Skip to Main Content

Rachel Partain to Speak on Circular 230

October 15, 2014
Program:Evolving Scope of Circular 230
Event Sponsor:American Bar Association, Tax Administrative Practice Committee Subcommittee on IRS Liaison Acitvities, Monthly Conference Call Meeting
Registration:Click Here To Register

Sustaining an APA challenge brought by a CPA, a U.S. district court in July found that the IRS lacked the authority to prohibit practitioners from entering into contingent fee arrangements for ordinary refund claims. Ridgely v. Lew, No. 1:12-cv-00565 (D.D.C. July 16, 2014).  The plaintiff asserted that the contingent fee restrictions in Section 10.27 of Circular 230 exceeded the IRS's authority to regulate tax practitioners. Relying primarily on Loving v. IRS, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which concluded that the IRS's authority under 31 U.S.C. § 330 to regulate "practice of representatives . . . before the Department of the Treasury" did not extend to the process of preparing a return to be filed, the court found that the process of preparing a refund claim to be submitted before any IRS controversy similarly did not encompass "practice" by a "representative."

Rachel Partain will discuss the implications of the Ridgely  opinion and two pending cases relating to the IRS's authority under Circular 230 , as well as recent guidance from the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility requiring a Form 2848, Power of Attorney, where a corporate employee will "advocate, negotiate, or dispute issues with the IRS" on the taxpayer's behalf. The Ridgely opinion, the complaints in two pending cases, and the OPR Notice can be accessed through the link below.

Related Practice Area(s)