Discussion:Can i become an Enrolled agent if?
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Business Growth Community --> Can i become an Enrolled agent if?
| 17 June 2009 | |
| For several years i was behind on my taxes 2000-2004! Just filed everthing in 2005 to become current. Would I be denied the certification of an EA? I really dont want to study for the test if i have no chance of becoming an EA. | |
| 17 June 2009 | |
| I believe it would depend on 'reasonable cause', but it would be an uphill battle.
Circular 230 practitioners routinely are sanctioned (some completely losing their ability to practice before the IRS) for neglecting their filing and paying responsibilities. That being said, if you wait a few more years and stay in compliance no one will remember. | |
| 18 June 2009 | |
| I agree with Kevin. I just bacame an enrolled agent in 2009 and the approval letter from IRS indicated they had reviewed my prior 10 year tax returns for compliance. They indicated I was out of compliance for the year 2005 where I filed my return late by 8 days even though I had a refund of over $6,000.(they were correct) They made a big issue of it and stated Circular 230 provisions but said they would give me a one time waiver. Your situation sounds a little more serious and is for a 5 year period. | |
| 18 June 2009 | |
| I think that the two replies above are probably accurate but you can't actually know the answer for sure without first passing the SEE then applying. OPR won't give you an advisory ruling in advance of your application.
You are in a rather nasty spot, really. If you apply and are denied enrollment, you will pretty much have to appeal to the Secretary because if you don't, that denial will follow you forever and taint any future application for a CPA license or admission to the Bar. (Oh, yeah, they ask.) And if the Secretary upholds the denial, you will have to think seriously of hiring a lawyer and taking it to Court. Big bucks, I'm afraid. I don't know if there is anything magic about ten years but Cotopop says that that's how far they looked back on his application so it's probably about the best guidance you are going to get. Soooo...I guess you should wait it out. | |
| 18 June 2009 | |
| I agree with the above. I got my EA license in 2008 and they mentioned that I was late by about 1 month in filing my 2005 taxes. They did point it out to me and the letter explained the importance of being in compliance for circular 230 employees. I remember I was on a road trip in the summer of 2006... drove all the way from Georgia to Canada. The last thing I was thinking was to file my taxes. | |
| 18 June 2009 | |
| No need to answer my question as to personal facts, but what is late?
If you file a proper extension, and file the return within the time covered by the extension, you are not late. Period. I have noticed something that NMex might have run into over the years. Some of the best female divorce lawyers have been through a nasty divorce (or two); and they decide to go to law school. Some of the best professional organizers are completely unorganized at home. I won't mention the minister's daughter... I bring this up only to point out that sometimes people become interested in a field of study only after having a challanging experience concerning same. | |
| 18 June 2009 | |
| 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, AND 2004 were all filed in 2005. Well beyond the extension time. | |
| June 18, 2009 | |
| But Crow's an attorney. He doesn't know that. At least, none of the attorneys that I've done taxes for seem to. So it has to be a class in Law School, right? | |
| 18 June 2009 | |
| (Cue soft organ music. Start fog machine) Ah, yes, taking tax in law school...so long ago, now...what memories...
Listen, folks. Few if ANY law schools in the United States actually require a J.D. student to take so much as an Intro to Federal Tax course. Most offer such a course but nothing more advanced. At my law school, they offered Intro, Corp and P'ship, and Estates and Trusts. Each was a lousy 3 hour course. That was that. There is no, repeat no as in nada zip zilch requirement for lawyers to take continuing education in tax. Never, ever, EVER assume that a lawyer knows diddly squat about tax. In fact, assume the exact opposite until the lawyer demonstrates his competence. I have been told that the situation is similar, though not so egregious, concerning CPAs. I wouldn't know either way. | |
| 18 June 2009 | |
| That's true. However, I took the only two electives available. Income and Estate tax. All cases and statutes were presented in the text, nothing in the way of learning to research a tax issue. This was in my 3rd year of law school. By the end of the summer after graduation, I had forgotten just about all of it (no smart remarks, please). | |
| 18 June 2009 | |
| Yeah? Well, when I went through, CCH and Prentice Hall reporters were all PAPER and took up many shelves of (then) valuable library stack space. 1954 Code, too! Computers were just evolving from room sized morons to desk sized morons.
Us students were person-sized morons but that's a different subject... | |
Plainfacts (talk|edits) said: | 21 June 2009 |
| I think they are more interested in you been in compliance ,,,,Form 23 suggest if you are deliquent , to make sure you file your returns up to date before submitting the application..also there are many cases of EA that are sanctioned because they did not file for many years( am talking some like 7 to 8 years) their only punishment was 3 years prohibition and been made to file and pay the taxes and interest. and they will be reinstated(this is not me making it up these are actual pronouncement,most of these cases the offending did not even contest the charges ).....Go ahead, go and pass the test ..I guarantee you...you will be enrolled..assuming no other issues..dont let anyone scare you | |
| 21 June 2009 | |
| You won't know for sure until you try. What would worry me is the multi-year history of failure to file. Still...the OP caught up before the IRS forced him to catch up so maybe it would be okay...maybe...
One question to ask is, what WOULD OPR want to see before granting enrollment? It's hard to see what more the OP could do at this point than has been done. You might want to pass the SEE first then get an opinion from a lawyer experienced in representing tax practitioners in disciplinary matters. I suggest taking the SEE first only because there's no point in paying for advice until you need it. | |
