Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
- From: "Richard Macdonald" <ramcpaea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:09:27 GMT
"Paul A. Thomas" <paulthomascpapc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xrd1f.82$qe.74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <rarebit@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> 129. Does the tax law permit tax preparers to file so-called "tax
>> protest" returns at the direction of their clients?
>> The answer is yes. America is a great country.
Yes, it is something he can be disbarred from
practice for (he was) but not a jailable offense.
> Actually, Circular 230 prohibits that.
>
> REC-ATT, 31 CFR §10.34, Standards for advising with respect to tax return
> positions and for preparing or signing returns.--
> §10.34 Standards for advising with respect to tax return positions and for
> preparing or signing returns.--
>
> (a) Realistic possibility standard. A practitioner may not sign a tax
> return as a preparer if the practitioner determines that the tax return
> contains a position that does not have a realistic possibility of being
> sustained on its merits (the realistic possibility standard) unless the
> position is not frivolous and is adequately disclosed to the Internal
> Revenue Service. A practitioner may not advise a client to take a position
> on a tax return, or prepare the portion of a tax return on which a
> position is taken, unless--
>
> (1) The practitioner determines that the position satisfies the realistic
> possibility standard; or
>
> (2) The position is not frivolous and the practitioner advises the client
> of any opportunity to avoid the accuracy-related penalty in section 6662
> of the Internal Revenue Code by adequately disclosing the position and of
> the requirements for adequate disclosure.
>
> (b) Advising clients on potential penalties. A practitioner advising a
> client to take a position on a tax return, or preparing or signing a tax
> return as a preparer, must inform the client of the penalties reasonably
> likely to apply to the client with respect to the position advised,
> prepared, or reported. The practitioner also must inform the client of any
> opportunity to avoid any such penalty by disclosure, if relevant, and of
> the requirements for adequate disclosure. This paragraph (b) applies even
> if the practitioner is not subject to a penalty with respect to the
> position.
>
> (c) Relying on information furnished by clients. A practitioner advising a
> client to take a position on a tax return, or preparing or signing a tax
> return as a preparer, generally may rely in good faith without
> verification upon information furnished by the client. The practitioner
> may not, however, ignore the implications of information furnished to, or
> actually known by, the practitioner, and must make reasonable inquiries if
> the information as furnished appears to be incorrect, inconsistent with an
> important fact or another factual assumption, or incomplete.
>
> (d) Definitions. For purposes of this section--
>
> (1) Realistic possibility. A position is considered to have a realistic
> possibility of being sustained on its merits if a reasonable and well
> informed analysis of the law and the facts by a person knowledgeable in
> the tax law would lead such a person to conclude that the position has
> approximately a one in three, or greater, likelihood of being sustained on
> its merits. The authorities described in 26 CFR 1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii), or
> any successor provision, of the substantial understatement penalty
> regulations may be taken into account for purposes of this analysis. The
> possibility that a tax return will not be audited, that an issue will not
> be raised on audit, or that an issue will be settled may not be taken into
> account.
>
> (2) Frivolous. A position is frivolous if it is patently improper. [Reg.
> §10.34; Circular 230.]
>
> .01 Historical comment.--As last amended 7/25/2002.
.
- References:
- Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
- From: DaveJohnson
- Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
- From: Richard Macdonald
- Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
- From: Paul A. Thomas
- Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
- From: rarebit
- Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
- Prev by Date: Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
- Next by Date: Re: when 1040x should be filed?
- Previous by thread: Re: Do DIRECT TAXES still require APPORTIONMENT?
- Next by thread: Re: can anyone help Dale Eastman ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading