Accounting & Auditing

By Sean J. Brennan, CPA | Brennan and Company CPA PC

The IRS’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has the exclusive authority to administer and govern professional disciplinary standards. OPR’s authority is detailed in regulations known as Circular 230 (found in Title 31 of the U.S. Code), and covers the disciplinary status of those who practice before the IRS. These individuals include CPAs, attorneys, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, enrolled retirement plan agents, appraisers, registered tax return preparers, among others serving in similar capacities.

Regarding its role pertaining to practitioner discipline, OPR recently confirmed that it has changed the Circular 230 practitioner violation investigation disclosure process.

Previous OPR investigation procedures did not provide an opportunity for a tax practitioner to learn what allegations were raised against him or her in what were classified “nonaction” investigations. A “nonaction” investigation is one where OPR has decided not to take disciplinary action against a practitioner.

A recent 2018 U.S. District Court case, Waterman v. The Internal Revenue Service, was cited in the Journal of Accountancy as highlighting the practitioner community’s problem with OPR procedures of preventing the disclosure of allegations leveled against a practitioner. Practitioners had never received an opportunity to formally respond to allegations in an investigation that ended with a “soft letter.” A soft letter is a letter stating that while an allegation had been made, no action would be taken. However, the allegation file could be maintained by OPR against the practitioner for upwards of 25 years.

Many practitioners believed that this policy was unfair and one-sided.  

Recognizing the inherent unfairness of such a policy, OPR finally has changed its policy. Now, OPR uses a two-letter (two-step) process. The first letter will disclose the issues that have been alleged and give the practitioner an opportunity to respond. The second letter will be the soft letter, should this be the appropriate action.

Hopefully this is not something you will ever need. If you do, you can find OPR’s contact information here. The IRS also has a detailed list of OPR-related issues and guidance.

Sean J. Brennan, CPA, is president of Brennan and Company CPA PC in Philadelphia, and is chair of the PICPA Federal Taxation Committee.

Ethics

By Sean J. Brennan, CPA | Brennan and Company CPA PC

The IRS’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has the exclusive authority to administer and govern professional disciplinary standards. OPR’s authority is detailed in regulations known as Circular 230 (found in Title 31 of the U.S. Code), and covers the disciplinary status of those who practice before the IRS. These individuals include CPAs, attorneys, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, enrolled retirement plan agents, appraisers, registered tax return preparers, among others serving in similar capacities.

Regarding its role pertaining to practitioner discipline, OPR recently confirmed that it has changed the Circular 230 practitioner violation investigation disclosure process.

Previous OPR investigation procedures did not provide an opportunity for a tax practitioner to learn what allegations were raised against him or her in what were classified “nonaction” investigations. A “nonaction” investigation is one where OPR has decided not to take disciplinary action against a practitioner.

A recent 2018 U.S. District Court case, Waterman v. The Internal Revenue Service, was cited in the Journal of Accountancy as highlighting the practitioner community’s problem with OPR procedures of preventing the disclosure of allegations leveled against a practitioner. Practitioners had never received an opportunity to formally respond to allegations in an investigation that ended with a “soft letter.” A soft letter is a letter stating that while an allegation had been made, no action would be taken. However, the allegation file could be maintained by OPR against the practitioner for upwards of 25 years.

Many practitioners believed that this policy was unfair and one-sided.  

Recognizing the inherent unfairness of such a policy, OPR finally has changed its policy. Now, OPR uses a two-letter (two-step) process. The first letter will disclose the issues that have been alleged and give the practitioner an opportunity to respond. The second letter will be the soft letter, should this be the appropriate action.

Hopefully this is not something you will ever need. If you do, you can find OPR’s contact information here. The IRS also has a detailed list of OPR-related issues and guidance.

Sean J. Brennan, CPA, is president of Brennan and Company CPA PC in Philadelphia, and is chair of the PICPA Federal Taxation Committee.

