Practice & Procedures
A Review of the Revised Disciplinary Process Under Circular 230
1 “IRS Updates Tax Gap Estimates,” IRS press release, IR-2006-28 (2/14/06).
2 Treasury Circular 230, Regulations Governing the Practice of Attorneys, Certified Public Accountants, Enrolled Agents, Enrolled Actuaries, and Appraisers Before the Internal Revenue Service.
3 American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, P.L. 108-357, Section 822(a)(1)(A).
4 REG-122380-02 (2/8/06).
5 See Coder, “Back-to-Back Circular 230 Changes Reveal Winners, Losers,” 2007 TNT 187-1, Doc. 2007-21788(September 26, 2007); Simmens, DiIorio, and Hartford, “New Standards for Tax Return Preparer Penalties Are ‘More Likely Than Not’ Part of a Larger Trend,” 9 J. Tax Prac. and Proc. (October–November 2007): 39–40, 52; Lipton, “Preparer Penalties: The Service’s ‘Interim’ Response to the Section 6694 Amendments,” 108 J. Tax’n (February 2008): 79-94.
6 “IRS Issues Interim Relief on More-Likely-Than-Not Penalties,” AICPA Tax E-Alert (1/3/08).
7 REG-138637-07 (9/26/07).
8 Raby and Raby, “Taxpayer Advocates—A Threatened Species?” 117 Tax Notes 339 (October 22, 2007).
9 See OPR’s December 6, 2007, announcement of a settlement agreement. “IRS Announces Settlement of Spokane Bond Lawyers’ Alleged Practice Standards Violations,” IR-2007-197; Coder, “OPR Settlement Announcement Could Be First of Many,” 2007 TNT 236-4, Doc. 2007-26779 (December 7, 2007).
10 For a discussion of the standards, see Soled, “Third-Party Civil Tax Penalties and Professional Standards,” Wis. L. Rev. (2004): 1611.
11 In re Abrams, 521 F2d 1094 (3d Cir. 1975).
12 In re Landerman, 7 FSupp2d 1202 (CD Utah 1998).
13 Although loss of the privilege to practice before an administrative agency is not technically disbarment, Circular 230 uses the word “disbar” to refer to the loss of the privilege to practice before the IRS, and this article conforms to that usage.
14 Soled, “Third-Party Civil Tax Penalties and Professional Standards.”
15 Stamper, “‘Revisions to Nonshelter Circular 230 Amendments Coming Soon,’ IRS Official Says,” 2006 TNT 206-3, Doc. 2006-21785 (October 24, 2006).
16 Muller, “Determining the Disciplinary Sanction: What Factors the Office of Professional Responsibility Considers in Ethics Enforcement,” 8 J. Tax Prac. and Proc. (December 2006–January 2007): 15.
17 See the discussions in Muller, id., pp. 13–16, and Thorn, “A Rare Look Inside the IRS’s Office of Professional Responsibility,” 8 J.Tax Prac. and Proc. (April–May 2006): 27–32, 49–50, on referrals and the three types of OPR contact letters with practitioners.
18 For a discussion of federal tax crimes and tax practitioners, see Hibschweiler, “Tax Practice and the Federal Criminal Code,” 39 The Tax Adviser (April 2008): 216.
19 “ABA Members Comment on Guidance on Monetary Penalties Under Circular 230,” 2007 TNT 195-44, Doc. 2007-22537(October 9, 2007).
20 Pickering, 691 F2d 853 (8th Cir. 1982).
21 Id.
22 See Mazo, 591 F2d 1151 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 444 US 842 (1979); Monday, 421 F2d 1210, 1215 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 US 821 (1970); Teel, 529 F2d 903 (9th Cir. 1976).
23 Cogdell, BNA Tax Management U.S. Income Portfolios 620-1st: Practice Before the IRS; Attorney’s Fees in Tax Proceedings, Detailed Analysis 1:XI (2008).
24 The authors were unable to determine the length of time that the reprimand remained on a practitioner’s record.
25 Carson, 560 F2d 693 (5th Cir. 1977).
26 Carter v. Campbell, 264 F2d 930 (5th Cir. 1959).