Discussion:Proposed IRS test for unlicensed preparers (Not EA)

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Business Growth Community --> Proposed IRS test for unlicensed preparers (Not EA)


Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

29 September 2006
The Kiplinger Tax Letter has said for the last couple of years that Congress wants to require paid preparers who aren't lawyers, CPA's or EA's to pass an IRS-administered test. Kiplinger is now saying that this is likely to pass next year. Kiplinger is also predicting that preparers that file as few as five returns would be required to file electronically. Has anyone heard anything about this? On the surface it doesn't sound like a horrible thing and should allow us to significantly increase our rates. The problem is - what about H&R Block, etc? No way their staff could pass the test!

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 29, 2006
NSA has been working, sadly on the side of promoting the test, which helps their desire to get more folks accredited thru the ACAT designation. It looks like it will happen. My problem: Few attorneys, and frankly, most CPA's not in tax practice have no friggin' idea of taxes! Why should there be an exclusion? I have to take a test, but they don't? And what about all the seasonal folks. What do you bet there will be a company-wide exemption since they work under supervision? Sure there will. So who gets screwed? Tax practitioners. Figgers. Just like new gun laws don't affect criminals, by definition, but only those who play by the rules. I'm getting started here............And gee, do you think it's really a revenue-maker? They'll whack us $100 or more, annually....time to start a car wash.

Taxguy1024 (talk|edits) said:

29 September 2006
Don't hold back, JR1....tell us how you REALLY feel.....

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 29, 2006
And those attorneys don't even file their own tax returns! Most of them, for years!!!! *stepping down from box*

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

29 September 2006
(I knew this would get some blood boiling!) My problem with the idea is Block and it's type. We all know how little "supervision" they have. Unfortunately the Block's of the world have lobbists and we don't! Wonder if Intuit's ProSeries and their competitors would be interested in lobbying? Possibility of fewer people buying software! :)

Gosix (talk|edits) said:

29 September 2006
Yes you can bet Block will get in under some sort of supervision rule.

This stinks. As usual.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 29, 2006
As usual. In all fairness to NSA, they're caught in a tough spot. They want to assure IRS that their folks are competent and deserve to have the same rights as CPA's, EA's, and attorneys. IRS asks, "How do you know they're competent?" And the only response is, well, we've got this ACAT test...but until most of the NSA folks have taken it and passed it, it's meaningless to IRS. So on one hand, they want to fairly rep us, and on the other, are kind of caught in a trick bag of not being able to without some sort of testing. I just feel that there should be no exceptions for the testing. Make the attorneys and CPA's who want to do returns take it as well. The EA's are the only ones I would except.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

29 September 2006
JR1 - I'm not familiar with NSA and their ACAT test. What is this?

Solomon (talk|edits) said:

29 September 2006
My guess is that it won't suffice for a preparer in the chains to work under "supervision." Prometric is administering the test in three parts. Part One will be for 1040's, Part Two for business returns - 1065's etc., and Part Three for practicing before IRS - ethics. I would think the chain people and anyone else that preparers more than five 1040 returns will be required to take Part One only. Will be interesting to see.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

29 September 2006
Solomon - let's hope you're right!

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

29 September 2006
I passed the Special Exam twice on the first try, but am of two minds about this idea. For seven years my partner was someone who would have to take the test. She was a superb interviewer, being also a Social Worker, and was smart enough to admit what she did not know and walk into my office with her questions, and if I did not know we did the research. She had to quit because she was diagnosed with MS. I would have hated to see her have to take this exam. On the other hand I have seen people come into my office asking me to represent them on audit because a store front preparer was operating a refund factory. It is easy to say 'let IRS put them out of business' but as Preacher Harry Powell said, 'Lord, you send me so many of them." JR's initial rant makes a good point: I count six clients who came from an attorney that IRS decided to put out of business in the late 80s because he pushed the envelope too far. His fee included an audit contingency. When his clients were audited, he would ignore the notices, wait for the 90-day letter, file petition and then settle. This worked until IRS audited all of his clients. So here was someone who wouldn't have to take the test, though in fairness to him, he knew his taxes.