Leadership

By Sean J. Brennan, CPA | Brennan and Company CPA PC

The IRS’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has the exclusive authority to administer and govern professional disciplinary standards. OPR’s authority is detailed in regulations known as Circular 230 (found in Title 31 of the U.S. Code), and covers the disciplinary status of those who practice before the IRS. These individuals include CPAs, attorneys, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, enrolled retirement plan agents, appraisers, registered tax return preparers, among others serving in similar capacities.

Regarding its role pertaining to practitioner discipline, OPR recently confirmed that it has changed the Circular 230 practitioner violation investigation disclosure process.

Previous OPR investigation procedures did not provide an opportunity for a tax practitioner to learn what allegations were raised against him or her in what were classified “nonaction” investigations. A “nonaction” investigation is one where OPR has decided not to take disciplinary action against a practitioner.

A recent 2018 U.S. District Court case, Waterman v. The Internal Revenue Service, was cited in the Journal of Accountancy as highlighting the practitioner community’s problem with OPR procedures of preventing the disclosure of allegations leveled against a practitioner. Practitioners had never received an opportunity to formally respond to allegations in an investigation that ended with a “soft letter.” A soft letter is a letter stating that while an allegation had been made, no action would be taken. However, the allegation file could be maintained by OPR against the practitioner for upwards of 25 years.

Many practitioners believed that this policy was unfair and one-sided.  

Recognizing the inherent unfairness of such a policy, OPR finally has changed its policy. Now, OPR uses a two-letter (two-step) process. The first letter will disclose the issues that have been alleged and give the practitioner an opportunity to respond. The second letter will be the soft letter, should this be the appropriate action.

Hopefully this is not something you will ever need. If you do, you can find OPR’s contact information here. The IRS also has a detailed list of OPR-related issues and guidance.

Sean J. Brennan, CPA, is president of Brennan and Company CPA PC in Philadelphia, and is chair of the PICPA Federal Taxation Committee.

Practice Management

By Sean J. Brennan, CPA | Brennan and Company CPA PC

The IRS’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has the exclusive authority to administer and govern professional disciplinary standards. OPR’s authority is detailed in regulations known as Circular 230 (found in Title 31 of the U.S. Code), and covers the disciplinary status of those who practice before the IRS. These individuals include CPAs, attorneys, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, enrolled retirement plan agents, appraisers, registered tax return preparers, among others serving in similar capacities.

Regarding its role pertaining to practitioner discipline, OPR recently confirmed that it has changed the Circular 230 practitioner violation investigation disclosure process.

Previous OPR investigation procedures did not provide an opportunity for a tax practitioner to learn what allegations were raised against him or her in what were classified “nonaction” investigations. A “nonaction” investigation is one where OPR has decided not to take disciplinary action against a practitioner.

A recent 2018 U.S. District Court case, Waterman v. The Internal Revenue Service, was cited in the Journal of Accountancy as highlighting the practitioner community’s problem with OPR procedures of preventing the disclosure of allegations leveled against a practitioner. Practitioners had never received an opportunity to formally respond to allegations in an investigation that ended with a “soft letter.” A soft letter is a letter stating that while an allegation had been made, no action would be taken. However, the allegation file could be maintained by OPR against the practitioner for upwards of 25 years.

Many practitioners believed that this policy was unfair and one-sided.  

Recognizing the inherent unfairness of such a policy, OPR finally has changed its policy. Now, OPR uses a two-letter (two-step) process. The first letter will disclose the issues that have been alleged and give the practitioner an opportunity to respond. The second letter will be the soft letter, should this be the appropriate action.

Hopefully this is not something you will ever need. If you do, you can find OPR’s contact information here. The IRS also has a detailed list of OPR-related issues and guidance.

Sean J. Brennan, CPA, is president of Brennan and Company CPA PC in Philadelphia, and is chair of the PICPA Federal Taxation Committee.

