"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

You are of course correct.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Boston, MA 02109

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

"Helen P. OPlanick EA" <heljangal[at]aol.comnojunk> wrote:

- quote -

on the air around here recently, I guess I had FAT
on the brain....<G
--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Boston, MA 02109

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

Dave Woods wrote:

- quote -

Side comment: Given the general disenchantment with the
title "enrolled agent," I wonder if EAs would prefer to be
called FATs instead. <g
MTW

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

Dave Woods wrote:

- quote -

I disagree. See Circular 230 Section 10.7(c)(1)(viii) which
allows unenrolled paid preparer representation before the
examination division (but apparently not the appeals division).

MTW

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

- quote -

Dave, that is a FATP, not just a FAT.... <G
Helen, EA in PA
Member of The Tax Gang
Director, National Assoication of Enrolled Agents
Immediate Past President, PA Society of Enrolled Agents

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

"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

If you're not an FAT, then you can only have limited
representation for I believe immediate family members.
Simply being a paid preparer allows for no respresentation
ability.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Boston, MA 02109

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

"Harvey Hill" <harvey1369[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Contact:

Cono R. Namorato
Director, IRS Office of Professional Responsibility
1111 Constitution Ave. M/S 7238
Washington, DC 20224

Cono.R.Namorato[at]irs.gov

Frederick Lorca

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

"Harvey Hill" <harvey1369[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Off the cuff, it's probably perjury before the IRS, and I'm
sure his state board of accountancy wouldn't be happy to
hear he's passing himself off as a CPA before he has his
license.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Boston, MA 02109

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

Harvey1369[at]yahoo.com (Harvey Hill) wrote:

- quote -

If he has been signing Part II of Form 2848 as a CPA, and is
not "duly qualified to practice as a certified public
accountant" in the jurisdiction shown on the return, then he
has been committing perjury.

Whether he will be discovered and, if discovered,
prosecuted, is a separate question that I can't answer.

However, I suspect that, if he is discovered, he could both
lose any chance for a CPA license and be barred from
practice before the IRS (or preparing any more return),
regardless of whether or not he goes to jail.

*Dan Evans
*Author of the Tax Protester FAQ
*http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

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

Harvey Hill wrote:

- quote -

If he is not actually LICENSED as a CPA, then he shouldn't
claim to be a CPA. However, he might still be allowed to
represent clients if HE prepared their return.

But, why do you ask? I get the impression that you are
trying to cause "trouble" for the guy.

MTW

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

Harvey Hill wrote:

- quote -

Well, the entity that would appear to have jurisdiction on
this one is the IRS Director of Practice, since the person
in question has a problem there. He may also have a problem
with the state board of accountancy for the state he claims
to be licensed by (you have to indicate that on the 2848).

Now, that said this may or may not be seen as high priority
by either party. The issue is going to be whether you have
independent proof that he has been doing this. Tips from
someone who has an apparent axe to grind against the party
in question quite often aren't made high priority--and you
noted this is an ex-brother-in-law. Even more problematical
is if the proof existed for a long time, but was only acted
upon when relations went sour, it doesn't appear that the
party bringing this forward is motivated by a real desire to
insure proper actions by preparers--rather, the motivation
appears to be revenge.

It's also a problem if no client is complaining about
problem representation to either party. Both the IRS and
the state board of accountancy would be more likely to take
action on a complaint from a client who was harmed by this
individual.

Finally, a state board may have more trouble moving on this
one, since they are only tangentially involved and may not
be able to get the actual evidence of fraud. That's why I
would suggest the IRS Director of Practice.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

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

- quote -

If he is not a CPA, he has a problem. IRS is checking all
2848s (especially in Philly as a test area) to make sure the
person is who they say they are.

Helen, EA in PA
Member of The Tax Gang
Director, National Assoication of Enrolled Agents
Immediate Past President, PA Society of Enrolled Agents

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

My ex-brother-in-law is a tax preparer. He has been
signing 2848 as a CPA for the last three years. He had
passed CPA exam, but not met the experience requirement.

Does anyone do anything about this?

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