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2006
I was an unenrolled preparer for about 14 years and I think I did a pretty good job with my clients because if I didn't know the answer, I would try my best to research it until I found the answer. I took the SEE a few years ago (when this bill first came out, I got a little nervous and decided to just hurry up and take it) and I passed it so I have my EA now. I have mixed feelings on the whole issue, on one hand, I have had many new clients come to me because their return was screwed up by someone who just decided they were a tax preparer, I know several people who think that they can read the instructions for a 1040 or buy a cheap software program and suddenly be a tax preparer. The thing is, they can become a tax preparer just by signing a return, that's the only credential needed right now. We all know that there are way too many people out there preparing taxes that don't have a clue on the complexity of the issues that they are dealing with. But I also know many people (myself included - prior to obtaining the EA) who are very good preparers who are not CPA's or EA's. After taking the test I personally think that if you have a lot of good experience in taxes you might as well just go ahead and take the test, because if you have good experience then you probably could pass it and then it just makes life easier as far as representation anyway. Well, that might not be totally true, there were what I consider trick questions on the test, double negatives where you had to read the question a few times to make sure you knew what they were asking for. Anyway I still have mixed feelings on it but I'm glad I have my EA so I don't have to worry about that. After I passed the test I wanted the bill to pass because I thought I'd be able to significantly raise fees, supply & demand, the fewer preparers out there, the more work we'd have, the more we could raise the fees... but after a very long tax season, I've decided I don't really want to get the H&R block clients, I work long enough hours as it is.

Taxea (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2006
I too agree with each and everyone of you who think CPA's and Atty's should have to take the test if they want to do taxes. I am an E.A. and practice in Hawaii which is one of the states where anyone can take the Blockhead's basic tax course then hang out a shingle. It is unbelieveable to me that my state doesn't even require continuing education or licensing with the state to prepare taxes.

As for the Blockheads they probably will be allowed to get in under the Company license because individually they don't have to get an ELF number but, instead, use HRB's. It stinks! Here tax preparers don't have to register with DCCA either. I would love to see everyone who charges for and signs a tax return have to take a qualifying test as well as continuing education. taxea

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2006
I don't denigrate the Block course; the woman who does data entering for me took it before she began work with me. They offered her a job, but she did not want that pressure, and that is what defeats Block's attempts to turn out a great product. No one can prepare the quasi-tax professional for the pressures of April 15th and the need to please their clients! Doesn't the old saw go 'the formula for failure is trying to please everybody.' Over the years, I have educated clientele that extensions are not evil, especially when the return is complex, or like my musicians, has 20-30 wage forms! Block does not have this luxury, but I do think it would be criminal if their people received an exemption from this proposed exam.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2006
Taxea - Florida's much worse than Hawaii! No licensing required, no tests, no criminal background checks, no nothing! A 16 year old high school drop out with 50 felony convictions can do tax returns for pay! IRS hopes to limit this by requiring paid preparers that prepare more than five returns to e-file. Won't work! They buy Turbo Tax because it's cheap and white out the "self-prepared". On the rare occasions that the client notices the white-out, they explain it way as passing a cost savings to the client!

Lizzit (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2006
***Flame on***

Tests don't prove anything. Who here hasn't crammed for one exam or another?

I passed all four parts of the SEE with two weeks of studying 4 hours a day from the Thomson home study course. It doesn't exactly leave me thinking the rest of the bozos out there are equally capable as I am simply because they too hold an EA license. And to get hired by Block, you do have to pass their exam; I aced that one too. I can't imagine the preparer license test will be much harder than the H&R Block test.

Your real test is whether anybody would bother to keep you gainfully employed after the first glut of CP2000's start pouring in on clients you prepared.

Stirring up the waters a bit now: I think CPAs should go back to requiring a BA and 3-5 years' apprenticeship. This MA degree & one year apprenticeship is too short to let the CP2000's do their job in ferreting out the lousy ones. They've already got their CPA license by the time you (their supervisor) finally realize you've been snookered by somebody who "tests well".

