Discussion:Tax court examination for admissions
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Tax court examination for admissions
| 12 December 2006 | |
| I am a CPA and would like to be admitted to tax court. Tax court offers an examination to be admitted. Non attorneys can practice is tax court. Does anyone know if there are any preparation classes similar to the GMAT or LSAT classes that I can take? | |
| 13 December 2006 | |
| Very tough exam with an 8 percent pass rate.
Visit this website for self-study or classroom study course offerings: | |
| 15 April 2008 | |
| Did you guys find it difficult in finding 2 sponsors who are already admitted to practice before the tax court?
Is there a way around the 2 sponsors requirement after passing the exam? Thanks | |
| 15 April 2008 | |
| Many attorneys are admitted to practice before tax court. If you can't find 2 people already admitted, I'd sincerely doubt you know enough to get in yourself. Did you not take a class from someone? Do you not know any attorneys? | |
Nancyshoemake (talk|edits) said: | 16 April 2008 |
| I sat for it in 2006. Did the self-study route but next time around would do a course in DC. Although I knew the material, I did not allocate my time well and didn't complete one whole section. Tough! | |
| 16 April 2008 | |
| are you saying you need two sponsors to practice in tax court even if u pass the test? | |
Nancyshoemake (talk|edits) said: | 16 April 2008 |
| on the application you must list 2 names of people who would recommend you. | |
| 16 April 2008 | |
| Kdepc
In addition to Mary Ann Maxon's site (provided by Riley2), you should also check out Sherrill Gregory's site. http://www.taxcourtexam.com I can speak from experience about how hard the exam is (the TC admissions clerk says only about 300 people have passed the exam since 1942) but IT IS worth the effort. The next exam is offered in Washington,DC in November, 2008. | |
| 16 April 2008 | |
| Nancy (or anyone who can answer) - after you list these 2 references, I believe they still have to write a recomendation letter addressed to the US tax court, is my understanding correct? | |
Nancyshoemake (talk|edits) said: | 16 April 2008 |
| I don't remember it that way. I thought I was required to give the name and addresses of 2 that are currently practicing in tax court. I believe if you passed, the court would then contact them if need be. | |
Nancyshoemake (talk|edits) said: | 16 April 2008 |
| I do have the past exams (not the 2006) for anyone who would want me to send them. I won't be back in the office until 4/22....but would be happy to do so. Just send me your email address.... | |
| 16 April 2008 | |
| GG - you are correct in your understanding.
Tax Court Rule 200(c) requires that two letters of sponsorship from individuals already in practice before the Court must be promptly sent after the candidate learns he/she has passed the exam. The applicant (not the Court) must take the steps needed to secure the letters. The Court (at its discretion) may accept an applicant with less than two letters. You can read the full set of rules at the Tax Court website www.ustaxcourt.gov | |
| 16 April 2008 | |
| Probably the reason for Nancy's experience is "....The Court (at its discretion) may accept an applicant with less than two letters", meaning less than 2 could be zero (if you just listed their name without the letters). Thanks so much guys. | |
| 16 April 2008 | |
| Or that you are the judge's son-in-law. Seriously, I doubt anyone could get by with less than one letter. My understanding is that the Court of Claims requires even attorneys to have letters of reference. | |
| 17 April 2008 | |
| I had an experience with the court. Had a client come in that was up for a fight. I paid my $100.00, which buys me a front row ticket at the court. The facts (before manipulation) were as follows: client had a wooden leg. Well, he didn't just have one, he used it, he wore it. His profession was that of a farrier. He was determined to write off the leg. He wrote off the leg (that's an entire other story). Deduction denied. The Service contended that it was a medical expense, and we all know where those go. Client's preparer had put it down as a business expense on his Scd. C. The "story" was that client would pull the horses hoof up to shoe it, and use his wooden leg as an anvil. That's a business expense in "Client's" book, and as his representative, in my book.
