS don't work this way. He was relieved,
and when he actually went by the local IRS office, he was
assured that nobody had called him.

BTW, when he got the first call,
it happened to be...... April..... 1st!

Cheer$,
Harlan

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Hey... I LIKE the way you think! I'm all for yanking some
chains every now and then. (Who would have thought that
however?)

Just today I chastised an IRS collections person for making
no sense in a letter she wrote to me. Also she had said
last month that since the installment agreement wasn't yet
formal, my client needed to send in the first amount agreed
upon verbally by October 15th. he did that, actually I did
that, to Memphis service center (his check of course!)
marking it for 941 taxes for June 1998, just as she said
should be done. When she called today, she couldn't
understand why I didn't send the check to her! Duhhhh!
She never told me to do that. Some people.......

Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA in LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Harlan Lunsford wrote:

- quote -

I agree that something just doesn't sound right here. If
the facts are exactly as represented and *if* there are no
other significant facts that haven't been told to us, then
the IRS employee (assuming that is what he/she is--and all
this person probably has right now is the assertion that the
person is an IRS employee) has violated federal law unless
he/she had the taxpayer's permission to disclose information
to a third party (the preparer in this case).

I would disagree with one statement earlier in the thread,
but on a technicality. The preparer clearly *can* disclose
to the IRS without a power of attorney, so long as the
client has authorized him/her to make the disclosure.
However, the *IRS employee* is not supposed to be giving
information to the preparer without having the taxpayer's
permission--which is what the POA effectively gives him/her.

And since IRS employees are normally *very* aware of this
matter, I would consider this action so suspicious that no
matter what else happened, I'd want to verify that this
person was a bona fide IRS employee on IRS business before
doing any disclosure to him/her even once the i's were
dotted and t's were crossed (that means calling up the line
in the IRS).

My own take if the facts are correct is that either you have
an extremely inexperienced/incompetent IRS employee who
doesn't understand that he/she is violating federal law *OR*
you have someone who is trying to extract information about
this person from a third party under false pretenses.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Why not let them? Let the preparer sign, then let the case
go unagreed, get the 90-day letter, and petition to the Tax
Court. In the petition, disclose that the preparer did NOT
hold a POA, and therefore, the statute extension is invalid
(preparer lacked the authority), and that the IRS barred the
period of limitations before issuing the 90-day letter.
However, be careful: The preparer must not represent in any
way that he has the authority to sign - the IRS must ask him
to sign for this to work - i.e. make the IRS have to explain
to the Court that they solicited some third party lacking
authority to execute the extension. :-)

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

L K Williams wrote:
- quote -

That little check box being used does not consitute a POA,
and is applicable only within the processing time framework.
From what the OP said, and being 1999, seems it's beyond
that by now. And he did not give much information about
what had gone on before. Why would IRS call the preparer
just out of the blue, esp when preparer was not in on the
audit before? Something just don't sound right. I wonder
what the rest of the story is.

Oh, and why would IRS tell the preparer they want to extend
the statute?

Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA in LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Harlan Lunsford" <hlunsfordns[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

I think I would disagree with the conclusion that you cannot
provide IRS with any information without the POA. If the
client checked the box on the return allowing the IRS to
discuss the return with the preparer (or a designated third
party) you wouldn't need a POA to talk to them.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"L.Andrews" <lea001[at]juno.com> wrote:

- quote -

A guess is that what began as a Service Center
correspondence exam was transferred to an area office for
resolution in a field examination, and it sat in inventory
until the statute got short. IRS should have decided long
ago that a Sch C of this implied size needed examination,
but for whatever reason they have now expanded the scope of
examination, there's nothing legally or procedurally you can
do about it.

If the examiner is asking for source documents for the same
line items both years, you can ask if only one year's
invoices and such need be initially submitted. If the one
year checks out, then the examiner shouldn't ask for
documents concerning the other year for the same item.

With no Sch C items examined yet, the statute should be
extended. Else the years get separated, with potentially the
same issues, and preventing a huge assessment on 1999
requires a Tax Court petition. That's not going to make
resolution easier at all.

Fred

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

L.Andrews wrote:

- quote -

You just got is phone call out of the blue from an IRS
person? Then here's what you should do: NOTHING.
Unless of course you talk with client and get a POA from
him in order to represent him. Above all, you cannot
furnish the IRS with anything without that same POA.

Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA in LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

I received a telephone call from an IRS office auditor last
Friday regarding a client who has had his dependents
disallowed (for tax years 99 and 00)and all attempts to
resolve had been unanswered until last Friday. The letter
the agent referred to was dated January 2002. This is my
first IRS experience, and I would be very grateful if
someone could help me with what I need to be doing for the
client. For one thing, the agent would like to extend the
statue (which for 99 expires in Feb. of 04). Where would I
find out what's best for the client? I have publication 556,
examination rights, but it would be helpful to hear from
someone who has done this before. Oh, and in addition to the
dependents being disallowed, the IRS agent asked for a list
of items from the client's schedule C to look at (total of
approx. $100,000 in deductions). Does this sound right? We
haven't received a letter or anything else before this
telephone call, and I am trying to learn what I should do
next. Thanks much for your help!

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->