Also, this MA requirement means some poor yobbo has to decide when he's twenty that he wants to be an accountant. Who in their right mind decides they want to be an accountant that young? Accountancy's like being a CFP or a gym teacher - you get into it only after you did something a lot more fun - pro-sports, music, arts, mommy, etc. You want to make it easy to re-enter the workforce, not impossible.

Likewise, I think EAs should have an apprenticeship period of at least three years where someone who has worked with them for three+ years has to sign off to say they think so-and-so's a good candidate.

And if we do this with all licensed practitioners, then the lousy ones will lose interest and drop out of the field and you'll be left with a higher percentage of capable educated ones instead. Oh, wait, that's already how it is for the ones (doctors, pre-2000 CPAs, etc.) who have to go through a long apprenticeship/internship period.

      • Flame Off***

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 30, 2006
And....Block's tax course is reputed to be one of the best around, I've recommended it for years for accountants who want to learn tax. It's just that they use it to hire anyone with a certain grade, regardless of any other knowledge or credentials. A tax knowledge, apart from accounting knowledge...yikes.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2006
The reasons that this legislation hasn't passed before have not gone away. Administration is a nightmare for the IRS. A decrease in incompetent preparers has an adverse impact on the number of letter audits which correspondly makes the IRS statistics look bad.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2006
Much as we all hate these incompetent preparers, do any of us have the time to double our business? And do we want to deal with the type of client Block gets? Most of us are already working 100 hours a week during tax season. The deadline used to be March but was changed to April many years ago because too many people couldn't meet the March deadline.

Solomon (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2006
In view of the tax gap, IRS will not cut its nose off to spite its face by running them out of business.

John of PA (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
The Block staff would most certainly be subject to such a requirement as to get certified with IRS. And guess what........if this happens Block will now have a marketing, advertising Goldmine ( "come in to HR Block, and visit one of our certified preparers" ) and your competition will have just got much stronger. I have noting to to with Block other than respect for a company that became a NYSE company by doing simple tax returns. It would be a bit foolish to think of them as incompetant. Keep your eyes and ears open, and check whats slipping in under the rug. Our profession is changing fast.

Gosix (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
What is a "passing" grade on the EA exam?

Out of curiosity I went to the IRS site and took the 2005 Part 1 exam. Looks like I answered around 90% correct. Seemed almost easy.

Didn't do as well on part 2. Did a test run of every 5th question. 20 total. Made 80%.

Did I pass so far?

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
Yes if I remember right that is passing, I think it was 75% but I'm not 100% sure on that. But that's what I was saying, if you know what you are doing, the test wasn't really that hard. That's why I said if you have good experience you might as well just take it. But I sort of agree with the internship idea, because it takes some expereince in the real world, not just in book examples, to know what you are doing. But on the other hand, I already owned my own business when I took the test, I had worked for someone else for 10 years, who was not a CPA or EA; when he retired I bought the practice from him. If I had to work under an EA for a few years would I have to close my business for a few years to go work for someone else to get the internship years in? That doesn't seem right either. I also agree with Bottom Line, there are only so many hours between Jan & April 15th, and mine are all full, a girl has to sleep sooner or later, and without that sleep I might as well be the person who has no clue how to do a tax return because I'm too tired and brain dead to do it right anymore (if I worked any more than I do now) I have about 1/8th of my clients that get extensions, I could not possibly do them by the 15th of april. Even so, I don't think my office could handle too much more work.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
John - guess Block's (Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax, etc) a lot better in PA than FL. Here their specialty and virtually all their ad money is on the refund anticipation loan. They love earned income credit because it generates large tax prep fees. Their employees are paid a commission based on their fee income which encourages them to push the loans. A Block office is like a ghost town after March 1. Since their employees are seasonal, count me as sceptical that each employee would be required to pass the IRS test. I've seen these types of firms hire people off the street and give them 2-3 days training because they didn't train enough at their fall schools. I was the night manager of a Jackson Hewitt for a couple of years; I could tell stories that would make your hair curl!

