From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Permission to discuss return with IRS good only for 1 year
Jake (talk|edits) said:
| 9 May 2006
|
| I thought this "check the box" authority would save a lot of paperwork but in calling IRS today about a CP2000 notice on a 2004 return I was told that such permission only was good for one year. Seems to me that if it was checked on the 2004 return that ought to grant permission to discuss that 2004 return.
|
Tilt53 (talk|edits) said:
| 9 May 2006
|
| I agree, Jake. Just went through the same thing myself. One would think that we would have the authority to discuss the return as needed. Especially since the CP2000s are always a year behind. What a PITA to have to go back to the client and get a POA!
|
Taxworld2 (talk|edits) said:
| 23 January 2008
|
| Why bother putting this check box on the return if you always need a POA?
|
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:
| 23 January 2008
|
| In theory the reason is that if there were a problem processing the return at the Service Center, they could call you [omission of schedules, W-2 forms etc] and it seemed like a good idea when it came out, but now with so many professionally prepared returns efiled, it has little use. My objection to it was I did not want IRS to call me on April 12th concerning a return filed in early March!
|
Skasselea (talk|edits) said:
| 23 January 2008
|
| It is for return processing issues only. A CP 2000 requires a POA. You're discussing income reported to the IRS, but NOT found on the tax return. That always requires a POA. Check box authorization would never cover that nor should it.
|
JR1 (talk|edits) said:
| January 23, 2008
|
| That was NOT the original intent at all. It may be the default, but I think we need to keep insisting to get this as it was intended, which was to avoid the POA.
|
Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:
| 23 January 2008
|
| Not sure if this is a bad solution or not, but how about just having each client sign a POA when picking up the return, just automatically fill it out for year of return being prepared.
|
TxSrv (talk|edits) said:
| 23 January 2008
|
| A CP-2000 is an audit. Unless also the preparer, the designation on 1040 does not provide enough info to show that the designee has authority to practice before IRS. The items listed in the 1040 instructions re the scope of this designation are not practice before IRS.
|
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:
| 24 January 2008
|
| I recall this was put into practice 10 years ago or so, and like JR said, professionals thought it would be more than it turned out to be. At one seminar at that time, the speaker suggested that if the professional wanted to get the copies of any notices, Form 8821 should be filed with the return.....then again, what good are copies without the ability to speak for the client.
|
Skasselea (talk|edits) said:
| 25 January 2008
|
| JR, I strongly disagree. It was meant for very limited circumstances that would come up with return processing issues such as SSN problems, math errors, etc. As TxSrv correctly states "a CP2000 is an audit" and check box authorization could not ever cover that.
|
To join in on this discussion, you must first
log in.
