but what relevance is that?
The relevance is that someone says, “You can’t do that, it’s a no-no,” but there’s no evidence that what the person says is ever carried out, it means it’s an empty threat. And even if is a real threat and OPR tried “prosecuting” it tomorrow, we might wonder how valid their position really is, on its merits. But we don’t really need to wonder about that, given that the IRS can’t regulate the preparation of an extension. However, with that said, you’d have to point us to the specific Circ 230 rule that we are purportedly violating. Then we’d have to run that rule against the backdrop of the somewhat recent cases, which have restricted the scope of Circ 230, to see if it really is a rule that can still be enforced. Otherwise, I’m afraid the IRS loses unless they can point to some other civil or criminal statute that’s been violated.
Given the choice of our limited experience
Right. Just 100 years of filing tax returns…and not a single prosecution anyone can find…
or Karen Hawkins' statement when she was head of OPR that filing unauthorized extensions was a 230 violation, I'm going to go w/ Hawkins.
If she really made this statement, it’s just her opinion. But you are free to go along with her opinion, even though it’s coming from a person who was way wrong with one of her other opinions, the one about the IRS having the authority to regulate tax preparers.
The argument would be, then, that filing an unauthorized extension request technically is not a violation of Circular 230.
Right. That’s what the argument would be.
A tax return preparer could make an argument that filing an extension request is closer to "tax return preparation" than it is to "representing taxpayers in dealings with the Internal Revenue Service."
Way closer. It’s a tax document and there is no representation of the taxpayer by the practitioner “before the IRS.”
I wonder whether the Hawkins statement was made before the Loving case was decided by the Federal district court in January 2013. (Maybe the Hawkins position is no longer tenable ???)
If she even made that statement…if made before Loving, it’s questionable on its merits for one thing. And it’s questionable for another thing too: Loving didn’t really change anything. IRS had no authority to regulate preparation even before Loving. And if the statement was made after Loving, it’s still questionable on its merits – that aspect doesn’t change. And it would be more questionable if made after Loving for obvious reasons – by that time, courts have chimed in and said IRS can’t regulate.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard of the statement being made. If it was made, I think it was a long time ago. I don’t think much of the comment. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, though. I just haven’t heard the arguments/specifics that support it.