Gosix (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
<would I have to close my business for a few years to go work for someone else to get the internship years in? That doesn't seem right either.>

Seems like there should be some sort of grandfather clause.

I'd be in the same boat about having to close business?

All this makes me wonder just what good my 4 year accounting degree is or was. Seems like it get me nothing, I'm grouped with just anybody and everybody on the street.

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
Well as of right now nothing has happened, maybe nothing will happen, this has been out there for a few years now. And there is nothing in the bill that says EA have to have internship, that was just a post from Lizzit, I was just agreeing that education is not the same thing as experience, it really takes both to know what you are doing. I must admit one thing though, since passing the EA I do take more CPE than I used to, I used to just do a 16 hr seminar at the end of the year for the new changes each year, but now I have to do more than that and I have to admit, I'm kind of glad because I am learning more each year than I did before. And God knows, in tax law, there is always something new to learn! Your 4 year accounting degree did count for a lot, just like mine did, it gave me the knowledge I needed to begin doing a good job. It might not impress clients like a CPA license does, but it gave me the basics of what I needed to do a good job and from that I got lots of referalls and my business has grown to the point that I really can't handle much more. If you are worried about this just go to the NATP website and try taking the old EA tests, I know the IRS has it on thier site but on NATP they give the reason why it's the right or wrong anser, I found it very helpful (and free). You might surprise yourself at how well you do, then just take it and then you have a license before they get the idea to do an internship.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
I just went to the IRS site and looked at about 10% of the questions. Did ok on the areas I practice; not so good on trusts and representation before IRS which are areas I don't do. I'll need to study for it but am thinking about taking the SEE. I agree with Kathyt about doing little CPE until you have to. Florida doesn't have any regulations regarding paid preparers so I've never focused on CPE.

John of PA (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
Bottom Line, thanks for the sharing here. My main point is there must be a need that Block is serving, or they would have gone out of business. I do hear much negative about Block, but for the person who just does not want to spend a lot of money on tax prep, even if it means having their return done fast and in a rush; Block is filiing that need. I realize you and I could never work in such an atmosphere. Also, Block's Executive Tax Service, which is growing, is a threat to CPA's. They opened an office a few years ago near me, and the owner jointed Lions Club (where I have been a member for over 25 years) and I really felt the competition. Block's ETS is looked at as a "cut above" and professional. Nothing to worry about, but my point is just Block should be taken seriously and watched closely.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
Oddly enough, given the way most of practice or at least should practice, no-one talks about an "open book" examination. The ability to research seems to me one of the more important qualifications.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
You hit it on the head, Dennis! The ability to open a book or website means so much more than shooting from the hip, or in many cases, using the SWAG method. When I lived in upstate NY, my tax season employee was a woman who had managed a Block office and is now working at a Hewitt office. She had twenty or more clients of her own. She offered to do data entering for me in addition to processing returns. I gave her a client with lots of stock trades. The transactions had to be entered in the software. The client's brokerage account was not commission based. He paid a quarterly fee. She finished the posting; I reviewed it, but could not find the brokerage fee on Schedule A, so I asked her about it. "Oh, I allocated it to each trade, adding it to the cost. I didn't reduce the sales price because IRS gets a report of that." I was dumbfounded. I could only respond, 'What if there was only one trade? What would you have done then?"

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
There is a current, and as yet court untested theory, that such fees charged on net market value of accounts can be allocated to basis (quarterly) with only the amount charged to cash ending up on Schedule A. Some of the more agressive take the position that since such accounts do not impose fees for individual trades the account charges can be allocated at least in part to trading activity. The broker will on request provide the percentage they consider trading commissions.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2006
Very interesting! Years ago my tax lawyer boss had a broker/client with large, unused capital losses; he would adjust the Broker's wages, removing the commission he earned on his own stock transactions, moving that commission to Schedule D, short-term, since 99% of his trading was such. His idea was to use it against the losses. After three or four years, IRS caught up with this. I represented him at the audit, The agent disallowed the strategy even though he saw the return of the year following the audit, where broker wiped out all losses and had gains. Neither I nor boss could talk him out of the change, so we had to amend the return of the year of the gain, as I recall. Client was mad and went elsewhere the next year. In preparing for the audit, I spent an afternoon at the Jenkins Law Library and found an ancient case more or less agreeing with the agent.