Now, we're ready for the trial. Or what I thought was going to be a trial. See, there's things called stipulations, and Pre-trial Orders, and before I could open my mouth, all options for play acting, horsing around, and show-boating had been quashed. I was trussed up like a Thanksgiving Turkey. By God, I had to know the law to get thru this one: a terrifying prospect. Transcript: Me: Your Honor, I'll make my opening statement. Judge: No need for that, this is a bench trial. I've read the file, call your first witness. Me: But.. Judge: But what? Who is he, call the man! [Sound of thumping wood]. [Sworn in]. [Preliminaries, niceties]. Me: You shoe horses? Client: What's it to ya? Me: I mean, you are in the business of shoeing horses? Client: I told you that at your office. Me: Yes, and you use your leg as an anvil? Hold it up for the judge, won't you? Client: Noooo. I use an anvil as an anvil. Me: Whattya use your leg for? Client: Well, I paid enough for it, I walk on it, what else would I do with it?!! Judge: WHO prepared this return? Me: Not me your honor. Judge: Well who, a CPA, an attorney? Me: No, an EA! Judge: What's an EA? [Law clerks whispers in Judges ear to explain meaning of EA]. [Judge turns beet red]. Judge: One of those huh? [Pause]. But YOU Crow signed the pleadings in this case, and therefore you have adopted your clients position, and the position of this...this EA? Client: [Squirming, Raising Hand] No judge, I saw his secretary sign them. Crow says she does about all the work around there. [More tittering]. Judge: OUT! OUT! Get out of this courtroom and I never want to see either one of you again. [Much thumping, to the point of sawdust]. So it ended, my one day in Tax Court. Moral: take 'em to district court for a jury trial, those that's got the money to pay they taxes up first. You really wanna do this? | |
Nancyshoemake (talk|edits) said: | 17 April 2008 |
| Crow who was the judge? | |
| April 17, 2008 | |
| Heh heh. Funny STORY Crow. I think Nancy needs a new leg. Hers just got pulled. We don't have much time for Aprils Fools until after tax season.... | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 17 April 2008 |
| And here I thought he was telling the story of the surgeons who removed the wrong leg, then realizing what happened, amputated the diseased one. When the patient sued, it was thrown out of court because.................
He didn't have a leg to stand on. | |
| 17 April 2008 | |
| You know, I've never been to a Tax Court trial. Frankly, I don't even know where they meet around here when in town. I suppose in the Federal Building, but now we have more than one. It's such a pain to go to a Courthouse now, you are seached, prodded, and suffer one indignity after another, just to get thru the door. I can see the day coming they will want to pull a credit report on people wanting to see a building they paid for! | |
| 17 April 2008 | |
| Crow - Nop, I don't wanna go through that. It's just I have the feeling that my level of knowledge of the tax law is still not enough (even though I passed the CPA and CFP). I was thinking of going through a MST but it's expensive. So I thought, well, the USTC exam preparation cost is about a third of the cost of the MST and you are really on your own phase which I really like. So if I'll be lucky and pass it why not get the whole license than passing without the license. But the reason is really to gain mastery of tax knowledge so that clients will get the best service possible.
But if you guys can suggest another way to gain more familiarity with the tax law other than USTC or MST, then I would really really really appreciate it. | |
| 17 April 2008 | |
| Put things into perspective. If someone as stupid as Bush can become President of the United States, you can do almost anything you put your mind to. No need to limit yourself in anything you want to do.
Generally in law, if you put down a lot of citations to back up your positions (any citation will do), you can get away with almost anything. It's a rare person that will actually look up the citations you use. Of course, with any opinion I give, seek a second opinion. | |
| 17 April 2008 | |
| JR, how can you say that? If the man want's to get ahead in life, and become a member of the bar of the court, he should go for his goals! [Lordy, the concrete people around here, loosen up, folks.]. When Jonathan Swift took an extreme position, it was to make the opposite point, or to expand upon the point, it's called satire, parody,OH never mind. lol. | |
| 17 April 2008 | |
| Hey, I'm smoking the peace pipe! LOL. I knew you were talking about me. The whole transcript and everything is not about fooling around with the subject, it's the opposite, hmmm to make a point.
They make these folks learn the Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil Procedure and all the rest of it. But, there will be relatively little of that in practice BECAUSE of the nature of a court (not to demean it's importance in the least). It's only bench trials, remember. Almost all facts will be stipulated before you walk in the door (or many will), and you will have a very detailed pre-trial order. This means one thing: know your law. In other words, it's a court of substantive law. Anyone planning to get into tax court should know that they will not be jumping up very often yelling "Objection!", and horsing around like they do on TV. Now, why don't I fill out the little paper, pay my $100 bucks and have a meaningless certificate on the wall? Because I know that in reality I don't know the substantive law well enough, and it's not a court to be trifled with. Not to say that a pro se couldn't actually do ok, I wouldn't discourage anyone out there to even represent themselves, with the right case. Taking money from a client is something altogether different. | |
