Discussion:BNA vs RIA
From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> BNA vs RIA
| 26 July 2007 | |
| Hi,
Does anyone have experience using both BNA's Tax Practice Library and RIA's Federal Tax Coordinator? I am very interested in opinions re which is better. Thank you! | |
| 26 July 2007 | |
| I've used BNA for years and just switched to RIA due to new office-mates. It's probably not a fair comparison because I know way into and out of BNA so much better than RIA, but thus far I would (and may yet) go with BNA. I'm sure if you call both up you can have salesmen set you up with a trial of each to make your choice. My RIA service includes the RIA Tax Desk, not the Federal Tax Coordinator. | |
| 27 July 2007 | |
| I use both services. I find substantially more answers in RIA. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 27 July 2007 |
| I have never seen BNA but like the way RIA permits you to 'drill down' beginning with Code, then to Regs and then to editorial comment. | |
| 27 July 2007 | |
| I've used BNA, RIA and CCH and I find the BNA Portfolio explanations to be more thorough and provide better examples most of the time. My experience is that most large accounting firms usually have both BNA plus either RIA or CCH. | |
| 28 July 2007 | |
| I have all three services. CCH is better for looking through the legislative history. BNA has more editorial comment than CCH or RIA. I don't really need the editorial comment. RIA has the right balance of editorial comment and tax law. I need to remember that editorial comment is not citable in court unless the citation is from Merten's (which I also have). | |
To join in on this discussion, you must first
log in.