Bengoshi (talk|edits) said:

2 October 2006
hehe...I think for a lot of us (including me), it all comes down to what's least inconvenient for ourselves. I personally like the idea of having some type of test for tax preparers, whether it be the CPA, bar, or EA exam. But perhaps that's only because it wouldn't affect me, and it would make it harder for other people to enter the tax preparation marketplace. Just my selfish motives...

Taxref (talk|edits) said:

2 October 2006
To me, testing makes no sense until there is actual enforcement of the tax code. I see CPAs (whose test does include taxation)play audit roulette all the time by taking totally invalid deductions, and they know its wrong. The biggest problem (IMHO) is not preparers who don't know what they're doing, its preparers who intentionally cheat because they know the chances of getting caught are next to zero. The service should first hire 10,000 more auditors and crack down on the blatant fraud. Not until that is done does testing preparers make sense. LOL, end of rant.

Taxaway (talk|edits) said:

3 October 2006
With bottom line blanket statements, some posters must enjoy their bliss......(as the saying goes). There are quite a few tax preparers working for H&R Block who could hold their own against any EA, etc., because in fact, many of them are. Of course there are those Block employees who shouldn't be allowed near a tax return (usually the part-year/one-year 'wonders'), but you can find that with any independent tax business hanging out a sign!

As for the testing, I'm sure the national chains (HRB, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty) will welcome it: it may chase away the smaller mom-and-pop stores. I'm only familiar with HRB requiring 30 hrs of course time each year for its own certification, which will probably meet the IRS requirement. Why would you call this an exemption?

I am definitely in favor: I want my EA status to have a little more weight, and it's good for the public to be informed of who are capable preparers and who are not. It may even weed out the incapable prepapers from your nemesis H&R Block!

Riley2 (talk|edits) said:

3 October 2006
I agree that passing the EA or similar exam is no guarantee of proficiency; however, it is better than what we have now. I would be interested to learn what percentage of existing tax preparers would be able to pass the EA or similar exam.

As a CPA, I would have no objection to taking an EA or similar exam if it would mean more protection for the taxpaying public. I took the EA exam many years ago just to prove to myself and my employer that I could pass it, but never activated the EA license. I believe that it might be good exercise for me to take the exam once every three years or so (sort of like the driving test).

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

3 October 2006
We seem to be falling into a EA trash CPA, CPA trash EA mode. This is not needed. Yes, there are CPAs who know little taxes, and there are EAs much of whose income comes from selling investments, but they are exceptions to the rule. I took the EA exam in 1983 so my boss could have a point man to represent him with the IRS. Six years later I gave back my license because of personal tragedy which caused me to fail to accumulate CE credits. I took the exam again and gained a new license. I am damned proud of that, but I was also proud of the people at Ernst & Ernst [long time ago] who passed their CPA exam. All of them had to study darned hard, while most of my study was limited to 230 issues and the like. Even with my so-called tax expertise, I do not try to handle matters I do not understand, and I wish all would do the same. As for audit roulette, back in the late 80s there was a fixing scandal at IRS in Philly. CPAs and clients were bribing IRS personnel, men who could have left IRS and immediately become EAs, so roulette is how you seize the moment.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

10 April 2007
I am all for paid preparers having a certain level of competence.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

10 April 2007
Personally I wonder when you get to this time of year whether any level of competence exists.

Pegoo (talk|edits) said:

10 April 2007
I Hope I will pass when it comes hehe :D

Will (talk|edits) said:

10 April 2007
I'm with you Dennis. This is only my second year and my first year to have worked enough to develop a mental fatigue that is hardly reduced by 6hrs of sleep. I don't think I am going to work seven days a week next year, maybe the national congress could regulate my competitors to six days also...

JAD (talk|edits) said:

10 April 2007
No kidding at the beginning of each tax season I say I am NOT working 7 days and at the end of each I say that next time I am NOT working 7 days and it never works out.

