Jake wrote: I am seriously considering being a non-paid preparer to avoid all the new security and other "requirements". [...] Does anyone see an issue with that idea?
Jake wrote: I am seriously considering being a non-paid preparer to avoid all the new security and other "requirements".
SumwunLost wrote:ATSMAN, maybe. What if, instead of preparing returns on his own software, Jake "looks over the shoulder" of the legacy clients as they prepare their return on software they acquired?
ATSMAN wrote:I believe you still need a written security plan as per new IRS rules, even if you are probono??
Anyone disagree with that position?
JAD wrote:What an interesting comment. Did he say that he doesn't take protection of data seriously?
makbo wrote:Yes. At the very least, you should inform your non-paying clients that you don't take the protection of their confidential data as a serious matter.
They still can't take away your PTIN, even if you don't have a written data security plan.
What is so hard about security compliance that you would not want to do that for them anyway?"
JAD wrote:He didn’t say he wasn’t going to take the security issues seriously. He put “requirements” in a quote. Perhaps he is not fond of the overregulation. I don't like people telling me what to do, and maybe he feels the same. You assume the worst and attribute it to him. Didn’t you all have the best security protocols in place before a requirement to put a plan in writing? He asked a broad question about a cool idea that interests him at this stage of his life, and you all are nit-picking.
Frankly wrote:This security plan stuff is a lot of overreaction to the remote possibility of things happening that almost never happen. And when they do happen it's because somebody did something dumb. Dumb things will still be done, a requirement for a written security plan notwithstanding.
Return to Business Operations and Development
Users browsing this forum: JAD and 32 guests