Technology

By Sean J. Brennan, CPA | Brennan and Company CPA PC

The IRS’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has the exclusive authority to administer and govern professional disciplinary standards. OPR’s authority is detailed in regulations known as Circular 230 (found in Title 31 of the U.S. Code), and covers the disciplinary status of those who practice before the IRS. These individuals include CPAs, attorneys, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, enrolled retirement plan agents, appraisers, registered tax return preparers, among others serving in similar capacities.

Regarding its role pertaining to practitioner discipline, OPR recently confirmed that it has changed the Circular 230 practitioner violation investigation disclosure process.

Previous OPR investigation procedures did not provide an opportunity for a tax practitioner to learn what allegations were raised against him or her in what were classified “nonaction” investigations. A “nonaction” investigation is one where OPR has decided not to take disciplinary action against a practitioner.

A recent 2018 U.S. District Court case, Waterman v. The Internal Revenue Service, was cited in the Journal of Accountancy as highlighting the practitioner community’s problem with OPR procedures of preventing the disclosure of allegations leveled against a practitioner. Practitioners had never received an opportunity to formally respond to allegations in an investigation that ended with a “soft letter.” A soft letter is a letter stating that while an allegation had been made, no action would be taken. However, the allegation file could be maintained by OPR against the practitioner for upwards of 25 years.

Many practitioners believed that this policy was unfair and one-sided.  

Recognizing the inherent unfairness of such a policy, OPR finally has changed its policy. Now, OPR uses a two-letter (two-step) process. The first letter will disclose the issues that have been alleged and give the practitioner an opportunity to respond. The second letter will be the soft letter, should this be the appropriate action.

Hopefully this is not something you will ever need. If you do, you can find OPR’s contact information here. The IRS also has a detailed list of OPR-related issues and guidance.

Sean J. Brennan, CPA, is president of Brennan and Company CPA PC in Philadelphia, and is chair of the PICPA Federal Taxation Committee.

Tax

By Sean J. Brennan, CPA | Brennan and Company CPA PC

The IRS’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has the exclusive authority to administer and govern professional disciplinary standards. OPR’s authority is detailed in regulations known as Circular 230 (found in Title 31 of the U.S. Code), and covers the disciplinary status of those who practice before the IRS. These individuals include CPAs, attorneys, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, enrolled retirement plan agents, appraisers, registered tax return preparers, among others serving in similar capacities.

Regarding its role pertaining to practitioner discipline, OPR recently confirmed that it has changed the Circular 230 practitioner violation investigation disclosure process.

Previous OPR investigation procedures did not provide an opportunity for a tax practitioner to learn what allegations were raised against him or her in what were classified “nonaction” investigations. A “nonaction” investigation is one where OPR has decided not to take disciplinary action against a practitioner.

A recent 2018 U.S. District Court case, Waterman v. The Internal Revenue Service, was cited in the Journal of Accountancy as highlighting the practitioner community’s problem with OPR procedures of preventing the disclosure of allegations leveled against a practitioner. Practitioners had never received an opportunity to formally respond to allegations in an investigation that ended with a “soft letter.” A soft letter is a letter stating that while an allegation had been made, no action would be taken. However, the allegation file could be maintained by OPR against the practitioner for upwards of 25 years.

Many practitioners believed that this policy was unfair and one-sided.  

Recognizing the inherent unfairness of such a policy, OPR finally has changed its policy. Now, OPR uses a two-letter (two-step) process. The first letter will disclose the issues that have been alleged and give the practitioner an opportunity to respond. The second letter will be the soft letter, should this be the appropriate action.

Hopefully this is not something you will ever need. If you do, you can find OPR’s contact information here. The IRS also has a detailed list of OPR-related issues and guidance.

Sean J. Brennan, CPA, is president of Brennan and Company CPA PC in Philadelphia, and is chair of the PICPA Federal Taxation Committee.