Sarahlmcs (talk|edits) said:

10 April 2007

Laticiaw (talk|edits) said:

10 April 2007
I'll believe the hype when it happens...sorry, been hearing this since I started in the tax business in 2000. I got my Master's because I needed it to sit for the CPA...I admit, the classes I had to take had little to nothing to do with taxes. In fact I had one tax class and it was for corporations, partnerships and other entities...all my individual work has been picked up as I go along her in the tax office. But the class did teach me how and where to do research (which led me to this site while doing a project) so it can't be all that bad...

Wwtaxes (talk|edits) said:

10 April 2007
Sarah - I am not a CPA. But I have similar qualifications as you in other fields, namely Java Development. I am more qualified than many programmers out there who have never gone to school for software architecture and have limited experience. I can guarantee you that there are some of them though, that are more qualified than I am. There are many PhD's in the field that know very little about the J2EE architecture bc it is not their area of specialty. I have no problem taking a Java Certification test, and don't think I should be excused because I have 2 degrees in the field, not to mention 20+ years of experience. When I started doing taxes, I contacted a CPA friend of mine to ask if she wanted some work consulting with me on complex returns. She replied that she hadn't done taxes since school, and wouldn't know where to start, and gave me some referrals. Likewise, my attorney has asked if I want some small business referrals, bc he only does 706's.

I think the point others are making (if I may be so bold as to speak for them) is that the degree, or letters don't mean that you specialize in a given subfield, or have kept up with the field. I'm afraid that I have to agree that everyone should take the test. Everyone's cranky right now, but in reading this forum, I don't think anyone meant to slam CPA's in general.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

11 April 2007
My understanding of what Congress is proposing is that completely unlicensed people (like me) be tested. CPA's, attorneys, and EA's would already be licensed. (Don't ask me what attorney's know about taxes.) They would develop another certification which would be less than an EA; you would have to pass a test to be a paid preparer but would not be able to practice before the IRS. Kiplinger's is predicting that Congress will pass something this year to become effective as early as 2009 because of our friends at JH. We all know that many of the workers at the tax stores would not be able to pass these tests and that simply passing a test does not mean that the preparer will prepare returns according to law.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

11 April 2007
If the test is approved, it should drive up fees for those who pass the test. In my view it is good for the profession. There are MANY preparers who rely on software and have no idea about intermediate topics like depreciation, basis etc... we CPA's take 40 hors of education each year. Just an opinion.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

11 April 2007
Much as I hate the idea of having to pass a test that I personally don't believe will solve the problem, I agree that it will drive up fees. I'm mixed on the tax store people. One part of me says that all their people should have to pass the same test because we all know that the store managers don't review the returns. The other part of me says that I really don't want their customer base in my office.

Taxmaster70 (talk|edits) said:

11 April 2007
I've seen a trend...Every year I get new clients who got their taxes done at one of those places where you get taxes done and buy insurance...It seems that these are the ones who like to jack up the refunds by adding in dependents here and there or "max out the EIC" by adding business losses which don't exist. I hope I don't offend anyone here, but I think requiring a test will make it much more difficult for those guys to be out there getting my ex-clients bigger refunds. Also, some sort of public service announcements from the IRS notifying the public that if you pay someone to do your taxes, they have to SIGN THE RETURN AS THE PAID PREPARER! Duh!

Laticiaw (talk|edits) said:

11 April 2007
Again, I don't think that it'll happen because I think that Block and JH and Liberty have too much say in DC...they don't want to discourage the extra help during tax season...

Okie1tax (talk|edits) said:

11 April 2007
According to HQ, Block is leading the fight to have any paid preparer licensed. Their classes are being redesigned to be the leading edge for those who want to get the license. As has been stated above, no license, or title actually shows you know the subject. I am an EA, but I was told, and believe from my personal experience, that if you study for the exam and do not study taxes, that it is easier to pass the exam. That hasn't stopped me from taking other courses, learning to research, and looking in places like here for help and information.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools